Commons Sitting of 3 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  ZULULAND.
  MR. WEBB): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the following passage on page 11 of the Report on the Blue Book for Zululand, 1889: "number of prisoners committed to Etchowe Gaol 113, average daily number in gaol 43," how many cells in Etchowe Prison are exclusively reserved for prisoners, and what is the size of those cells?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth): The gaol at Etchowe comprises seven wards for the confinement of prisoners, the gross area of which is believed to be about 9,000 cubic feet.

  INDIAN STAMPS.
  MR. R. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any applications which, during the course of the past 18 months, have been forwarded to the Lords of the Treasury by Mr. J. S. Purcell, C.B., the Controller of Stamps, on the subject of the remuneration paid him for controlling the manufacture of Indian stamps and stamped papers, together with any Reports addressed to their Lordships by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue relative thereto, and any replies to the same which have been sent from the Treasury to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to Mr. Purcell; and whether a further appeal from Mr. Purcell, dated the 21st April last, has been received at the Treasury; and, if so, whether any reply has been made thereto?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): It would be very unusual to lay on the Table the correspondence which may have passed between different Departments of the Government. There are very strong

  657
  objection to such a course. The matter is now under consideration, and, of course, a reply will be made to the further appeal of Mr. Purcell.

  NATIVE INDIAN SIGNALLERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of his statement that the native Indian signallers have never been entitled to house allowance in lieu of accommodation in a telegraph building, he will make inquiries from India as to whether it is a fact that such allowance has been made to the signallers, both European and Indian, and for what period; and whether the Secretary of State will give instructions that where identical duties are performed by officers of the Department, and where no social or religious customs forbid occupancy of quarters in the telegraph building, equality of treatment shall be accorded European and Indian Officials alike?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has satisfied himself by reference to the best authority that no such allowance has ever been made and no further inquiry seems to be necessary. Equality of treatment has always been, and always will be, accorded to European and Indian officials alike.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Upon that statement I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with a list showing the cases in which there has been a difference.

  MORTALITY IN THE ASSAM TEA GARDENS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Doaraka Nath Ganguli, Assistant Secretary to the Indian Association at Calcutta, in reference to the excessive mortality on the tea plantations in Assam, wherein he states that the rate per million of deaths among Act labourers was in 1883, 61·5; 1884, 58·9; 1885, 51·5; 1886, 58·9; 1887, 57·2; 1888, 62·9.
  "The Report of the year 1888 is the latent one yet received, and it does not show (hat, so far as the percentage of death is concerned,
  658
  there hag been any progress except in the downward direction.
  "In 1888 there were two gardens, in one of which the rate of mortality was 30L6 and in the other 309·5";
  and whether he will call the attention of the Indian Government to this high rate of mortality, with a view to their seeing that the provisions of the Act for the protection of coolies is thoroughly enforced?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I also wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether of late years any tea gardens in Assam have been closed by Government, as respects indentured labourers, under the powers provided by the law when the mortality has been excessive; and if not, why, having regard to the very excessive mortality in some gardens, the law has not been enforced as it was in former years?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; the rates of mortality given in the question of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) are correct per thousand. The mortality in the tea gardens has been engaging the attention of the Secretary of State and the Government of India ceaselessly for years past, and, as I have on several occasions stated to the House, a special investigation is going on now. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), I have to say that no tea gardens have been closed since the year 1884, because, in the opinion of the Sanitary officers, the remedial measures which have been enforced were more efficacious than closure.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that either by law or regulation it has been the invariable practice to close these gardens when the mortality has exceeded 100 in the 1,000, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that in 1888 there were two cases in which the mortality was upwards of 300 per 1,000?
  SIR J. GORST: I believe it used to be the case to shut up the gardens when the mortality rose to a certain amount; but now, under new sanitary arrangements, instead of shutting them up, preventive sanitary measures are prescribed and enforced.

  MAMLATDAR WITNESSES AND THE CRAWFORD CASE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the protest of the civilians of the Bombay Presidency against the treatment of the Mamlatdar witnesses in the Crawford case, and especially to the strong language of Mr. Propert, a British official of 35 years' standing in India, wherein he condemns the breach of faith as fatal to the prestige of the British name; and whether the Government will give an opportunity for a full discussion of this question, so vitally connected with the reputation for good faith of the British Government in India?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; and the strong language used by Mr. Propert will be found in Parliamentary Paper No. 131 presented this Session. The Secretary of State has no objection to the fullest discussion of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in requiring the removal of officers who have been guilty of corruption from the position of Judges.

  THE INDIAN MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware of the grievances under which certain chiefs of Bundelkund, Central India, are suffering in connection with the construction of the Indian Midland Railway; whether the Secretary to the Government of India, Public Courts Department, in Order No. 272, R. C, dated 7th of April, 1886, referring to this railway, said—
  "The Government of India is willing to award compensation for such lands as were taken up from the several Durbars for a temporary purpose, and now occupied permanently;"
  whether on the 12th of April, 1886, instructions were issued by the Political Agent in Bundelkund to the States of Orchha, Dultia, Khaniadana, and Sampthau, to make over certain specified lands "for permanent occupation" by the Indian Midland Railway, on the express understanding that "fall compensation will be given to everyone by the aforesaid company"; whether, when the time came for the settlement of the respective claims, Mr. Henvey, the Agent
  660
  to the Governor General in Central India, declared that though the railway was for the time in the hands of a company, it should be considered a State Railway; whether Mr. Henvey's orders concluded in these words—
  "I am pleased to rule, without the least hesitation, that no claims from any of the chiefs for compensation of any kind should be admitted;"
  and whether he wilt call the attention of the Government of India to the engagements entered into in April 1886, with a view to the withdrawal of the order of Mr. Henvey, and to the payment of the compensation promised, a sum in all of more than five lakhs of rupees?
  SIR J. GORST: No representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the chiefs of Bundelkund of any grievances in connection with the construction of the Indian Midland Railway. If such representations were made, they would, of course, be carefully inquired into and considered. The words of the Government of India referred to in paragraph 2 of the question are incorrectly quoted. They should be—
  "The Government of India accept the principle of paying compensation for land which has up to dale been taken up temporarily under Class B."
  They did not refer to all land taken up; they had reference only to the State of Orchha.

  IRELAND—POLICE SHADOWING.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at Dungarvan, on Friday, 20th June, the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Waterford, engaged on business of a private character, were followed by a policeman a considerable distance out of the town; and whether he will give directions that shadowing of this character be discontinued?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the fact that the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Waterford were shadowed. They appear, however, to have been in the company of a man whose movements are watched by the police, as they have reason to believe that he is endeavouring to promote boycotting and intimidation.
  MR. COX: I bog to ask the Attorney I 'General for Ireland whether Thomas Fox is being systematically shadowed by the police in County Clare; and, if so, for what purpose?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the movements of the man mentioned are watched by the police in consequence of information in their possession.
  MR. COX: Is it not the fact that this man was arrested for firing at Mr. Blood; that when he was brought before the Magistrates he was discharged, and that it is only since his discharge that he has been systematically shadowed?
  *MR. MADDEN: My information does not enable me to say whether that is a fact or not.
  MR. FLYNN): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, at Youghal, County Cork, on Friday last, on a charge under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of "having obstructed Constable Quinn in the discharge of his duty"; whether he is aware that the Magistrates, Messrs. Hodder and Irwin, inflicted no punishment on the accused, and that the constable swore that the alleged act of obstruction was that the defendant "followed me about, and, in consequence I was unable to discharge my duty;" and, if, in view of the fact that the prisoner was handed over by Constable Quinn to another constable, and taken to Cork Goal for seven days, the Government will award some compensation to Mr. O'Brien for the imprisonment inflicted upon him without trial?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. The constable's evidence on oath was to the effect that O'Brien had followed him about, pointed him out, and called public attention to him, thereby preventing him from discharging the detective duty on which he was engaged. He was convicted on the charge, but the Magistrates, taking into account the fact that he had been in custody from the 16th to the 20th of June, ordered that he should be further detained in custody only until the rising of the Court.
  MR. DILLON): Are we now informed that it is not permissible for a man who is being shadowed to shadow his own shadow?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have stated the facts of the case. The constable was on detective duty and was followed about, pointed out to the public, and prevented from discharging his duty.
  MR. DILLON: Does the Attorney General for a moment mean to assert that it is a crime to point out a detective?
  *MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; that is not a en me; but following a plain clothes officer about while he is engaged in detective duty, and pointing that officer out as being engaged in such duty, may, in my opinion, amount to an obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman lay down that it is a crime to point out a policeman in plain clothes? How is it to be known that a man is a policeman if he is not in uniform?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have already said that it is not a crime to point out a policeman dressed in plain clothes; but it is an interference with him in the discharge of his duty to follow him about and point him out to the public.
  MR. DILLON: Is the pointing out of a policeman in plain clothes and the following him about sufficient to justify a man being arrested, carried off to gaol, and kept there for several days?
  *MR. MADDEN: I certainly do mean to assert and to lay down that obstruction of a policeman in the discharge of his duty may be of a character to constitute an offence.
  MR. W. REDMOND): May I ask the Home Secretary whether I should be guilty of a crime if I were to go out into Parliament Street and point out and follow one of his plain clothes policemen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The hon. Member has asked me a highly hypothetical question, which it is impossible to answer.
  MR. FLYNN: Under what provision of the law was this man arrested by a second constable and bail refused?
  *MR. MADDEN: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper, and I must ask for notice.
  MR. WADDT: Is it not the fact that the man who was arrested was himself being followed by the detective whom he pointed out?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have given the House all the information in my possession.

  IRISH LETTERS.
  MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there is a printed notice in the Post Office at Harrogate that letters from "London and all parts (except Ireland)" are delivered on Sundays; whether this rule applies to many other places in England; why should such an exception be made; and why is the promised arrangements for Sunday delivery of Irish letters at Newcastle and Staffordshire not being carried out?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that there are no trains by which letters despatched from Ireland on Saturday night can reach Harrogate in time for delivery on Sunday morning. There are other trains in the North of England to which the same remarks apply. As regards Newcastle, Staffordshire, arrangements were made in March last for securing the arrival of Irish letters by first post in the morning, and it was believed at the time that these arrangements would be in force every day, but it proved impracticable to give effect to them on Sunday and Monday mornings. I regret that there are at present no means of, providing for a Sunday delivery of Irish letters at Newcastle, Staffordshire.

  OUTRAGES IN CLARE.
  MR. COX): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many agrarian outrages were committed in County Clare since 1st July last year; the number of cases of firing at the person or into houses; how many of these had police protection; the number of persons made amenable; and the extra Police Force stationed in the county, and their cost?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that the number of agrarian outrages committed in the County Clare since July 1st, 1889, is 61,
  664
  of which six were cases of firing at the person and 21 firing into dwellings. In none of these 27 cases had there been police protection, and no person have, so far, been made amenable in regard to to them. According to the last completed accounts, which are for the year to March 31st last, the extra force in this county numbered 168 men, and the-charge against the county in respect to them was £5,603.

  LICENCE TO CARRY ARMS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if Mr. John Cusack, of Island Avanna, Clare Abbey, County Clare, has had his licence to carry arms-revoked by order of the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, what reason has been assigned for this proceeding?
  *MR. MADDEN: It is the case that the man mentioned has had his arms licence revoked. It would be inexpedient in the public interest to state the grounds upon which the Lord Lieutenant acted.

  LAND COMMISSION—MULLINGAR.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware-that, on last Thursday, the 26th of June, in the salerooms of P. M'Cormick, auctioneer, of Mullingar, a number of farms, consisting of parts of the lands of Cloncullion, Rahinashiane, Spittaltown and Killevally, situate in the barony of Moycashel, and County Westmeath, held in fee, containing 334 acres? rood and 37 perches, statute measure, or thereabouts, were put up for sale by instructions of the Irish Land Commission; that there was no bidding for the farms; whether by conveyance dated the 17th day of July, 1886, the above lands were conveyed in fee simple, in consideration of £3,840, £2,800 of which was advanced by the Irish Land Commission, and by said deed the said lands were conveyed to the said Irish Land Commission, subject to redemption, and a covenant was entered into to pay the Commission an annuity of £112 for 49 years, from the 1st day of November, 1886, payable half-yearly on every 1st day of May and every 1st day of November; what inquiry did the Land Commission make as-to the value of those farms before they advanced such a large sum; and whether

  665
  they have any expectation of realising any part of the sum so advanced?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that the holding referred to was sold in July, 1886, for £3,840, of which the purchaser paid in cash £1,040, and the Commission advanced £2,800. The holding was advertised for sale to realise one year's annuity, £112 due to the Commission, but the sale was not proceeded with, as the Commissioners ascertained that the purchaser had been recently adjudicated a bankrupt, and the assignee was taking the necessary steps to pay out of the assets the arrears of annuity due, and to realise for the benefit of the creditors the bankrupt's interest in the holding. Before making the advance in 1886, the Commissioners caused the holding to be inspected, and they have no doubt whatever as to the sufficiency of their security.
  MR. TUITE): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last sitting of the Irish Land Sub-Commission in Mullingar the Commissioners announced that the next sitting of the Court would be held on the 24th June, and that in consequence of that statement a large number of tenants came to the town on that day under the impression that their cases would be heard, but were obliged to return as the Commissioners did not attend; and whether he will take steps to prevent the tenants in future being put to such unnecessary loss and inconvenience, and that proper notice shall be given by the Commissioners when they decide on postponing the sitting of the Court?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that there must have been some misapprehension on the part of the tenants referred to, as no fixtures had been made for the 24th June.

  CHARGE AGAINST A POSTMASTER.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has made inquiry respecting John Cowhey, sub-postmaster at Bruree, and ascertained that this man has been convicted twice of drunkenness and once of serious assault, and was also dismissed from the employment of the Prudential Assurance Company for irregularity in his accounts; and if John Cowhey will
  666
  still be retained in charge of the Post and Money Order Office at Bruree?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have now made inquiry into the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I find that the convictions alluded to took place some 12 years ago, and, although I was not aware of them when making the appointment, they had been brought to my knowledge before I answered the hon. Member's question on the 5th June. With regard to the alleged dismissal from the employment of the Prudential Assurance Company, I find that there are conflicting statements as to the exact cause which led Mr. Cowhey to relinquish the agency in 1878, and nothing definite can now be ascertained respecting an event which happened so long ago. Since Mr. Cowhey became sub-postmaster the duties of the office have been performed entirely to the satisfaction of the Department, and I should not, therefore, be warranted in depriving him of the appointment which I conferred upon him in December last.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: These convictions occurred in 1885, and not 12 years ago; and if the right hon. Gentleman will put himself in communication with the Secretary of the Assurance Company he will find that Cowhey did not resign, but was dismissed. I wish to know whether a man whose character is so notorious is to be retained in the Public Service?
  *MR. RAIKES: The statement made by the hon. Member is not contained in the information furnished to me.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of the convictions at the Magistrates' Court.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether complaints have reached him that officers of the Inland Revenue Department are often, on slight complaints, removed at their own expense to distant parts of the United Kingdom; whether quite recently, an officer was censured and ordered to be removed from Dublin to Aberdeen, although he denied the truth of the complaint upon which the order of removal was made, and demanded an investigation, stating that he could produce several witnesses on oath to prove his innocence; whether, notwithstanding all this, the Commissioners of Inland

  667
  Revenue refused any inquiry, and, as a consequence, he has to remove his family at very great expense from Dublin to Aberdeen; and whether, on inquiry, he will interfere to prevent similar cases, which are at present the cause of much discontent in the Inland Revenue Department?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not true that Inland Revenue officers are often removed on slight complaints to distant parts of the United Kingdom; but such a measure has to be taken from time to time in the interests of discipline where serious misconduct has occurred, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Board in this matter. In the case to which the hon. Member refers previous complaints had been made of the officer's conduct, and he had an opportunity of producing witnesses when the charge was made.

  TITHES IN IRELAND.
  MR. JASPER MORE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with respect to the I & 2 Vict., c. 109, intituled "An Act to abolish to Compositions for Tithes in Ireland and to substitute Rent-Charge in lieu thereof," whether the 32nd section, which makes tithe rent-charge variable every seven years when the average price of corn for the seven years preceding the application, as advertised in the Dublin Gazette, varied by 1·10th from the original standard, is still operative in the case of lay tithes; and whether applications to vary the amount of lay tithes at the end of the septennial period, in accordance with the fall in the price of corn aforesaid, have been made this year in Ireland and have been allowed?
  *MR. MADDEN: The section referred to is still in force, and the tithe rent-charge is still liable to revision. I am informed that several applications to vary the amount of lay tithes have been made under the section.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: Is it true that no remission has been made this year to the tithe-payers on account of agricultural depression?
  *MR. MADDEN: The question on the Paper relates to lay tithes. The Ecclesiastical tithes are vested in the Land Commissioners, and no periodical revision is possible.

  THE TIPPERARY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. DILLON): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will consent to the issue of a Return showing the attendance of Local Magistrates at weekly Petty Sessions in Tipperary from June 1888 to June 1890, and the attendance of Stipendiary Magistrates during same period?
  *MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until I can obtain the information.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
  MR. SEXTON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, having regard to the evidence of Irish opinion afforded by the introduction of the Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) Bill now before the House, and the proceedings upon that measure, will appropriate the unallotted balance of Ireland's share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties, in aid of the provision of dwellings for Irish agricultural labourers, upon the principles indicated in the Bill?
  MR. W. MACDONALD (Queen's Co., Ossory): In view of the admission of the Chief Secretary, that the national school teachers of Ireland are insufficiently remunerated, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of devoting a considerable portion of the money to bettering their condition?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will not be surprised to bear me repeat the answer already given in this House. The Government are giving full consideration to the various suggestions made in different parts of the House, and will state their views to the House as soon as they have arrived at a conclusion.
  MR. SEXTON: How soon?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH:.I must ask for a little time.
  MR. SEXTON: What notice will the right hon. Gentleman give? The Bill, I see, is down on to-day's Paper. It is desirable that notice should be given in order that Members may put down Amendments.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Every notice will be given.

  ADMIRALTY-COMPOSITIONS FOR SHIPS' BOTTOMS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE): I beg to defer until Tuesday the question in my name, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who is the officer responsible for the selection of the compositions that are ordered from time to time to be used on the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships; is this officer an expert, and what previous technical experience and education has ho had to qualify him for this important duty; and by whom was he appointed, for how long, and has the appointment been sanctioned by the Treasury?

  THE POLICE IN MONK BRETTON.
  EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie has received complaints from certain inhabitants in Monk Bretton, Barnsley, against the police in that district; whether he is aware that, since the complaints were made, one constable has been removed from the district; whether ho is aware that it is alleged that perjury was committed by the police, and that innocent persons have in several cases been fined; whether he is aware that application has been made to the Standing Joint Committee at Wakefield, who have replied that they are not a Court of Appeal, and have no power to review the decision of the Justices in the above-referred to cases; and whether he will take some steps in justice to those who were, it is stated, unjustly fined, as well as in justice to the accused police, to institute an inquiry into the whole matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have received such a complaint. I am informed by the Chief Constable that a constable has been lately removed from the district for the benefit of the Service, and not in consequence of any complaints or of impropriety on his part. General allegations have been made to me of perjury on the part of the police, but no particular case, in which justice is alleged to have miscarried, has been brought to my notice. I am informed by the Standing Joint Committee that a statement to the same effect has been
  670
  laid before them, but, with one or two exceptions, the cases referred to had been tried before Justices, and the Committee could not re·try them. In many of the cases, moreover, I am informed that the prisoners summoned had pleaded guilty. The Chief Constable has, on two occasions, personally investigated, on the spot, these complaints, and the complainants have expressed themselves to him as being perfectly satisfied. Under these circumstances, I see no ground for interference on my part, but I am prepared to make careful inquiry into any particular case of alleged injustice if I am duly furnished with dates and particulars.

  THE GRIEVANCES OF THE TELEGRAPHISTS.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when he will be able to state to the House the result of the Departmental Committee inquiry into the telegraphists grievances; whether a statement will be made before the Post Office Estimates are taken in Supply; and, whether, if any beneficial changes are adopted in the matter of overtime, increased holidays, sick pay, &c, they will date from the 1st April, in accordance with the precedent of Mr. Fawcett's Sehcme of 1881?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the noble Lord, I have to inform the House that I have carefully examined the Report of the Committee referred to, and have formed my conclusions thereon. I forwarded a copy of the Report to the Lords of the Treasury a few days ago. I shall be in a position to make a statement relating to this matter as soon as the Government has arrived at its decision, and I hope before the Post Office Estimates are taken in Supply. I fear that it will not be practicable to adopt the suggestion conveyed in the last part of the noble Lord's question.
  EARL COMPTON: Is the right W Gentleman aware that there is some danger of the question of overtime being raised by the telegraphists in a very inconvenient manner about the 12th of this month?
  *MR. RAIKES: Some rumours have reached me of a probable course of conduct on the part of some of the telegraphists employed in the Central Office, which

  671
  conduct, I am sure, the noble Lord would be the first to condemn. Her Majesty's Government must be guided not so much by the attitude of the telegraphists, as by what we consider to be the real exigencies of the case.
  EARL COMPTON: I asked whether, in consequence of there being great disaffection on the subject of overtime, it would not be possible to state before the 12th of July what course the Government intend to take in regard to this question?
  *MR. RAIKES: I should be extremely glad if I am in a position to make a statement on all the subjects before the 12th of July.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS AT RYDE.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Customs Officers at Ryde have any right to detain the luggage (handbags) of professional and other gentlemen landing from yachts which have had no communication with a Foreign shore; whether, in case of their having such power, he will take care that in future an examining officer shall be available at Ryde, thus rendering such detention unnecessary; and what compensation lie is prepared to grant to such gentlemen for the trouble and serious inconvenience caused by their having to leave their bags open, when obliged by important business to proceed on their journey, although they offered to have them searched on the spot?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that there is no fixed Customs establishment at Ryde, and that when baggage or other goods are landed there an officer is sent by the collector at Cowes specially to make the necessary examination. I am informed that in the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend information as to the landing of the baggage was received at 9.40 a.m., and the baggage was delivered at 10.30. I am sorry if there has been any inconvenience, but the Customs business at Ryde is not sufficient to justify a fixed establishment, and Ryde is, in fact, not a place approved for the landing and examination of goods or baggage. I have drawn the attention of the Customs Department to the facts of the case.

  LIQUIDS BY SAMPLE POST.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the case that the United Kingdom is the only country in the Postal Union in which liquids are not permitted to be sent in glass bottles by sample post; whether the object of the regulation is to secure the safety of the contents of the mail bags; and whether that safety would be secured by forbidding liquids to be sent by sample post unless the bottles are enclosed in cases sanctioned by the Post Office?
  *MR. RAIKES: It is not the case that the United Kingdom is the only country in the Postal Union in which liquids are not permitted to be sent in glass bottles by sample post. The object of the regulation is, as my hon. Friend supposes, to secure the safety of the contents of the mail bags. That safety cannot be secured in the way suggested, because it is not possible to make up bottles of liquid in such a manner as to meet the two opposing essentials of absolute safety and perfect facility of examination. I think I had the pleasure of explaining this matter to my hon. Friend very fully by letter on the 13th of May.

  CRIME IN WHITECHAPEL.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Report or complaint has been received at the Home Office or by the Police Authorities respecting an area in Whitechapel intersected by Flower and Dean Street; whether the police have reported as to the existence of crime and vice in that locality; and if he will allow that Report to be made public; and whether any effort has been made by the owner or by the police to remedy the evils complained of?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; in December last the vicar of St. Jude's brought under my notice the evil state of the district referred to. The Commissioner of Police, whom I consulted on the subject, reported in substance that vice of the lowest type finds a refuge in parts of Whitechapel. The police do all in their power to keep violence and vice within bounds, but their duties are confined to the streets; in fact, extra constables are continuously on duty

  673
  there on special beats. It is only by bringing influence to bear on the landlords that a better class of dwellings can be provided, and so, gradually, a better class of tenants secured. I regret to say that I am informed by the Commissioner that no substantial efforts have been made by the owners of the property in this neighbourhood to effect improvements, the neighbourhood being in much the same condition as it has been for some years. The lease of some of the property is running out, and it is to be hoped that at the expiration changes will be effected and improvements made.

  STAMP DUTY ON BONDS.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount received during the year ending 31st December, 1889, on account of the 1s. per cent, stamps on bonds and shares to bearer?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The amount received during the year ending 31st December, 1889, was nearly £98,000.

  TURKISH STOCKS.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that several Turkish Stocks are being converted or paid off, he will take similar measures with regard to the Turkish Four per Cent. Guaranteed Stock and Drawn Bonds, on which an excessive interest continues to be paid by this country jointly with Prance?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, of course, stands on a footing wholly different to that on which other Turkish Stocks stand, and so is in no way connected with any conversion which may be in contemplation for them. But, as has been previously stated to the House, Her Majesty's Government would gladly avail themselves of any suitable opportunity which may occur of placing the Guaranteed Stock on an improved basis, and though such an opportunity has not yet occurred, the question is one which is present to the minds of Her Majesty's Government with a view of coming to some arrangement with the French and Turkish Governments, which are both concerned in the matter.
  *MR. MONTAGU: Is it not possible to pay off these Bonds upon which this high
  674
  rate of interest is being paid and hold them over in some Government Department pending a future settlement with France?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think that such a course would be scarcely possible, but it may be possible to come to some arrangement about them.

  FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
  ADMIRAL MAYNR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as intimated by Lord Elphinstone, on Friday last, that £2,000 was all the Treasury intended to give Admiral Colomb for inventions which, on the high authority of Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornby, have enabled the British Navy to navigate in safety for the last 20 years; and, if so, whether he will grant a Return showing the sums granted to other inventors on account of real or supposed benefit to the Navy and Army respectively from their inventions during that period?
  MR GOSCHEN: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to postpone the question until to-morrow. I have not yet had an opportunity of obtaining the information that would enable me to answer it.

  TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
  MR. CHILDERS): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the recent announcement, whether he is now able to state the grounds on which the Government have decided not to avail themselves of their right to give notice before the end of the present month to purchase the undertakings of the Telephone Companies?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I submit to my right hon. Friend that it would be better to state the full grounds upon which this important decision had been arrived at when the matter could be treated as one of argument rather than one to be answered across the Table of the House. The reasons for the decision are numerous, and I think they will commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be a large undertaking to buy up and conduct the whole of the telephone establishments in the United Kingdom, and the Government

  675
  do not see their way to multiply these undertakings, which must be conducted at very considerable cost. We hold strong views on the subject, and I repeat that it would be better to treat it as one of argument than one of question and answer.
  *MR. CHILDERS: I am inclined to agree to some extent with my right hon. Friend. May I ask him whether he will have any objection to lay Papers on the Table of the House, as we are absolutely without information on the subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will consider the point, which is one of great interest, I know.

  THE MURTHLY ESTATE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the evidence recently given in the Court of Session in the case of "Kennedy v. Stewart" as to the part played by Mr. Duncan, Chief Clerk in the Crown Office, from which it appears that Mr. Duncan absented himself from his duties and went to Murthly for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of that estate; and, if so, whether the Crown Agent, as head of the office, was informed of the reason of his absence and sanctioned it; whether he has observed that it was proved that, with a view to misleading the intending vendor, Mr. Duncan allowed it to be falsely stated, without contradiction, that neither the Crown Agent or the firm of solicitors of which he is a member had anything to do with the intended purchase; that Mr. Duncan, in order further to mislead the intending vendor, allowed, without contradiction, a false address to be ascribed to himself; and that the Jury in the case unanimously decided that the misrepresentations to which Mr. Duncan was a party formed sufficient ground for quashing the sale of the Murthly estate; whether the Crown Office was used for the transaction of any business relating to the purchase of the Murthly estate; and whether Government has taken, or purpose taking, any steps in connection with Mr. Duncan's conduct as disclosed at the trial?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): My attention has been called to the evidence given in the Court of Session in the case referred
  676
  to, for I was one of the counsel engaged in it. In reply to the first part of the question, I have to say that Mr. Duncan obtained leave of absence on the day mentioned. My answer to all the rest of the question is in the negative. The Jury gave a verdict on issues which expressly ascribed the misrepresentations to a third party, and Mr. Duncan was cognisant of none of those misrepresentations until after they are alleged to have been made. It is only fair to Mr. Duncan to add that I share the strong opinion which all my predecessors have held of his high character and long and valuable public service.

  ADULTERATED BUTTER.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Customs and Inland Revenue Officers have not in any single instance put into operation the duties imposed on them by Section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887, which empowered them to take steps to detect the importation of adulterated butter at British ports; and why this duty should be cast on private individuals?
  MR. JACKSON: As regards the officers of Customs, I have stated, in answer to previous questions, the grounds on which their action is based. With respect to the remainder of the question, I may point out that powers are given by Section 7 of the Margarine Act of 1887 to any Medical Officer of Health, Inspector of Nuisances, or police constable to take samples as well as to officers of the Inland Revenue. The Act, therefore, apparently contemplates action by Local Authorities, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are quite ready to give to such authorities any aid that they can afford.

  PLATE DUTY.
  MR. HAYDEN): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has hitherto been the practice, when the primary duty on the importation or manufacture of an article has been repealed, to discontinue also the Licence Duty charged for dealing in such article; and whether, the Duty on gold or silver plate having been repealed by an Act of this Session, the duty for dealing in these articles will be still continued?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; it has not always been the practice to discontinue the Licence Duty for dealing in an article simultaneously with the repeal of the primary duty, and there are cases in which the Licence Duty still exists, though the primary duty has ceased. I may remind the hon. Member that the licences for dealing in plate have passed to the County Councils, and that their repeal is a question which affects local finance.

  THE NEW CODE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will re-consider the possibility of devising means to encourage collegiate training for teachers without permanently maintaining throughout an experienced teacher's life the distinction laid down in Article 73 of the New Code; whether he will substitute the terms "collegiate," and "non-collegiate," for "trained," and "untrained," where the purpose is to distinguish teachers with the double training of pupil-teachership and college from those who have only the training of pupil teachers; and whether, in Article 61, he will omit the words "will not be permitted to superintend pupil teachers," and substitute "will not be recognised as certificated," thus offering an incentive to secure the advantages of a training college?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the distinction laid down in Article 73 will be permanently maintained throughout an experienced teacher's life, as it ceases to apply to any teacher who obtains charge of a school. I have already intimated my intention to substitute other words for the terms "trained" and "untrained;" but an alteration of Article 61 in the way suggested would not, in my opinion, offer the desired incentive, and lies altogether outside the scope and object of the Article in question.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. SCHWANN): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to further information about Armenia in the Daily News
  678
  of 1st July, namely, that Hussein Bey, of Hosh, in the neighbourhood of Kharpout, who is said to have slaughtered 15 Armenians during his career, has been released from Erzeroum Gaol and appointed to a high public office in Kharpout, and that the Armenian inhabitants are panic-striken in consequence; whether there are still political prisoners from Armenia in the gaols of Erzeroum and Erzingan, who have been lying for two years and a half in gaol without trial; and whether he will inquire into these allegations, and, if he finds them correct, take means to remedy the evils? I wish further to ask whether it is true, as stated in a daily paper, that Russian troops are moving towards the Armenian frontier to compel payment of the indemnity, and to protect the Armenians from further outrage on the part of the Khurds?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): No information in corroboration of these statements has been received by Her Majesty's Government; but the attention of Her Majesty's Consular Representatives on the spot will be called to them.
  MR. BRYCE): What is the date of the last Report from Constantinople or Erzeroum? The statements referred to in the question appeared some time ago.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The question put to me referred to a telegram in the Daily News of the 1st of July, and it is obvious that no Despatches could possibly have reached this country from Erzeroum at the present date. It is no part of the duty of our Representatives to give currency to every rumour that may reach them until it is confirmed.

  "MITCHELL V. BEGINA."
  MR. CUNLNGHAME GRAHAM): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received any application from the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" for aid to pay the taxed costs of an action for false imprisonment he was virtually compelled to bring against the Sheriff (or Bailiff) of the Salford Court, Manchester, in consequence of not having received money due from the War Office; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AVAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Yes, Sir; such an application has been received. I am unable to say what steps will be taken in the matter.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps, if any, will be taken against Messrs. Hare and Co., the agents to the Treasury, as regards the difference between the original and taxed bill of costs in "Mitchell v. Regina," and whether such difference will have to be borne by the taxpayers; and have Messrs. Hare and Co been called upon for an explanation of the excessive charges in question?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. No steps will be taken against Messrs. Hare, as they have not made any excessive charges. The difference between the amount of the Bill, as delivered and as taxed, arose almost entirely in consequence of a decision of the Master upon a new point. I myself directed, solely out of consideration for Colonel Mitchell, that no further steps should be taken to question the decision in this case.

  STREET PROCESSIONS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BBNTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a paragraph in the Times newspaper of Tuesday to the effect that certain persons, styling themselves "the Open Air Meeting Committee," intend to march in procession from Clerkenwell Green to Hyde Park on Saturday next; and whether he will take steps to prevent proceedings and obstructions in the public thoroughfares, which are contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the Metropolis, and which materially interfere with their ordinary occupations and business?
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal): Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of the "Queen against Booth and others," in which Lord Coleridge laid down that processions in Whitechurch, although creating a temporary incon-
  680
  venience, were not unlawful, and did not I constitute an indictable offence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not yet had the advantage of perusing the Lord Chief Justice's judgment. In regard to the question on the Paper, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no knowledge of any such procession beyond what is stated in the paper referred to. As usual on such occasions, steps will be taken by him to prevent, as far as possible, obstruction in the streets, and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the Metropolis.
  MR. DILLON: On a point of order, Sir, I would direct your attention to the form of the question. In the latter part of it it states that certain proceedings are "contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the Metropolis." I wish to ask you whether that statement, being one of a highly debatable character, ought to appear on the Paper, especially in view of the severity with which Irish questions are edited?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Any allegation of a fact which is disputed ought not to appear in a question. This, however, is rather an expression of opinion than a statement of fact; but I think it we aid have been better if it had not been put in.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask you, Sir, whether expressions of opinion, as well as matters of argument, are not equally prohibited by the Standing Orders?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is contrary to the rule to ask a Minister what his opinions are on a given point. Expressions of opinion and allegations of fact that are disputed had better be avoided.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I understand you to say, Sir, that this question is objectionable, and, as two or three similar questions have been put, I would ask whether you will direct that such questions are to be ruled out of order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes; I can always direct a question to be ruled out of order if I think it to be so.
  *MR. CREMER: I would ask, Sir, by whose authority the question appears in its present form, because repeatedly it has happened that questions handed in at the Table are edited and expressions of opinion struck out, when the question is

  681
  put by any Member on this side of the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. This question was not altered; it was an omission that it was not noticed. I think it ought to have been altered, but in the multiplicity of questions it escaped notice.

  DAMARALAND.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any communications from the Government of the Cape, through the Agent General or otherwise, in reference to the confirmation of, or the continuance of, German influence over the immense territories of Damaraland and Namaqualand lying adjacent to British territory in South Africa, and, if so, whether he will state to the House the purport of such communications; and whether it is true that Kamaherero, the King of the Damaras, is desirious of coming under British protection?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Some confidential communications have passed with the Cape Ministers on this subject, but it would not be desirable to state the effect of them as negotiations are going on. Kamaherero has, in past years, expressed a desire to come under British protection, but the answer has always been that as Damaraland has been recognised as under German jurisdiction his wish cannot be met.

  TABLE BAY FORTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to complaints in the Cape Parliament that the Imperial Government had not carried out their part of the contract in regard to the armament of Table Bay Ports, whereas the Cape Government had fulfilled their part of the agreement in the construction of earthworks, and otherwise; what is the cause of the delay; and whether the guns and equipment are being manufactured at Woolwich, or by private firms?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Out of 40 guns for these forts, 31 have been issued, and of the remainder, all that are prac-
  682
  tically important should be issued by September, and the whole by the end of the year. The guns themselves are almost all ready, but delay has arisen with regard to the carriages. Some are manufactured by private firms and some at Woolwich.

  BERMUDA.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would state what was the aggregate number of members of the seven Committees, which, without a common link between them, have, at different times, advised the Secretary of State with regard to the defences of Bermuda, referred to in paragraph 65, page 22, Report of the Royal Commission on the Naval and Military Departments; and what was the aggregate number of naval, military, and civilian members respectively who served on these Committees?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Twenty-seven Military, 5 Naval Officers, and 14 civilians, at one time or another, have been consulted as to some part of this question. The case referred to could not occur under the organisation now in force.

  ORKNEY POLICE.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the management and maintenance of the police in Orkney is vested in the Standing Joint Committee, although the county is exempted from the Police Act of 1857; and, if not, who is responsible for the control and maintenance of the police?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: By Section 76 of the Police Act of 1857, that Statute does not extend to Orkney and Shetland, unless Her Majesty in Council shall so direct. Those counties remain outside the Act of 1857, and the relative Police Clauses of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, an existing police force in Orkney being managed under an arrangement between the county and the burgh of Kirkwall entered into in 1858. I may point out, however, that it is in the power of the County Council to apply to Her Majesty in Council under the 76th section of the Act of 1857 for a direction that that Act shall extend to the County of Orkney.

  THE POLICE AND THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries about the alleged tearing up of a Petition from the police constables at Hunter Street Station, by Sub-Divisional Inspector Wakeford; and if the police are denied the right of petition?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I have made inquiry into this matter, and am informed by the Commissioner that no Petition was torn up by Inspector Wakeford. Two report forms, to which it is believed no signatures were attached, were accidently torn by the act of a police constable. The police are not denied the right of petition. Permission has been given to obtain the signatures of the men at the Hunter Street and other stations to such Petitions as they think fit to adopt.

  THE MILITIA.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, by paragraph 359 of the Militia Regulations, Militia officers are specifically debarred from attending the classes formed at the School of Military Engineering, which officers of the regular Infantry are expected to attend; and whether, having regard to the important duties now assigned to the Militia under the mobilisation scheme, he will allow at least one officer in every Militia battalion to attend such classes, in order that in every battalion there may be an officer competent to superintend simple field engineering works. I have further to ask whether it is the intention to carry out the recommendation of the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia (Summary, p. xxxii.) that officers who, with the approval of their Commanding Officer and the Colonel of the district, attend garrison classes and obtain certificates, shall receive pay and allowances; also whether it is the fact that, as Colonel Grove states in his evidence before the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia (Question 212), the duties for which the Militia would be told off on mobilisation would be, broadly speaking, three,
  684
  namely, first, to re-inforce the garrisons of all our home fortresses and ports; secondly, to re-place the Line Battalions that would be withdrawn from Ireland; and thirdly, to form the greater portion of the Third Army Corps, the organisation of which is now very nearly complete as regards the troops that are to compose it; if so, what, if any, opportunities are now afforded to Militia officers to learn the tactical part of the duties they would thus be called on to perform under this scheme of mobilisation for home defence?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The staff of officers employed in the instruction of Army officers in garrison classes would not at present suffice if Militia officers were added to the class. Officers of engineer Militia are received at the School of Military Engineering. There is no room in the school for officers of infantry Militia. The duties of the Militia, in case of mobilisation, would be, broadly, as stated by Colonel Grove in his evidence before the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia. Militia officers are given every opportunity of presenting themselves at the periodical examinations in tactics. The officers of artillery Militia are virtually practised in tactics, as they are taught to work the heavy guns in the positions which in war they would have to defend.

  ANTI-SLAVERY CONFERENCE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether the Representatives of the British Government have agreed to make the Anti-Slavery Conference an occasion for imposing heavy duties on merchandise in the free trade area of Africa, and a light or almost nominal duty on spirits: and whether Parliament will be consulted before advantage is taken of a Conference on another subject to put an end to free trade in ordinary merchandise while spirits are admitted on very easy terms?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have agreed to Import Duties being levied purely for the discharge of the expenditure imposed by the General Act for the Prevention of the Slave Trade. The conditions of the

  685
  tariff are to be fixed by a negotiation, to be opened immediately after the signature of the General Act.

  VENEZUELA.
  MR. CREMEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Venezuelan Government have offered to refer the dispute between them arid Great Britain to arbitration; whether Her Majesty's Government have accepted the offer; and, if the offer has been declined, will ho state the reason why?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have made proposals to the Government of Venezuela for the settlement of the question, and have now received from that Government a counter proposal which is under consideration.

  THE BRISTOL PILOTS.
  MR. LLEWELLYN): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Provisional Order applied for by the pilots of the Port of Bristol, having for its object the due representation of that Body on the Pilotage Authority, as provided for by the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act of last year, will be introduced and pressed forward during this present Session?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Provisional Order to which my hon. Friend refers has to be finally settled and accepted by the pilots and shipowners who have applied for representation before a Bill to confirm it can be introduced. I intend to introduce such a Bill, if this can be done, in time for the matter to be considered during the present Session.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the engagments referred to by Lord Salisbury in his instructions to Sir L. Simmons of 1st August, 1889, under which it is asserted that Her Majesty's Government have come for the enforcement of the Canon Law in Malta; what is the date of these engagements; and where can a copy of them be found?
  *SIR J. EERGUSSON: The engagements referred to are contained in
  686
  proclamations issued by Mr. Cameron, Civil Commissioner of Malta, dated 15th July, 1801, and Sir Thomas Maitland, the first Governor of Malta, dated 5th October, 1813, copies of which are in the Colonial Office Library.
  MR. SUMMERS': I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Canon Law is in its entirety the civil law of Malta; and, if not, what parts of the Canon Law are the civil law of the island, and when and by virtue of what stipulations, proclamations, or enactments did they become so?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It would not be possible to answer this question without a reference to the colony, but the Governor will be asked to report.

  LEEDS GAS COMPANIES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the conduct of the gas companies of Leeds, who, by refusing a small rise of wages and other matters to their men, have exposed the Town of Leeds to riots and serious danger; whether he is aware that riots have taken place, that the city is in darkness, and that life and property is in danger; and if he will take steps to bring such a serious state of affairs to a conclusion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information as to the particular points in dispute between the Gas Committee and their employ°s, but I regret to say that I learn from the Mayor that the peace of the town has been very seriously disturbed. All possible steps have been taken to insure the preservation of the peace, and negotiations are now in progress with a view to the settlement of the dispute. A meeting of the council is to be held this afternoon, after which I hope to hear from the Mayor that matters have been satisfactorily arranged, and that the town has resumed its normal state of quietness.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: In reference to the first paragraph of the question, has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the conduct of the gas companies in Leeds, on whom I charge all the consequences which have ensued?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received no information as to the points in dispute.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with a view to obtain the general assent of the House to the Industrial Schools Bill, he can see his way to leave unrepealed Sections 27, 28, and 36 of the Education Act, 1870, so that the powers at present possessed by School Boards of maintaining, managing, and contributing to industrial schools, and of appointing officers for the purpose of bringing industrial school cases before the Magistrates, may be left unaffected?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no assurance that the general assent of the House to the Industrial Schools Bill would be secured even by the radical changes in that Bill suggested by the hon. Member. I hope before long to be able to meet the Representatives of the School Boards, and to discuss with them the provisions they object to, with a view of arriving, if possible, at some arrangement.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German agreement provides that the German frontier in the latitude of Lake Ngami and up as far as the 18th degree of South latitude shall coincide with the 21st degree of East longitude, as named in the Despatch of 14th June from Lord Salisbury to Sir E. Malet, or whether it extends as far as to the Victoria Falls on the Zambesi River, as represented on the map in the tea room of the House, to which Members have been referred?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Despatch referred to did not describe the final arrangement, which is correctly shown on the map in the tea room of the House.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State when the full text of the Agreement relating to African affairs and Heligoland, signed at Berlin on Tuesday, 1st of July, by Sir E. Malet and Sir P. Anderson, on behalf of Her Majesty, will be laid before the
  688
  House; and when the other Papers relating to the negotiations and Agreement with Germany which have been promised will be presented?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Papers relating to this matter will be laid upon the Table as soon as possible.
  MR. BUCHANAN): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German Agreement has bean signed; and, if so, when copies of the Agreement will be in the hands of Members; and when the Bill for the cession of Heligoland will be introduced? The right hon. Gentleman has already answered part of the question, but I hope he will be able to answer the last paragraph.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Agreement has been signed and certain Papers relating to it will be given with it. I believe that the Bill in regard to Heligoland will be introduced in the House of Lords, so, of course, it will not reach us immediately.
  MR. WADDY: Are Agreements to be made between the German Empire and our own which will be binding on the House before such Agreements have been laid on the Table?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Agreement in question was made in accordance with Constitutional usage, and will be laid before Parliament accordingly.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a spare sheet put in the map showing the boundary of Damaraland under the German Protectorate before the Anglo-German Agreement?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am afraid that the information desired by my hon. Friend cannot be given. The boundary of Damaraland to the North had not been previously fixed, and any line would be quite imaginary.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any communication shave taken place between the Home Government on the one hand, I and the High Commissioner for South Africa and the Government of the Cape Colony on the other, with reference to the proposed Anglo-German Agreement; and, if so, whether he will state to the House what the nature of these communications has been?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Various communications have been received from the High Commissioner expressing a hope that Lake Ngami and district would be preserved to this country. His wishes are carried out by the Anglo-German Agreement. Some communications have also passed with the Cape Government, but of a confidential character, the effect of which it would not be desirable to state, as negotiations are going on.

  DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General if, in reference to the dormant funds in Chancery, he will consider whether the publication of the lists may not be made more useful to the public by giving the names of the estates and "matters" which are the subject of the suits, in addition to the titles of the suits; and whether the office still retains its objections to publishing the amounts of money to the credit of each suit?
  SIR E. WEBSTER: As to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question I am informed that the particulars to be given in the lists in question are controlled by the order of the Treasury. I will make inquiry as to whether the suggestion of the hon. Member as to giving increased information is considered desirable. As to the last paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand the office still think that, inasmuch as the amounts from time to time vary, it would be inconvenient to attempt to publish the amount of money to the credit of each suit.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government propose to proceed with their Companies (Winding-up) Bill, which has already passed the Standing Committee on Trade?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it may be possible to proceed with the Bill on an early day. I understand it is not likely to give rise to lengthened Debate.

  TITHE RIOTS IN WALES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that violent resist-
  690
  ance to the payment of tithe rent-charge has been renewed in Wales; that at Llannefydd, in the Vale of Clwyd, Mr. Stevens and a distraining party were unable to proceed with the recovery of tithe rent-charge by the ordinary means provided by the law owing to the disturbance of rioters; that stones were thrown, and one of the emergency men injured; whether he is also aware that there are at present arrears of tithe rent-charge in Wales amounting to thousands of pounds; that grave breaches of the peace are anticipated during the winter should remedial legislation be any longer denied; and whether, in the interests of law, order, and justice, he will recommend the House to proceed with the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill in the present Session?
  *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unfortunate occurrences referred to in the first paragraph of the question are largely due to the indiscreet and injudicious conduct of Mr. Stevens himself, and that in cases where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have employed another agent to collect tithes no disturbances whatever have occurred?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I desire to avoid entering into any controversial question as to the action of the officers of the law engaged in collecting tithe, and I trust my hon. Friend will not ask me to express any opinion on the subject. I. venture to hope that the tithepayer in Wales will come to see the impost is one which the law requires him to pay, and which he is not entitled to possess himself of, or refrain from paying. All I can say is that I hope the House will be enabled to pass the Bill.

  WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY VOTES.
  MR. JENNINGS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered that, under the arrangement lately made by the Government, the time allotted for the War Office and the Admiralty Office Votes is likely to be swallowed up by speeches on technical questions of Military and Naval administration, thus preventing any adequate examination of the actual ex-expenditure of those Offices; and whether, having regard to the explicit promises more than once made by the Govern-

  691
  ment that ample opportunity should be afforded early this Session for bringing before Parliament the excessive expenditure in these Offices, he will either postpone a general Debate on the organisation of the Services, or arrange that the Votes shall be taken again at an early date for their proper and legitimate discussion.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall endeavour to arrange that an opportunity be given for discussion of the Votes.

  THE MAHAKAJAH OF KASHMIR.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Secretary of State for India to order any open inquiry into, or to give any opportunity to the Maharajah of Kashmir to be heard against, the allegations of crime, misconduct, and misgovernment, under cover of which the Maharajah has been deprived of his authority and revenues as a reigning feudatory Prince and whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into this case?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Maharajah of Kashmir has been required to withdraw for a time from active participation in the Government of his State—not in consequence of allegations of crime and misconduct, but because the reforms urgently required in the interest of the people of Kashmir cannot be carried out without his so doing. No Select Committee could, with advantage to the Public Service, inquire into the case.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that on the conclusion of questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

  HELIGOLAND.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the cession of Heligoland to Germany was determined upon by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Governor of the Island was consulted; and, if so, what was the opinion to which he gave expression in relation thereto?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that the Governor of Heligoland
  692
  was in England during the time that the cession was being considered; but any communications which passed with him must necessarily be considered as confidential.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is there not some kind of Executive Council in Heligoland?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated that there was two days ago.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Was that Council consulted?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware, Sir.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Governor of Heligoland took any steps himself to ascertain the views of the inhabitants?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every reason to believe that he was fully informed. As the population of the Island is only 2,000, it cannot be difficult for the Governor to be so informed.
  MR. MONTAGU: On behalf of my lion Friend the Member for Hallamshire (Sir F. Mappin) I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the statement that the Anglo-German Agreement depended upon the Bill to be introduced to Parliament for the cession of Heligoland, whether there is any truth in the report that the Agreement was signed at Berlin on the 1st inst by Her Majesty's Representatives; and whether he will state if Her Majesty's Government have anticipated the decision of this House upon a question of such vital importance by permitting the said Agreement to be signed?
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the possession of an island situated in the furthest part of the-German Ocean, without a harbour, without water, without even a lawyer, can really constitute a question of vital importance?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not for me to say what may or may not be deemed a matter of vital importance by the hon. member. We are frequently reminded by him of matters which he deems to be of vital importance. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that the Article ceding Heligoland makes the cession subject to the assent of the British Parliament.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commanding Officers of Her Majesty's vessels have on different occasions ordered the removal of lobster cages set by and belonging to British subjects, and have forbidden the taking of lobsters on certain portions of the Newfoundland coast; if so, were the orders of such Officers given under instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government; will such instructions be laid upon the Table of the House; and under what Law of the Imperial Parliament or the Newfoundland Legislature, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, were such instructions or orders issued or given?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Naval Officers have general instructions that British fishermen should be prevented from interfering in any manner with the free enjoyment of the French fishermen of their rights of fishery, and they have been instructed, as will be seen from Papers recently given to Parliament, to give warning that lobster traps must be removed when French fishermen are actually desirous of fishing in the waters which are occupied by the traps, but that the traps can be re-set after the waters have been left by the French; but it is not intended that French fishermen should be allowed to supplant the traps by any traps of their own. It is the duty of one nation to carry out its Treaty obligations to another, and the above instructions are framed in pursuance of that duty. It is, however, reported in the newspapers that legal proceedings have been taken against the Commander of one of Her Majesty's ships, and, under these circumstances, no answer can be given to the last part of the hon. Member's question.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in 1862 an agreement was entered into between this Country and France, by which both countries undertook to respect the independence of Zanzibar; whether in 1885 Germany adhered to that agreement; whether the agreement now entered into between this Country and
  694
  Germany, by which this Country assumes a Protectorate over Zanzibar, is dependent upon France agreeing to release this Country from the obligation into which she entered in 1862, to respect the independence of Zanzibar; whether the Protectorate involves us in the obligation to defend Zanzibar if attacked by any other Country; whether, by the 23rd Article of the Berlin Conference, any of the signatories to that Act, desiring to establish a Protectorate over any part of the African Continent, must give notice of the intention to the other signatories; and whether this notice has been given in regard to Zanzibar, and to other portions of the African Continent, over which this Country has assumed a Protectorate?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: My answer to the first question is, Yes. As to the second question, Germany adhered to the agreement in 1886. With regard to the third and fourth questions, communications are going on between the two Governments with reference to the Convention of 1862, and I cannot, therefore, say anything with respect to it at present. The 23rd Article of the General Act of the Conference at Berlin (of February 26, 1885) relates to loans. The 34th Article says that any power which henceforth takes possession of a tract of land on the coasts of the African Continent, or assumes a protectorate there, shall notify the same to the other signatory Powers. This engagement only applies to the African, coasts, and not to the African Continent generally. This country has not yet assumed a protectorate over the island of Zanzibar.

  THE ANTI-SLAVERY CONFERENCE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the general Act of the Anti-Slavery Conference has been actually signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference with the exception of Turkey and Holland; whether Turkey assents to the Act and will sign the agreement; whether it is true that Holland refuses to sign, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether her refusal will prevent the ratification of the general Act?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The general Act has been signed by all the Powers except Turkey and Holland. The Turkish Plenipotentiary has assented to the Act, and will sign as soon as the necessary authority is received from Constantinople. The Dutch Plenipotentiary assented to the general Act, but not to the declaration attached to it authorising the levy of Import Duties in the conventional basin of the Congo. He did not, therefore, sign. The time allowed for the exchange of ratifications is 12 months. It may be hoped that before that time has expired the assent of Holland will have been obtained.

  DETENTION OF PRISONERS.
  MR. DILLON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question without notice. It is, whether his attention has been directed to the occurrences at Waterford Gaol two days ago, when the Governor of the prison refused to admit to bail two prisoners who had a right to be admitted to bail, on the ground, as the Governor stated, that he would not take any bail unless a Resident Magistrate was present; whether this action by the Magistrate was in accordance with the law; whether the excuse given to the two gentlemen who were detained in gaol for 24 hours after they ought to have been released is that the Governor telegraphed to Dublin for instructions, and that the telegraph clerk made a mistake in the reply which was sent; and whether it is not the duty of all Governors of Irish prisons to know under what circumstances prisoners should be admitted to bail?
  MR. MADDEN: Perhaps, as I am aware of the facts, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the question. It is the fact that the Governor of the gaol telegraphed to the Prisons Board for instructions. The reply sent was that an ordinary Magistrate could act; but by an error—a rather important error—in transmitting the telegram it arrived in the form that an ordinary Magistrate could not act. That was the cause of the regrettable incident. The hon. Member is quite correct in his views as to the law.
  MR. DILLON: This is really a matter of considerable importance. These gentle-
  696
  men were detained in prison illegally for 24 hours. I want to know why the Governor telegraphed for instructions at all. The law affecting bail prisoners ought to be known to every Governor in Ireland who understands his duty; and what the Attorney General for Ireland has failed to answer is, whether it is not the duty and business of Irish Governors of gaols to know under what circumstances they can admit, or must admit, to bail prisoners who are lying under rule of bail. Did not the Governor in this case break the law, which he ought to have known? If so, what course do the Government intend to take to show their disapprobation of the Governor's conduct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The idea of reproving the Governor for breaking the law in this case has never entered my head. No doubt it would have been desirable that the Governor should have been thoroughly acquainted with the law, but as he was not certain he did the best thing he could, and telegraphed to Dublin for specific instructions. The error arose, not out of any laches on the part of the Governor, but out of the blunder of the telegraph clerk.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that these gentlemen who were illegally detained are to have no redress at all, and does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that it is not the duty of the Governors of Irish prisons to understand the most elementary conditions of their duty? I would ask whether the Governor's ignorance of the law is not the result of gross and culpable negligence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot agree with the hon. Member as to the applicability of the epithets which he has used. If these gentlemen have been wrongfully detained, they have a legal remedy.

  THE POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury means to proceed to night with the Motion for referring the Police Superannuation Bill to a Standing Committee? I learn from the Chairman of the Standing Committee that it will be impossible to consider this Bill for some time. Therefore, by sending it to the Grand Committee, you will be taking a course

  697
  which may prevent the measure from being passed this Session.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We hold the view that to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee is the best method of endeavouring to insure its passing this Session, with the concurrence, of course, of the House and the right hon. Gentleman himself. I should be very much surprised to hear that the Law Committee have work on hand that will keep them for more than a very few days. The Motion for referring the Bill will not be taken to-night, but to-morrow.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR H. VIVIAN: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, who has expressed his hope that the House will pass the Tithe Bill, after what date he will not consider it his duty to press that very contentious measure upon the House, in view of what occurred last year?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow mo to defer making any statement with regard to the particular date of a particular measure until after the House has had a little more time for progressing with business. I undertook, last Monday, at the suggestion of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to refer to-day to the question of public business, and I should have been very glad if it had been possible for me to make definitive proposals to the House with a view to the winding up of the business of the Session, which I am aware Gentlemen on all sides of the House desire to see accomplished as early as possible. I would remind the House that the Government have thought it right to propose to the House the consideration of a Standing Order which is intended to provide for the better forwarding of Public Business in this and in future Sessions, and that the whole question of the consideration of the best method by which business may be forwarded has been referred to a strong Committee, which is now considering the question, and which I hops may be able to report in the course of a few days. It will then, without doubt, be the duty of the Government to make some proposals to the House, after they have considered the Report of that Committee, and those proposals must very considerably affect the arrangements the
  698
  Government will ultimately make for the conclusion of the business of the Session. In these circumstances, I do not feel in a position to offer to the House any suggestion as to the period within which, or as to the method by which, the business of the House should be concluded. The House is aware that we have endeavoured to proceed during the last few days with Bills that have been generally of a non-contentious character. Those Bills will be proceeded with, and I have stated that Supply will be taken to-night, and, I hope, after the consideration of some other non-contentious measures, tomorrow night and during the whole of next week. I trust the House will feel that, having made arrangements in the circumstances of the case for the conduct of business, so far as next week is concerned, I am at liberty to request hon. Members to wait for the consideration of the Resolution to be arrived at by the Committee upstairs before I state to the House definitely the recommendations the Government propose to make with regard to the remaining business of the Session.
  MR. HUNTER: As to the Scotch Police Bill, is it proposed to proceed with it to-night? I may point out that it will be impossible to agree with the recommendation to refer the matter to a Select Committee, unless it is taken at such an early hour as to afford a fair opportunity for the discussion of an Instruction I have put down. If the Government are prepared to accept the Instruction no doubt progress with the Bill will be facilitated.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not proposed to proceed with the reference to the English Police Bill to the Standing Committee to-day, but we hope to proceed with it to-morrow. I trust we may also proceed with the reference to a Select Committee of the Scotch Bill to-morrow, and that hon. Members opposite will assist us in effecting that object.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR: When will the Third Reading of the Western Australia Bill be taken?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe tomorrow.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Will the Scotch Police Bill be taken before the English Bill?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  *MR. CREMER: Do I understand the First Lord of the Treasury to say that the Western Australia Bill will not be taken tonight? It is on the Orders of the Day, and the right hon. Gentleman has intimated that it will be taken to-morrow. Are we to understand that the Government will not bring it forward to-night?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every reason to believe that Supply will occupy the whole evening.
  SIR GTREVELYAN: What Supply do the Government intend to take to-morrow?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope we may be able to dispose of the War Office Vote this evening, but if it is not disposed of to-night we must take it to-morrow.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fourteenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MOTIONS.
  MAHARAJAH OF KASHMIR—TREATMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    (4.55.) Mr. BRADLAUGH, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.—
    "The taking away by the Government of India from the Maharajah of Kashmir of the Government of his State and part of his Revenues, whilst refusing to allow any judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the grounds for such action against a great feudatory Prince."
    But the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I am obliged to move the adjournment of the House, because it is the only possible way in which any appeal for the Maharajah of Kashmir can be submitted to Parliament. The Government of India have deprived this Chief of his authority and of his property under cover of allegations, which are emphatically denied by the Maharajah himself. The Maharajah, as I shall show, has applied for a trial in
    700
    India. That has been denied him. The Secretary of State here has been asked to sanction an inquiry, and has refused; the Leader of the House has been asked to appoint a Select Committee of Inquiry, and has also refused, so that neither judicial, nor Parliamentary, nor Governmental inquiry is being allowed, although this gentleman has been subjected to penalties which, in the case of the meanest person in this country, would entitle him to have the accusations brought before some tribunal, and witnesses against him heard. There is no other manner of bringing this matter before the House than by moving the adjournment. Though I can understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite may think it unfair that the adjournment should be moved, they must remember that on Indian matters I have always shown the greatest consideration to the Government: so much so, that at the beginning of this Session I did not avail myself, as I might have done, of my right to move an Amendment to the Address, and I only now make a Motion for the adjournment, because there are no Estimates in Supply on which, as in any case affecting any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, a question of grievance may be raised. It is either in the manner I am raising it to-night, or not at all. Now, on May 14th of last year—that is more than 12 months ago—the Maharajah himself asked the Government of India for a fair trial. I will read to the House presently the touching words in which that appeal for a fair trial was made. From then till now, except in a Despatch, from which it will be my duty to quote, no kind of answer has been made to that appeal, and the Maharajah has been condemned unheard. I should have pressed this claim for inquiry 12 months ago, but there were then no Papers before the House. It would have been open for the Government to say, in the fashion in which rumour has said, that this unfortunate gentleman had been guilty of crime, or was suffering the consequences' of vice, because these suggestions could be found embodied in official Despatches, to which I shall refer, and that there was, therefore, a lack of duty in bringing the matter before the House until the Government had put before it the statements on which they rely. Although this unfortunate Gentleman

    701
    was deprived of his authority and his property at the beginning of last year, the presentation of Papers has been delayed until last week. They have been repeatedly pressed for by myself and other Members. Until the Government had put their case on the Table anyone would have been at a great disadvantage in submitting to this House any matter for its decision. I do not propose to ask the House, in the Division I shall challenge, to express any other opinion on the facts I shall submit than that when such a penalty is enforced against the prince, with whom we have a treaty—who has recently been regarded as being in the position of a feudatory prince, the man so dealt with is entitled to that which any other subject of Her Majesty, if he be a subject of Her Majesty, is entitled to, namely, a fair trial before condemnation. The Under Secretary must not shelter himself under considerations of State. If considerations of State justify the Government of India in depriving one man of his authority and property unheard, there is no protection for any one, be he prince or peasant, throughout the whole of our Asiatic dominions. The other day the question was stated as simply as possible in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India (Sir J. Gorst), in answer to a question put by myself. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The action of the Government in Kashmir has been baaed not upon grave personal charges made against the Maharajah."
    I would ask the House to remember that, because this man's character has been rumoured away and lied away, with the help of forged letters, during the last year and a half—forged letters used as instruments of political warfare—letters, the authority of which has been denied by the Maharajah, letters which have never been produced in his presence, and yet which, the Government have the face to refer to in their worst fashion in one of the Despatches I shall read to the House. I shall be relieved from any question as to the personal conduct of the Maharajah. He may be good or bad; I do not care what he is—he is entitled to justice. If he has been criminal, let him be condemned and punished; but do not rob him under cover of a criminalty which you dare
    702
    not bring in evidence against him, and as to which you will allow no inquiry, either in India or here. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary said the action of the Government was based upon the long-continued mis-government of Kashmir. Well, this unfortunate gentleman has only been the ruler of Kashmir for about five years; and I will quote, to within a few months of the time he was dispossessed, the testimony of the Government itself, that mismanagement did not exist as far as it was in his power to help it. I cannot conceive—I should not be justified in saying before you, Sir, anything more impudent—but I can conceive nothing more cool than the audacity of the confidence that this House would be imposed upon by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, that there had been long-continued mis-government in Kashmir, such as justified the dethronement of this man. Vague statements there are here, but not one statement of fact. Mis-government must be made up of something. You may shadow a man, put him unjustly in prison, or take away his property. None of these things are alleged against this unfortunate gentleman. Well, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government of India have never attached any importance to certain treasonable and criminal correspondence attributed to the Maharajah. It would have been as well not to have described the character of the correspondence, if no importance was attached to it. Why suggest that it was criminal and treasonable if it was not true, as it was not, that he was responsible for it. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has made an inaccurate statement, but I do say he has been ignorant of the facts. I will read the evidence given by the Viceroy himself with regard to this correspondence, which the right hon. Gentleman dare not lay before this House, which he dare not put in print, but on which the emissaries of the Government have lied away the Maharajah's character during the last year and a-half. I will dispose of this point at once, because, fortunately, we have the Papers on the Table, and are able now to deal with them. So far from its being true that the Government have never attached the smallest importance to the correspon-

    703
    dence, the Viceroy himself says the Government were justified "not merely by the disclosure of these letters "—so that they consider themselves in part justified by them. [Sir J. GOEST indicated dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is the Viceroy's head that should be shaken here. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman dare not rely on the letters. I admit the right hon. Gentleman has too much good sense to use in justification of the position assumed by the Government letters, which the man himself declares to be forgeries, and which the Government have never dare to produce to his face. But in a long Despatch, dated Simla, June 26th, 1889, I say the Viceroy did say these letters were things on which the Government acted in condemning this unfortunate gentleman. What did the Maharajah himself say about these letters? In a letter which, unfortunately, time will not permit me to read fully to the House, he made a plea for justice, first to the Government of India, and then, through the Government, to the English Parliament. He said, "These letters are nothing but most daring forgeries," and he suggests that one of the forgers, if not the only forger, is his brother, whom the Government of India has placed in the position of authority, of which they have deprived this unfortunate gentleman himself. My allegation will be that it was on these letters—for the Papers disclosed nothing else, and, further, negative everything else—that this action of the Government was based. [Sir J. GOKST again expressed dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have read the Papers, which he evidently has not done himself, and I shall read extracts to the House to show I am within the mark in every statement of this kind I make. Why did the Government of India, 12 months ago, say they did not merely act on these letters? What did that phrase mean if they did not act on them at all? Have the Government since discovered they are forgeries? If so, as they are part of the case on which mis-government and criminality are alleged against this unfortunate gentleman, the whole story, if it does not fall to the ground, at any rate, rests on other matters, with reference to which this man demands to be put on his trial, and
    704
    as to which no evidence has been offered. Lord Cross, speaking last year at Sheffield, used words little stronger than, and, if I may be allowed to say so, not quite so skilfully as the euphemistic language of the First Lord to-night, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary last week. He said:—
    "We did interfere in the matter of Kashmir; why? Because the people of Kashmir were so ground down by the tyranny and misgovernment of the Maharajah that we were bound as the paramount power to interfere for the protection of the interests of the inhabitants.
    Where, in these Papers, is there one instance of grinding down? If you want to steal Kashmir, as, unfortunately, we have stolen, often stolen, in India and other parts of the world, then say so at once, and at least have the merit of honest thieves. Do not be hypocritical by saying you set up self-Government where self-Government has no existence. What is the position of Kashmir towards this country? Fortunately, the history is not long so far as it affects this unfortunate man, and I will deal with it as briefly as it is possible to do. The history of Kashmir, for the purpose of to-night's discussion, began with the Treaty of 1846, with the grandfather of the gentleman whose cause I am pleading. Then, for a considerable money payment, recorded in the 3rd section of the Treaty, the British Government transferred and made over for ever, in independent possession, to Maharajah Golab Singh and the heirs male of his body, the territory which includes Kashmir and Jummoo. This is not a case of an ordinary feudatory State. So little was it regarded as a feudatory State, that in the Statistical Abstract of this very year you have the evidence of its non-inclusion up to 1881 amongst the feudatory States; and there was never anything to suggest that we had a right or duty to send a Resident there until 1885, on the death of the father of the present Maharajah. I will not trouble the House with what has passed until the few days before the commencement of the reign of the present chief. The Maharajah Golab Singh, with whom the Treaty of the 10th of March, 1846, was made, was succeeded by his son about the time of the Indian Mutiny, and Lord Canning, in an official document, gave Maharajah Rumbir Singh,

    705
    who had succeeded Golab Singh in 1857, the Sanad of adoption, which provided that in case of failure of issue, he and his successors would be competent to adopt an heir, and thus perpetuate the line. This was given on the ground of the great service rendered by the Maharajah during the mutiny. The Maharajah Rumbir Singh was ill in 1884, and I am afraid that some 14 or 15 years ago, when Jingoism was specially paramount in the making of great military frontiers and things of that kind, we looked with longing eyes upon the property of others, and were disposed to ignore any sense of justice in our dealings with them. It was then said that Rumbir Singh had misgoverned his country. If he had, it was a matter with which, except as being, by treaty, the paramount power, in which case we might have made remonstrance, we had nothing whatever to do. But, as a matter of fact, we made no remonstrance to him. The Under Secretary of State dissents. Then why is it not in the Papers? The Papers began in 1884 with a Despatch relating to the alleged mis-government during the time of the present Maharajah's father. The words of the Despatch precluded the possibility of remonstrance having been made. But what happens is that while the Maharajah is dying, the Viceroy of India, looking to the matter, as he says, with a view to his troublesome neighbours on the North West Frontier, certain reforms are suggested which, on the accession of the son of the then dying man, it would be well should be carried out, and I will read to the House, in the words of Lord Dufferin himself, the admission that many of these reforms had been carried out during the short period that this gentleman sat on the Throne. In 1885 the succession of Prapat Singh was formally recognised by the Government. He came to the throne under the Treaty which I have read to the House. One new departure there was against which the Maharajah protested namely, the establishment of a Residency instead of Kashmir being an independent possession, which, under the Treaty, it was, subject to the supremacy of the Empress Queen. After the appointment of a Resident, it is a monstrously unfair thing to spring a mine four or five years afterwards, and
    706
    allege, as an excuse for confiscating property and power, that there had been misgovernment, where, if there had been misgovernment, it should have been reported day by day, week by week, month by month, and year by year. There are no such Reports. If the Secretary of State has got them, he ought to have printed them. I am not asking the House to say that this unfortunate man is guiltless, but I am asking them to say that he is entitled to be tried, and to have an inquiry before he is deprived of his rights. In 1890 the Government deprived this gentleman of his chieftainship. By what right? By no right save the right of force. By what law? By no law save the law of force. Upon what charges? Upon charges of the vaguest description. It is clear these Papers are delusive Papers. There must have been Reports made by the Viceroy, which Reports ought to be in the hands of the House. If it is said that they are of confidential character—if it is said they cannot be produced, at any rate, the witnesses who can prove the occasions of misgovernment ought to be produced in some Court. Is it because this man is rich; is it because his property is in a place where you want to have property because of frontier considerations; is he to be deprived of the right which you admit to the meanest person accused within this country, or within the Asiatic dominions of the Empress Queen herself? It is a monstrous thing, and I ask the House to look at it without consideration of Party, because you must remember it is not a question only of this man, but of every feudatory prince whose property you may want to take and merge in our dominions. The Papers have not been put on the Table in a hurry. They have been in the skilled hands of the Under Secretary. We all know how frank the Under Secretary can be if he likes, and I ask him to tell the House how many Papers relating to these important Despatches between the Government of India and the Secretary of State have been kept back, and why? It is clear some have—the language shows it. Why are any kept back? They have been kept back because the action of the Government cannot be defended. I do not know what the charges are against the Maharajah, and I am only

    707
    asking that this Parliament shall say that the Government of India, however powerful, and whatever the State considerations are has no right to rob this man. On the 14th of September, 1885, the Viceroy sent a Despatch, to which I must allude for a moment. It was sent just on the accession of the present Maharajah to the throne, and I allege to the House it makes a clear Bill up to that time, so far as any charges of mis-government entitled our Government to interfere. The Viceroy says:—
    "I trust that your Highness's life may be long and prosperous, and that in all difficulties, of whatsoever kind, you will rely with confidence upon the good will of the British Government, which will never fail you so long as you are loyal to the Crown and earnest in the desire to rule your State with justice and moderation. Your Highness has before you a difficult task. During the illness of your father, the administration of the State became seriously disorganised, and it will be necessary for you to introduce many reforms."
    I will show you that three years after, in Lord Dufferin's time, reforms had been admittedly carried out, and that mis-government is an excuse for stealing the man's property. The Maharajah wrote in reply protesting against the Residency being placed upon him. He said—
    "I do not hesitate to admit that the existing state of affairs in Kashmir and Jammu urgently requires immediate introduction of substantial reforms into the administration of the country, and now that you have power commensurate with my responsibilities, I beg to answer your Excellency that nothing shall be spared on my part, and no time will be lost to prove beyond any possibility of doubt that it is my ambition to succeed in making my country a model of a well governed State in alliance with the Government of India."
    Having got the Resident at the capital, what do we find? We find that the Resident wants to get rid of the Ma harajah, he submits some Report to the Government, the particulars of which we do not know, and a Report, the particulars of which we do know, dated March 5th, 1888. Let me point out, in the first place, that in the Despatch of the 5th of March, 1888, there is nothing to justify any of the words of Lord Cross at Sheffield, or the words of the Under Secretary of State last week, as to misgovernment, or the words of the First Lord of the Treasury to-night. Now, what was the decision the Government of India came to in August, 1888? It was that the condition of
    708
    the State did not seem to demand much action, as Mr. Plowden had suggested, and that the Government had, therefore, determined not to resort to measures which would have the effect, directly or indirectly, of taking the power out of the Maharaja's hands. Yet in less than seven months after that Despatch power was taken out of his hands, and taken out solely on these letters. Solely, perhaps, is a strong word to use; but immediately after taking possession of these letters suggesting the worst of crimes—letters which the Maharaja had always denied, and as to which he is always entitled to be heard before a Select Committee of this House, or before the Viceroy himself. He had confidence in the British Government; but he had no confidence in the officials, whom, he said, misrepresented him. The decision that there should be no interference with the Maharaja, directly or indirectly, disposes of Mr. Plowden's Report of the 8th of March, 1888. I come now to April, 1889, when we had some further action. I will first mention that on the 25th of July, 1888, Lord Dufferin wrote—
    "I do not overlook the fact that, since the appointment of the Council of which Diwan Lachman Dass was a member, considerable progress has been made in the direction of reform; useful work has been done with regard to the revenue administration, and in the reorganisation of the Public Works and Medical Departments. But much remains to be done."
    This is not the language of condemnation of the chronic misgovernment and the grinding down of the people. Misgovernment is only an invention—an excuse for having dispossessed this man—and I think I have a right to quote this evidence given by Lord Dufferin in 1888. This unfortunate prince, hampered by the Resident, who dictated the policy he should pursue, did make reforms as entitled him to the praise of Lord Dufferin, a statesman of the greatest eminence, of the keenest judgment, and a man who cannot be charged with being at all partial to the class of man I am defending here this afternoon. Now, I come to these horrid letters. There is a batch of 34, and the Maharaja says that they are all forgeries. I do not ask you to say whether they are or are not, but I say that if they are used against him he is entitled to go into Court and cross-examine the witnesses

    709
    against him. Other letters on which the Government have relied have been abandoned as forgeries within the memory of many of us in this House. What is the character of them as described by the Resident? The character of them is that the Maharaja offered large sums of money to certain individuals on condition that they would murder, or cause to be removed, Mr. Plowden, the late Resident. It is alleged that these letters showed treasonable correspondence with the enemies of England. All these things are denied by the Maharaja. I do not ask you to say whether the Maharaja is right or wrong; but I say that when letters alleging murder are produced against a Prince, with whom we have a Treaty of Alliance, immediately after which we take away his property, the commonest and the merest justice demands that he should have an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee of this House, or some tribunal competent to deal with his offence, if offence he has committed. The Government are not going to stand by these letters to-night, but the Viceroy has stood by them, and I will read you words in which they are so stood by. The Viceroy said—
    "In the spring of this year,"
    that is last year,
    "my attention was called to the documents referred to in your Highness's letter. Many of these had every appearance of being genuine, and they have, moreover, a striking resemblance to those other papers of which I have already spoken, and which came into the possession of the Government of India at a previous time.
    "Your Highness is correct in expressing your belief that the action subsequently taken by my Government was not justified merely by the disclosures contained in these letters."
    Where is the report upon which they acted? The man had a right to be tried. The letters are vague statements. The Viceroy goes on—
    'Notwithstanding the ample resources of your State your treasury was empty,"
    Well, if you are going to dethrone every Prince whose treasury becomes empty I do not know how far you are prepared to carry your policy. Does the Government really mean that? If that be so, how is it they took from this man the advance or deposit or loan of a large sum of money amounting to 25 lacs of rupees? They had this in their
    710
    hands when the Treasury was empty. Why did they take money for Lady Dufferin's admirable Fund? Why, if the treasury was empty, did they take millions of rupees for railway works in the interest of frontier defence? Treasury empty Why you and your Resident helped to empty it, and then you tell this unfortunate man it is a reason why he should be dethroned?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Will the hon. Gentleman finish the sentence?
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: You put on the Table what you please, and with the House half empty, because every Member feels the difficulty when a Motion for adjournment is moved, I have, with such knowledge as is supplied, to make what case I can with this far off matter.
    SIR J. GORST: I only interrupted the hon. Gentleman to point out that he had not read the sentence to the end, and I thought to put the case fairly it should be given to the end.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I will read it to the end, and show that the right hon. Gentleman gains nothing by making me read it—
    "Notwithstanding the ample resources of your State your Treasury was empty; corruption and disorder prevailed in every Department and every office; Your Highness was stilt surrounded by low and unworthy favourites, and the continued misgovernment of your State was becoming every day a more serious source of anxiety."
    Well, there is not a word affecting finance there. I was going to deal with each allegation in turn. "Low and unworthy favourites!" Every Prince has these, even in his own household; every Oriental Prince has such. The whole history of our transactions with native feudatory Princes shows that when we have wanted to take their money, their land, their position, we have used vices which appeared at the time to suit our purposes and help us to gain our ends. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by inviting me to read to the end, as if I had omitted some allusion to the empty Treasury. Why, the Indian Government had then 25 lacs of rupees of his, and millions of rupees had been laid out in railway works. Who are these low and unworthy people 2 It is not enough to make a vague statement;

    711
    where is the evidence? Let the man be tried. A man complains of a burglary in his jeweller's shop, and you say to him, "Oh, but you were misusing the jewels." I ask the House to take at least some tone of dignity in this matter. This irresponsible Government of India, as an Indian Secretary once said, has no public opinion to influence it, no Parliament to control it, no Press to criticise it. The Government of India is a despotism; that has, in many degrees, been well for India; it is a despotism which has brought in its train advantages which many of these poor people would not otherwise have obtained; but it cannot be denied that in many respects that despotism in the past has been tainted with fraud and crime, and I hope it is not left to the present Government to revive these evil traditions in obtaining possession of Kashmir. The Empress Queen, the paramount Power acting as Judge, has condemned this man unheard. No man should be under menace of this. The grandfather of this Prince bought these lands, and we, by Treaty, declared they belonged to him for ever. [Sir J. GORST expressed dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be acquainted with all these facts in the history of India. Shall I ask him to read and tell us the exact sum paid for the Maharajah's dominions? How do the Government justify their action? They say the Maharajah resigned; he says he did nothing of the kind. I am more inclined to believe him than even the Under Secretary, for whose statements I have always the profoundest respect. Officially there could be nothing better than the way he answers questions in this House; but when history, some 50 years hence, comes to deal with him, the comment of the historian will be, how wickedly the Government officials deceived the Under Secretary, making him say as truth the things that were not true. It is said the Maharajah voluntarily resigned. It is true that on March 8, 1889, the Maharajah issued the following document. I will abridge it; if it is suggested I am incorrect, I will read the whole willingly, but I do not think my abridgment will differ from the exact words. The Maharajah appointed a Council who were to govern the country for five years, he reserving to himself all his princely rights and reserving
    712
    certain powers, but allowing them much the same authority, as allowing for Oriental position, a Cabinet enjoys here. The Government of India do not accept that yet; they say they accepted a voluntary resignation. What he offered they would not have; what they wanted they took from him. The Maharajah says he acted under pressure. I do not ask the House to decide that; but I do say that he is entitled to a Select Committee here, or I may say he would be content with an inquiry conducted in India if Lord Lansdowne will give his personal attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman is better acquainted with the Government of India than I am. He knows that Residents are not always perfect; that Residents sometimes quarrel with a Prince, and that matters are alleged as facts which do not always bear the test and scrutiny of examination. This man, through my mouth, appeals to this House, not that you should make a decree that the Government of India is wrong; he simply asks for an inquiry. He has a right to that inquiry. I regret that the appeal is not made by an abler tongue—by a better-informed man. But I am limited to the information in the Parliamentary Papers presented to the House and such records as the history of India enables me to present, and I say without fear of contradiction that no case is made out for the action that has been taken. In 1888 the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council at home came to the conclusion there was nothing for which, directly or indirectly, the; Maharajah ought to be deprived of power, and within seven months they take it all away. If you trample on Treaties; if your obligations to the Princes of India are to be broken, and the native rulers are not to rely on your word, and English justice in India is a shadow and a delusion, let that be known, but let those who hold a contrary opinion vote for my Motion as the means of protest. The government of India should be no Party question, either to Liberal or Conservative, Radical or Whig; our duty and our interest demand that our paramount rule in India should be just.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That this House do now adjourn."—
    SIR J. GORST: I do not for a moment dispute the right of the hon. Member to challenge the action of the Government of India or to ask the House to order an inquiry if there is anything to inquire into. If the House will give me its attention for a short time, I will tell the House why the Government of India has acted in the manner it has, and why it appears to the Secretary of State this is not a subject which can properly be made matter of inquiry either by Judicial Commission in India or by Select Committee of the House of Commons. I need not take the House back to the early history of Kashmir; the hon. Member for Northampton has, in the little history he has given, indicated to the House that after the Sikh War we by force of arms placed a Hindoo ruler over the Mohamedan people of Kashmir; and, by doing this, we incurred, as it seems to me, the responsibility of seeing that these Mahomedan people who by the action of the British Government were subjected to an alien dynasty were at least fairly and properly governed. Now, complaints of the misgovernment of Kashmir are not so modern as the hon. Member for Northampton seems to suppose. I should like to read to the House the observations which were made by the Government of Lord Ripon in 1884, and Lord Ripon was a Viceroy whose error did not, at all events, lie in over-interference with Native Chiefs. This was what was said by his Government in 1884:—"The misgovernment to which the people of this country (Kashmir) have long been subjected."—The hon. Member for Northampton asks what the nature of the misgovernment was, and I will try before I sit down to give the House some faint idea of the nature and results of this misgovernment. Lord Ripon said—
    "The people of that country have long been subjected to misgovernment, and this was some time since brought prominently into notice by Mr. Henvey. We did not take action at once, conceiving that a favourable opportunity would offer on the occasion of a fresh succession."
    The Maharajah Runbir Singh was then suffering from a mortal illness, and his death was expected.
    "When that event takes place, we shall consider that it will be our duty to impress on the Kashmir Government its obligations to its own subjects, and to so that reforms so urgently needed are no longer postponed."
    714
    To those remarks of Lord Ripon's Government an answer was returned by Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and Lord Kimberley stated in his Despatch his doubts whether the Government of India was justified in hesitating, so long as it had hesitated, to interfere in the affairs of Kashmir. It may, indeed, be questioned whether, having regard to the circumstances under which a Hindoo family were settled as rulers, the intervention of the British Government on behalf of the Mahomedan people had not already been too long delayed. Well, the Government of India waited 18 months, and in 1885 the late Maharajah died and the present Maharajah came to the Throne. The hon. Member for Northampton has already read some of the warnings which were addressed to the present Maharajah of Kashmir on the occasion of his ascending the Throne, but he said—and I really was surprised when he made the statement to the House—that until quite recently no complaint was made of his administration, and, in fact, he quoted a few expressions from some of Lord Dufferin's Despatches which would have left upon the House the impression that, upon the whole, the Government had been very successfully administered, and many reforms had been carried out. Now, what did Mr. Plowden say in March, 1888? He thought it his duty to call the formal attention of the Government of India to the fearful condition of Kashmir under the Maharajah and his associates, whom he calls a band of corrupt and mischievous men. Mr. Plowden says—
    "I think, however, that the Government of India should be under no illusion as regards Maharajah Pertab Singh. From first to last I have failed to discover in him any sustained capacity for governing his country or any genuine desire to ameliorate its condition, or to introduce those reforms which he has acknowledged to be necessary. More than two years have passed since his accession, but not only has he achieved nothing, but he has opposed beneficial measures proposed by others He will never, of his own free will, establish a capable and honest administration; nor if any power of interference is left him, will he permit any administration appointed by the Government of India to carry on the business of the country. He will thwart and oppose it in every way he dares; the only restraint will be the limit of his power and his fears."
    Well, at the same time that Mr.

    715
    Plowden made this grave Report to the Government of India on the condition of the country and the character of the Maharajah, a proposal was made by the Maharajah himself to appoint a Council.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. I stated to the House that on the Report of Mr. Plowden the Government came to the decision not to take the power from the Maharajah, and that Lord Dufferin contradicted Mr. Plowden, by recognising the fact that since the appointment of the Council, of which Diwan Lachman Dass was a member, considerable progress had been made in the direction of reforms.
    SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member is impatient. I am coming to that. I shall have something more to say first. At the time that this Report was being sent home, application was made by the Maharajah to have a Council appointed, upon which the Government of India decided to give him another trial to see whether, by his Council, he would govern the country better. I must say, speaking by the light of after events, it was unfortunate that the Government of India set aside the Report of Mr. Plowden, and gave the Maharajah what, in vulgar phrase, would be called "another chance" I confess, if the hon. Member for Northampton, instead of attacking the Government of India for having at last relieved the Maharajah of the functions of government, had attacked the Government for being so weak in 1888 as to give this second chance, I am sure that I, as Under Secretary, would have found it difficult to make out a good defensive case. But Lord Dufferin decided on this course. He wrote a complimentary letter to the Maharajah, which the hon. Member has read, and no doubt he made use of the expressions the hon. Member has quoted as to the success of the Council, since the appointment of Diwan Lachman Dass, under whom considerable progress, he said, had been made in the direction of reform. But will the House believe that the object of that letter, on which the hon. Member relies as showing the improvement in the government of the country, was to remonstrate with the Maharajah for dismissing summarily, and without the knowledge of the Government of India, that same Diwan Lachman Dass, whose reforms were praised
    716
    in the passage of Lord Dufferin's letter which the hon. Member has quoted as praising the Maharajah for the improvements in the government of the country. The beginning of Lord Dufferin's letter which the hon. Member has not quoted is as follows:—
    "I cannot avoid informing your Highness that the news of the sudden removal of Diwan Lachman Dass was received by me with some surprise. Your Highness appointed him to your Council after consulting me, and I hoped that your Highness would, before making another change of Government, give me some previous intimation of your views. However, this point has already been brought to your notice by Mr. Plowden, and I do not now desire to dwell upon it further."
    Well, the arrangements for governing the-country by means of a Council were made, and, in order to give the new scheme the fullest possible chance of success, Mr. Plowden was removed from Kashmir on the occasion of his promotion, and Colonel Nisbet, a personal friend of the Maharajah, and in whom the Maharajah placed implicit confidence, was sent to Kashmir. Now, I said I would give the House some little idea of the misgovernment that the hon. Member for Northampton treated so lightly, and of which he said no trace was to be found in the Papers before the House. Now, if hon. Members have read the Papers, they will see that they close with the Report of a certain gentleman of the name of Wingate. Mr. Wingate was a Revenue Officer of the Bombay Government of 19 years' experience, and he had also been employed in the revenue settlement of some of the native States of Rajputana. He was a highly qualified and experienced officer. He was employed by the Maharajah's Government, and his Report well deserves the study of anybody who desires to understand the position of Kashmir, although it is full of technicalities and written in a dry businesslike technical spirit, but his narrative is enlivened occasionally by the most horrible statements as to the condition of Kashmir. Let me say this gentleman was 18 months among the people surveying in Kashmir and Jummoo, and the appears to have gone to work in a dry business-like fashion. In these Oriental States we know that the foundation of the happiness of the people consists in the correct measure-

    717
    ment of their land. The first thing Mr. Wingate discovered was that the measurement of the land upon which the ryots paid their rent was altogether incorrect against the ryots.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman represent that in any way that this was done under the direction of the Maharajah?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: The evil existed under the Government of the Maharajah, and was approved by the Maharajah's Government.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Wingate's Report referred to the existing state of things, part of the condition of things that had long existed over Kashmir, was no part of the mis-government of the Maharajah.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: It was part of the condition of things in Kashmir under a Government of which the Maharajah was the head. I do not know whether the Maharajah shields himself under the allegation that all this had happened in the past, and that he was not responsible for the misgovernment which he allowed to exist. I do not think this House will take such a view of the limitations of the Maharajah's duties to his subjects. Besides, we have read Mr. Plowden's Report, in which it is stated that the Maharajah opposed those reforms which were admitted to be necessary. Now, under the land system in Kashmir the assessment of the ryots is arbitrarily fixed, and a divisional official gets the revenue out of the unhappy cultivators in the best way he can, the result being that from one-half to two-thirds of the gross produce of the land was exacted from these unhappy people, mostly in kind and partly also in cash.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Does not Mr. Wingate say that existed as far back as 1874?
    *SIR J. GORST: I have been reading the Report.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: You have not been reading at all.
    *SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member challenged me to say what the mis-government had been in Kashmir.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove specific acts of misgovernment on the part of the Maharajah.
    *SIR J. GORST: I am in the recollection of the House. I appeal to hon. Members whether, if the case rested solely on the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, they would not have gone away in the belief that Kashmir was the best governed country in the world. I am showing what was the state of the affairs which compelled the Government of India to take this action. I am going to show the House why the Government in the interests of humanity were peremptorily called upon to take this step. [A laugh.] The hon. Member may laugh, but I think it is not a laughing matter. Now, let me describe what was done. The assessment was paid at fixed rates in kind, that is to say, it was levied on the people in money value, and then they were made to give produce at certain fixed and prescribed rates in lieu of paying the assessment in cash. In the case of rice, the main staple which the ryots cultivated, the prescribed rate was extremely unfavourable to the cultivator—all this is in Mr. Wingate's Report, and if I am epitomising it unfairly the hon. Member can subsequently correct me. I do not see why he should interrupt me now—but the prescribed rates for cotton, which is grown by the richer ryots, were very favourable. Therefore it came to this, that the Officers of the Revenue allowed the rich ryots to pay on the staple bearing the most favourable rate, while the poor ryots had to pay on the staple bearing the most unfavourable rates. Every year, says Mr. Wingate in his Report, "the bulk of the rise goes into the city;" and further, he adds, "these poor ryots often have to buy it back at two or three times the price at which it was credited to them in their assessment." And then this dry technical Report contains this statement, "In this fertile valley there are women and children actually starving." Further on it says—
    "It may be easier now to understand why the Kashmir cares naught for rights in land, why his fields are fallow or full of weeds, and manure and water neglected, why he has, as I can well believe, even to be forced to cultivate. The revenue system is such that, whether he works much or little, he is left with barely enough to get along on till next harvest. He is a machine to produce Sháli for a very large and most idle city population."
    MR. MACNEILL): Like Ireland!
    *SIR J. GORST: A city, the population of which consists of officials and of Hindoo pundits, who have prepared the brief from which the hon. Member for Northampton spoke. These men get their rice cheap, while the ryot who grows it, and is forbidden to dispose of it for export starves. Again, Mr. Wingate says that
    "The cultivator is compelled to grow rice, and in many years to part with it below the proper market rate, in order that the city may be content. If the harvest is too little for both, the city must be supplied, and is supplied, by any force that may be necessary, and the cultivator and his children must go without. That is the explanation of the angry discontent that filled the valley during the famine. The cultivator is considered to have rights neither to his land nor to his crops. The city population have a right to be well fed whether there is famine or not."
    and that is not all. The officials of the Revenue contractors are gradually in Kashmir converting themselves into landlords. They get grants of waste land, they foreclose upon ryots who are indebted, and they purchase a considerable part of the land, and as Mr. Wingate says—
    "Since the death of the Maharajah Golab Singh, from which date central authority appears to have been weaker, there has been a steadily, and, latterly, rapidly increasing transference of land from the cultivating to the non-cultivating classes, and a landlord element is intruding itself between the cultivator and the State."
    I earnestly commend this to the attention of some of the hon. Members from Ireland. Then besides this, there exists among the unhappy ryots a system of begar, or forced labor. This scourge, which is peculiar to the Government villages, and from which the villages which happen to be in the hands of these landlords are free, is imposed upon the people with the utmost severity.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I fancy that by the Rules of the House I have no right of reply. I wish to ask him, in reference to this forced labour, whether it is not a fact that the system prevailed long before the death of the father of this unfortunate gentleman, and whether the Maharajah did not himself issue a decree abolishing it?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I may explain that the hon. Member will be entitled to reply, and it would be
    720
    more convenient therefore for him to reserve his comments.
    *SIR J. GORST: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of replying, because otherwise he will not wait patiently to hear the end of my argument. He challenged me to show misgovernment in Kashmir. I am telling him what exists there, and presently I will ask him what was the Government of India to do under the circumstances. This forced labour was so unreasonably enforced on the people that if 20 coolies were wanted it was customary to requisition a hundred. Eighty would buy themselves off with payments to the officers, and 20 of the poorest would be compelled to do the duty. And it was so serious and so formidable that they left their homes and hid themselves for days in order to escape the work. I am speaking of matters which are within the knowledge of many hon. Members of this House who have served in India. But I am bound to repeat them when this House is asked to censure the conduct of the Government of India. Mr. Wingate says that the cultivators under this Hindoo rule have been pressed down to the condition of coolies cultivating the State property at subsistence allowance. This has been going on in Kashmir for years, and what has been the result? The population has been reduced by one-half, the ryots are deserting the country wherever they can do so, the villages are ruined, the bridges broken down, the irrigation channels are abandoned, and a population under the protection of a British Government which boasts of its Christianity and its civilisation, has sunk into a condition which I have tried faintly to describe. "They are gaunt with want and famine, they gnaw the ground in wasteness and desolation." This, Mr. Speaker, is a description of the condition of the unhappy people of Kashmir, which seems to have moved the laughter of the hon. Member opposite. I should have thought he would have treated the subject more seriously. Such was the condition of the people—a condition which weighed upon the Government of India and the Secretary of State, who had hoped almost against hope that the new arrangement of the Maharajah would afford some amelioration in the condition of the people.

    721
    But no Colonel Nisbett, appointed Resident because he was the Maharajah's friend, arrived at precisely the same conclusion as Mr. Plowden, and his conversion to those views was announced to the Government of India at the time of the discovery of the treasonable criminal letters, to which the hon. Member for Northampton has alluded. These letters, in spite of what the hon. Member says, have never been treated by the Government of India as serious, nor have they been made the ground for the exclusion of the Maharajah from interference in the public affairs of Kashmir. They might never have been noticed had they not been accompanied by the resignation, of his own accord, of part of his power. The Government of India, at the outset, said they were not disposed to attach excessive importance to these letters. They also wrote that they did not exclusively base their action upon the Maharajah's edict of resignation, but the edict gave them an occasion—and they would have been criminal if they had neglected to avail themselves of it—for placing the affairs of Kashmir on a more satisfactory basis. The Despatch in which these conclusions were announced to the Secretary of State contains these words—
    "We greatly regret the necessity for any interference at all, but we are now convinced that, in the interests of the people of Kashmir, and of the ruling family itself, it is no longer right or possible to leave the control of affairs in the hands of the Maharajah."
    In the whole of this business the Government of India have carefully avoided acting upon any personal grounds and I must object to the hon. Member for Northampton, and those who instruct him, trying to make out that this is a sort of personal question between the Maharajah and the Government of India. They insist on making out that the Maharajah has been deposed from his throne because of these letters, or because of some personal vices, or because of his own resignation. Not one of these is the real ground upon which the Government of India has acted. As I have stated in this House, in answer to questions over and over again, the Government of India has acted in the interests of the people of Kashmir and of their right to better Government. I can only say that, in my
    722
    humble opinion, these reforms could not longer be delayed, and, if anything, both the Government of Mr. Gladstone and the present Government ought to reproach themselves for the long delay. It is a curious example of the irony of fate that the Radical Member for Northampton should be pleading in this House the Divine right of an Oriental despot to deal with his people as he pleases, and that I, a humble but reactionary Tory, should be pleading the right of these poor Moslems of Jummoo to cultivate their own land. But we have of late been accustomed in this House to strange sights. I ask the House to look at the Papers and see how careful the Government of India has been of the right of this reigning family. Will the House believe that in the Government of this country, the Government which is the paramount power in Kashmir, not an Englishman sits on the Council, which is composed exclusively of the natives of the State, and includes two members of the reigning family. The Government of India does not, and never has, in its policy interfered with the personal rights of the chiefs of India. It has been most careful of all existing rights, of all rights that affect the chiefs. But there is one right which it regards as more sacred than even the rights of Oriental despots to their thrones, and that is the right of the people who live under the protection of the power of Great Britain to just and upright Government. I hope that the House of Commons will not stand in the way of justice being done to the people of Kashmir. I hope that the House of Commons to-night will, by a large majority, approve the conduct of the Government of India in at last interfering in this unhappy State, and in allowing the Maharajah of Kashmir and the chiefs of India generally to know that, although their rights are respected, it is on the condition that their people are moderately happy and moderately justly governed.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I will, Sir, at once take advantage of the right of reply which you have ruled rests with me. The point I wish to state is so important that I think it better to put it before the House at once. I say that the Report of Mr. Wingate refers to no specific act of misgovernment by the

    723
    deposed Maharajah. It relates a state of things which obtained long prior to the Maharajah's birth, and which he has himself partially remedied since his accession to power. In September, 1885, he actually issued a decree abolishing forced labour both in Kashmir and in Jummoo, so far as he could, and in another decree he removed the cause of complaint as to the price of edibles. For three years this unfortunate man, step by step, took up reforms; and in one of his Despatches he speaks of the settlement of the land question as a task which it would take five years to deal with. I never said that the Government of Kashmir was perfect; on the contrary, I said that, like all Oriental Governments, it had many defects, and that the people of Kashmir were in a state of misery and difficulty, from which millions of the population of India were not free. I repeat that no specific act of misgovernment has been even pretended to be proved against the Maharajah, and that, so far as Mr. Plowden's Report is concerned, the decision of the Government of India itself was that it did not justify any interference on their part.
    MR. MACNEILL: The Under Secretary for India is always interesting, and his great abilities add additional charms to what he says. But on this occasion I think he was scarcely fair in accusing me of smiling at the sufferings of these people. I see too much suffering to regard it otherwise than with infinite sorrow and sympathy. What I smiled at was this. Knowing, as I do, the infamous transactions and secret springs which I intend to expose, I smiled that a gentleman representing a Government guilty of such conduct should claim universal benevolence and pretend to be benefiting the people, whereas they are robbing an ancient Prince of his inheritance. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to put forward the religious question, and to point out that the Maharajah was a Hindoo, while his subjects were Mahommedans. But I can tell him that if he would take a pl°biscite of the inhabitants of Kashmir he would find that three-fourths of the people favour the restoration of the Prince. We know that 40,000,000 of our subjects in India are in a constant state of starvation, and that during the famine in 1877 the number of deaths
    724
    from famine exceeded the population of London. Surely our efforts at administration in India have not been so successful as to justify our bringing more of the natives under our system. I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; I must say I thought it a most shifting defence. I can only repeat the statement of an eminent statesman who once said that the iniquities of the Government of India are so rank that they smell from earth to heaven. We are in precisely the same situation to-day. I may say that I speak on behalf of all my Colleagues. We are all in sympathy with the suffering and the injured classes.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is speaking of matters that do not arise on the Question before the House, on account of which the adjournment of the House was moved.
    MR. MACNEILL: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I think I have a right to put it to the House whether the charges made by my hon. Friend cannot be substantiated by investigation. I think I shall be enabled to prove that the Maharajah has been deprived of his inheritance simply by the pursuance of an annexation policy, which was the approximate cause of the Indian Mutiny. What has happened has been what is called in Ireland "land-grabbing." The Maharajah, who was placed in his position many years ago, has displayed nothing but kindness and loyalty to British rule. He was placed on that throne, and it was reserved to him and his heirs, and in the meantime he has acted well towards this country. With regard to the letters on which so much stress has been laid none of them have been read to the House. Their date is important, because they came into the possession of the Government of India just about the time when Pigott's forgeries appeared in the Times. The Government of India has resorted to the old dodge of forged letters in order to destroy character of this Prince. The Government had no right to depose a Prince without rhyme or reason, and it is the duty of this House to do all in its power to prevent them from doing so.
    MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, the defence which has been offered on the part of the Government does not explain the degradation from his rank of the

    725
    Maharajah of Kashmir, and the act of wholly unjustifiable spoliation. One remark with which the Under Secretary of State wound up his remarks, intended to be eloquent, was an appeal to this House on behalf of the poor Moslem cultivators. Why the Moslem cultivators? Surely, a Hindoo, if he happens to be a cultivator, is as much entitled to sympathy as the Moslem. But the right hon. Gentleman laid stress on the word Moslem in order to excite those unhappy religious prejudices which, unfortunately, prevail in India. He knew that in India, unfortunately, both Moslems and Hindoos are animated by strong fanatical opinions on the subject of religion, leading to collisions and breaches of the peace. And here is the Under Secretary for India, in this House, pointing his moral by the contrast between the Moslem and the Hindoo peasants, and trying thus to fan the embers of religious antipathy. What are the reasons which he adduced why the Maharajah should be deposed? Not one of the reasons had the slightest relation to anything that was done by the Maharajah of Kashmir himself. That I pass by. But what is the state of the country upon which he relies? There were three arguments. The first argument was that in consequence of the mismanagement of the revenue derived from the land there was a great deal of poverty in the country, and that the population had largely diminished. Well, I was amazed to hear a Minister sitting on that side of the House raising that as an argument, why the Maharajah of Kashmir should be deposed, because the Maharajah has equally good reason for deposing you from the Government of Ireland, if that argument has any validity whatever. But that is not the only thing. We are told that the land revenue is extortionate. That is, no doubt, the reason why you are putting out the Maharajah and putting in yourselves. There is no doubt a margin, a large margin, which excites the cupidity of the British Government, and induces them to take possession of that country. But all this argument simply comes to this point, that, according to the view of the Government of India, the ancient, not the recent, mode of collecting the Revenue from the land is defective, and that oppresions arise in the exercise of
    726
    the right; so that, according to the eloquent language of the right hon. Gentleman, the people are starving in the midst of plenty. That is precisely the condition of things in Ireland. The case of Ireland is precisely an analogous case. Not a single argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to Kashmir but is applicable to Ireland, in the eyes of impartial people living outside the latter country. I am afraid the transaction is a very doubtful one, when it has to be supported by such exceedingly ludicrous statements as those which have been advanced by the Under Secretary of State.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Mr. Speaker, I feel bound to trouble the House for a very few moments on this subject, because I am one of those Members who happen to know this country of Kashmir. I have travelled over every portion of it repeatedly, and for years I was officially connected with it; and though I never had the pleasure of knowing the Maharajah of Kashmir personally, unless I may have seen him as a child, yet I knew his father well, and his grandfather also. Now, Sir, much has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton and by the hon. Member for South Donegal, and again by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who has just sat down, regarding the ambitious or greedy eye which England has cast upon Kashmir. Indeed, in effect, the language used by hon. Members embodies the charge that England is attempting a theft of territory. Indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton exhausted the resources of phraseology in accusing England of appropriating the lands of others. But is the House aware that England gains not one rood by the transactions which are now under consideration? All that happens is the transfer of the sovereignty from one brother to another. The power, the wealth, the property, remains in the Same family; it is a mere exchange from one person to another as Regent. England remains exactly in the same position as she was before, and is in no wise benefited. She has acted with entire disinterestedness, and whether she is wrong or whether she is right, her sole object has been to benefit the people of Kashmir. What ground has the hon. Member for South Donegal for saying that we want

    727
    a frontier there? I am afraid the hon. Member does not know what our frontiers are. We have no military frontier in that direction. It is not from there we should be invaded. No, Sir, the mighty-mountains of the Himalayas constitute an impassable barrier to any enemy, either from Asia or from Europe. Then, Sir, the hon. Member for Aberdeen seemed to find fault with my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary, for saying that the Moslem of Kashmir must be protected. The hon. Member entirely misapprehended my right hon. Friend's meaning. What my right hon. Friend meant was this, that the Maharajah of Kashmir is a Hindoo potentate, and that we interfered by force of arms to place him over a Moslem population—a population which was not Hindoo at all by allegiance or by tradition. They were, therefore, placed under an alien prince by the action of the British Government. My right hon. Friend meant to say that we were bound to see that the Moslem population suffered nothing at the hands of the Hindoo masters whom we had set over them. And the hon. Member for Aberdeen spoke of the gratitude which we owe the Maharajah of Kashmir. I am not prepared to deny that Sovereigns of his house have behaved well—his grandfather co-operated with us during the darkest days of the Mutiny. But, after all, the gratitude was due from him to us rather than from us to him. He was our ally. We had placed him on the throne for political reasons of our own, and he was bound to act for us when we required his services. Something has been said of the several British Residents. I was grieved to hear the terms of disparagement in which the hon. Member for Northampton spoke of those most able servants of the State. At all events, they have no Party purpose to serve; they are above partisan considerations. They may, like all men, be liable to error, but they are completely disinterested, and their action is based on inflexible impartiality. In this case it was not one or two, but three Residents—men of different ideas, but who all came to the same conclusion respecting the Government of Kashmir. Then, Sir, regarding the misgovernment. I quite admit that reforms were at one time introduced and carried out to a considerable extent. I, myself, in former days, have been witness to them. But
    728
    I am afraid those reforms came to a termination, or at least declined. But, Sir, much was said, and with great truth, by my right hon. Friend, with regard to mismanagement of the Land Revenue, and the gross oppression which was practised upon the ryots. I quite admit that the abuses are not recent, and the Report which has been read to-night confirms what I used to hear when I was connected with the Foreign Department in India. But I am afraid that the evils have now reached alarming proportions, perhaps even a monstrous development. The hon. Member for Aberdeen speaks of the decreasing population. Now of all countries, Kashmir is the most favoured physically. The climate may be severe in winter, but in summer the land smiles with fertility, and is as bountiful as any place in the world. Indeed, nature has lavished advantages on what once was the Happy Valley. That its population is decreasing, is a sure sign of misgovernment. I quite admit that there may have been outbreaks of cholera and other epidemics; but as for famine, it is the last place in the world where such a calamity would be expected. The question comes, what is the nature of the misgovernment? Well, now, I submit that that is a question which should be left to the responsible Government on the spot. Surely it is our duty to see that a good Government is set up in that Empire, and when it has been set up do not harass it, or interfere with it, or try to establish Committees of Inquiry here to investigate matters, which can hardly be made the subject of specific inquiry by evidence, by prosecution, by defence, and so forth, but which must be left to the discretion of the responsible Government on the spot. If we are to have a Government at all in India we must entrust such affairs as these to that Government. There is, we are told, a bad system in this State of Kashmir; that the population is decreasing; property is not secure; that communications are not looked after; that the whole land is going rapidly to ruin, and that all Departments are falling to a low level. But how are we to examine into these matters by an inquiry such as is asked for? Such questions are hardly susceptible of quasi-judicial inquiry. We all

    729
    know how that would end. It would end in the acquittal of the accused, while everyone knew that mal-administration existed. All these matters should he left to the Governor General in Council, and he is responsible for dealing with matters which are within his purview and not within ours, and to him we leave the responsibility. An inquiry of this kind would have a bad effect in India. The hon. Member for Northampton speaks as if this political measure of superseding the Maharajah of Kashmir would have a bad effect; but I can assure him that to have an inquiry of the kind which has been suggested, in which the whole Government of Kashmir would be overhauled by a formal investigation, would be a measure above all others calculated to alarm the Native Princes of India, and would be repugnant to those very purposes whom he proposes to serve.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: In this Debate we have been placed under the disadvantage that the Papers relating to Kashmir are not yet in the hands of Members. But by the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst), I have had the advantage of perusing these Papers for a short time, and it is only fair that I should rise to say, that so far as I can judge from a hasty perusal of the Papers, and following carefully the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he has stated the case as regards the action of successive Viceroys and successive Secretaries of State in their relation to the late Maharajah of Kashmir and the present Maharajah with perfect fairness. I may venture to say one or two words more as to whether the facts which have been laid before us show a necessity for such an inquiry as is asked for. I believe if hon. Members will examine these Papers, they will find that there is nothing in them to call for a review by a Parliamentary Committee of the patient and deliberate action of the Government of India, who seem to have hesitated long before taking any strong step, although the misgovernment of the Maharajah has been, I fear, of a very glaring description. I would only venture to make this one remark. It should be a satisfaction to hon. Members on
    730
    this side of the House to find, with respect to the Government of India, that it has not been drawn into the annexation policy which my hon. Friend deprecates, but that it leaves the Government of Kashmir under a Council of natives guided by the Resident; and in concluding a Despatch addressed by the Viceroy of India to the Maharajah of Kashmir, the Viceroy treats him with the greatest consideration and courtesy, and expresses a hope that it may be possible to give greater power to him in the future. At present the Maharajah is put in an ornamental position. He is not deposed, but simply relieved of the powers of ruler of the country; and these powers are confided to a Council. I hope, therefore, the House will pause before voting for this Motion.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I am not at all satisfied with the statement of the Under Secretary of State for India. The course of the Debate has rather taken us from the point we ought to have before us, and I am very much surprised to hear the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Member who has just spoken, in face of the glaring case which has been made by the Member for Northampton. The Member for Northampton is condemning the action of the Government of India, and is asking the House to express its sense of the course taken by the Government of India with respect to the Maharajah of Kashmir, and his complaint is that they have not given this man a chance of clearing himself from the charges which have been brought against him. It is not to a Parliamentary Inquiry that this man's chance of clearing himself is to be entrusted. Why should we not have a Judicial Inquiry, and why is it that the Government are refusing to give this man a real investigation into the charges made against him? From what we have had brought before us, there is real reason to believe that not only has considerable misgovernment been going on in Kashmir in preceding reigns as now, but that there has been no reproof administered as to this misgovernment. The right

    731
    hon. Gentleman asks us are we going to stand in the way of justice being done in Kashmir, but is he going to stand in the way of justice being done to the Maharajah? If he asserts that he (the Maharajah) is innocent of the charges brought against him—
    SIR JOHN GORST: There are no charges.
    *SIR W. PLOWDEN: Then if there are no charges why is he deposed? Evidently there must be some misconduct attributed to this man; in fact, we know there is, because the whole defence put up by the Government is that he has been misconducting the Government, and because he has been doing so he has been deposed. He says, "I have not misconducted the Government; I am not guilty, and I ask to have my case inquired into." If the hon. Member for Northampton presses his Motion to a Division, I shall be bound to support him, unless we get a clear assertion from the right hon. Gentleman that he will send out instructions to the Government of India to form some Judicial Commission which shall inquire into the charges alleged.
    (7.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 226.—(Div. List, No. 174.)

    SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (VOTERS' QUALIFICATION BILL).
    On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the Qualification of Persons entitled to vote at Elections of School Boards in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (Pleuro-pneumonia) Bill, Anglesey Assizes and Quarter Sessions Bill.

    ALDERSHOT ROADS (COMPENSATION).
    Resolution [July 2nd] reported.
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Compensation in respect of rights of way, that may be awarded under any Act of present Session relating to lands near Aldershot that may be used for Rifle Ranges or other Military purposes."
    Resolution agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  £3,467,600, Provisions, Forage, Clothing Establishments, and Services.
  DR. FARQUHARSON): I should like to say a word or two on this Vote, as it is one in which I have taken the greatest interest ever since I have been in the House. I should like to express a hope that the Report of the Committee which inquired into the question of soldiers' rations will not be put unceremoniously into the waste paper basket, as other Reports of this kind have been. I do not think the Government intend to deal in that way with the Report, because I see that this year there is an increase of £15,000 in the item, which would seem to show that the Government have determined to have regard to the recommendations of the Committee, The plan proposed for remedying the grievance of the men seems to me a fair and sensible one, and brings many practical points under the notice of the Secretary of State, which I hope he will be able to tell the House he has decided to adopt. The only fault I have to find with the Department is that they have not published the full details, for I think it would have been interesting if we could have heard the statements and opinions given in a large number of influential Reports not only from soldiers, but other people of experience, who have a right to give an opinion on the questions now under consideration. I know, however, there have been Departmental reasons for keeping back these Reports; therefore, I will not say anything more on that point. Complaints have been made of the inferior quality of the meat, and it is frankly admitted that there have been good grounds for complaints, especially at the smaller stations. The inferior quality of the meat, I think, has been due to the pernicious practice of always accepting the lowest tender, although the price tendered might be so low as to leave no profit if fairly carried out. I hope that in future when a contractor is found to be supplying meat of a bad quality he will not be allowed to tender again, at any

  733
  rate until the lapse of a certain number of years. The recommendation of the Committee that there should be cooking classes established in the Army is, I think, a very important one, as it will teach the men how to make the most of the nutritive qualities of the meat. Instruction should also be given in judging meat. Then, as to bread, I think there should be some general regulations laid down as to the best description of yeast to be employed, and the most appropriate form of loaf to bake. In conclusion, I would say I think the most important tiling of all that has come out of the investigation is the recommendation that in each regiment there should be an officer directly responsible for the quality of the provisions and the bread. I am sorry, however, the Committee were not able to suggest any practical remedy as to the great drawback which results from the long gap of semi-starvation which exists between dinner time and half-past 12 or 1 o'clock. I am glad, however, to see that one practical man has done much himself to meet the difficulty. Evidence was given before the Committee by Colonel Burnett, of the First Royal Irish Regiment, who has nearly solved the question from his own point of view without making any addition to the actual money charge for rations. He has been able to provide his men with a good breakfast and something nourishing for supper, so a3 to bring them back at a reasonable hour at night and give them a good meal in the morning. I think it very unfortunate that something has not been done for the recruits. The present ration is clearly sufficient for the soldier if it is well distributed, properly cooked, and of good quality; but I think it is not sufficient for the recruit. He is a growing lad; if he has ceased to grow in height he is growing in breadth and thickness, and as he is constantly called on to do a great variety of very difficult work, great strain is thrown not only on his body, but on his mind. I know that the recruits of Caterham are compelled to spend every farthing they can scrape up in order to keep body and soul together, and their present ration is deficient in farinaceous and fatty ingredients, such as cheese, butter, and milk. I must, however, congratulate the Secretary for War on having taken
  734
  up the general question, and on having as I hope, gone a considerable way to wards settling it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I am glad to say that while we have carried out some of the recommendations of the Committee, which I may state includes the Quartermaster General amongst its members, we are in course of carrying out others, and I hope before long almost the whole of the Report will have come into operation. I wish especially to allude to the question of the inspection of meat. Last year the House allowed us to incur some small expenditure on the inspection of meat and the result has been of the utmost service to the Army, and I think the quality of the meat supplied has undoubtedly been improved. The hon. Member has alluded to the importance of giving such instruction as will enable officers to judge between good meat and bad. Officers often do not possess sufficient knowledge to do so. We are endeavouring to remedy this defect, and the Quartermaster General is about to issue a little book which will have the effect of teaching officers a good deal of what they ought to know on the subject. The hon. Member thinks the ration, although sufficient on ordinary occasions, is not sufficient for the recruit. I may point out that the Committee has not expressed any such opinion in its Report, and I must say that the evidence which reaches me is to the effect that the improvement which takes place in the condition of the recruit after he joins the Army proves the ration to be ample. Indeed, I believe it to be the case that in many instances the food the recruits receive after they enter the Army is very much superior to that they receive before they join. I do not know that there is any other point to which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to refer. I can assure him that this subject, having been once taken up, will not be lost sight of, and that we shall do our best to give effect to the recommendations of the Report.
  MR. HANBURY: I have given notice to move the reduction of the Clothing Vote, and the first thing I have to say is that this year, for the first time, clothing and rations are

  735
  mixed up in the same Vote. This seems to me entirely indefensible, for the two things are entirely distinct, and are administered by different Departments. The course adopted must lead to a good deal of confusion, and I am afraid will result in a loss of Parliamentary control over the Vote. I hope that in any criticisms I may have to offer on the subject of Army clothing, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), who has sometimes shown great anxiety to turn and rend me, will not suppose that on this occasion I desire to attach any responsibility to him. I know he represents a very centralised office; I know that the traditions of that office, with regard to clothing and all the rest of it, have been handed on from one Secretary of State to the other, and, therefore, I know it is impossible for any Secretary of State at once to bring about those changes in the War Office, which, to my mind, are in that as in other Departments so urgently needed. It would be useless for me to try and attach responsibility to anybody, for it is the main point of the present system that it is utterly impossible to find out who is responsible for anything. I do not know even whether, as far as the clothing is concerned, I ought, to attack the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Financial Secretary. I have found from experience that it is impossible to make any one person responsible, and, therefore, I shall content myself with attacking the system. The first thing that strikes one with regard to this subject is that the clothing which our officers and men wear in time of peace would be of no use in time of war. When our troops went out to Egypt, did they wear the uniform in which they parade about London? Do not we know that Lord Wolseley has described the dress of our soldier as the dress of a monkey on a barrel organ? Do not we know that when we see private soldiers going about London their dress is so tight that "to bend their backs is to rend their rags." We have done away with the pigtail and the stock, and I hope the time will come when our soldiers will be clothed a little more rationally than they are at present. We know very well—we were told it in the Committee on Army Estimates—what is the reason for the peculiar dress our
  736
  men wear: it is not to repel an enemy, but it is to attract the nursery maids. It is used for recruiting purposes. I am afraid the dress our soldiers wear is, to a great extent, of the same character as much of the drill they go through—the goose steps, the barrack square parade, and the march past—which seems to satisfiy the genius of our military chiefs, I certainly think we should get a much better class of recruits if we saved money on dress and added it to the pay of the soldier. This question of dress has exercised the minds of many of our leading military men. What does it cost to clothe the German soldier, who does some fighting? The clothing of the English cavalry soldier costs £4 17s. 11d.; the clothing of the German cavalry soldier costs £2 15s. The clothing of the English infantry soldier costs £3 3s. 8d.; that of the German £2 10s. 8d. Will anyone tell me that the German uniform, is not fit for war? The German uniform which costs a great deal less, lasts much longer than ours. A greatcoat lasts the English soldier only five years: it lasts the German soldier eight. A helmet lasts the English soldier four years; it lasts the German soldier 10. A pair of trousers lasts the English soldier only three months; it lasts the German soldier 15. As an instance of what we spend on articles of mere show, let me point out that the bearskins of our Foot Guards cost no less than £7 5s. a piece. If there is one thing which ought to be carefully looked to, it is that our soldiers should be well shod. Will it be believed the boots of our soldiers are machine made. The country cannot be too careful to see that our soldiers are thoroughly well shod. But even the showy dress is, to a large extent, made up of bad material. The proof of it is that it lasts such a short time, and an unimpeachable witness is Lord Wolseley, who stated in evidence—
  "I have seen the French Army, and the soldiers of the German and Italian Armies, and, looking at the clothing, I should say their clothing is made of a decidedly superior quality to what ours is. The quality of ours is not as good as it ought to he very often. I attribute it to exactly the same cause that I do the fact that we have occasionally given to us very bad stores, and implements and boots—that is the small price we pay for it."
  That is hardly flattering to the Director of Contracts, who carries on negotiations

  737
  for all his contracts in secrecy. But Lord Wolseley is not quite correct, because the clothes are not cheap. Where have we to look for the cause of the clearness on the one hand and the badness of the material on the other? Why, to the muddle-headed organisation which runs throughout the length and breadth of our War Office. [a laugh.] My right hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) laughs, but what has he to say for the organisation of the Clothing Department? Is it organised for war? Would the present organisation be of any use whatever for war? Distinctly not. The Director of Stores has almost every conceivable class of stores under his control, except the clothing stores. They are kept entirely distinct. What would be the case in the time of war? Would not clothing be treated along with all other stores? And if that would be the case in time of war, why have we not got our organisation ready in time of peace? I do not know why the Clothing Department should be specially centralised. The result is enormous circumlocution. A large number of civilian clerks have to be employed to carry on the correspondence between the War Office and the regiments, on every paltry detail. Let me give an instance recorded in the Parliamentary Paper, which shows what is the result of this distinction and separation. On the 15th of December, 1887, an undress jacket was sent to Woolwich. It was examined by the Board of Clothing, which consisted of a Major and two Lieutenants, and they found that the jacket required repairs, the cost of which was estimated at 2d. The Report of the Board and the jacket was then passed on from office to office, and in the long run the Report showed no less than eight separate signatures, three initials, and eight different stamps. This is why we have so many civilian clerks in the War Office; that is the way in which the time of these gentlemen is spent. We cannot entrust any responsibility whatever to the officers of the different regiments; we cannot trust them to repair a jacket at the cost of 2d., and that is why our officers in the different regiments almost tremble at their own shadow. And what is this precious Central Department to which everything is sacrificed in this way? It
  738
  is situate at Pimlico—of all places in the Metropolis about the worst for such an establishment—an extravagant place as regards site—I should like to know how much is paid per foot for it—and an awkward place for workpeople, looking at the high rents for lodgings in the neighbourhood. I am sorry to say the wages paid are by no means in proportion to the high price the people have to pay for lodgings. I find the girls at this factory only make 8s. or 9s. per week. Who is at the head of this factory? Not a soldier, who might know something about Army clothing, nor an expert, but a War Office clerk, appointed a good many years ago by a relation of Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War. There are too many relations of officials filling posts of this sort. The head of the factory is a mere War Office clerk, who knows nothing of the subject, and he is assisted by another War Office clerk, with no practical experience, either from the soldier's point of view or the export's point of view. And if they had knowledge they would not have any time to supervise this Department, for I am told these men are hardly ever allowed to leave their offices, so many documents have they to sign, documents of the kind I have described. Who are the experts? Of experts, who cannot practically be supervised by those above them, there are only two—far too few for the work. It is proved that they are only able to test 10 per cent. of the clothing passed into the factory. These viewers, or Inspectors, are not only too few, but they are too badly paid. The mere War Office clerk gets £1,500 a year, and the experts, on whom the whole responsibility rests, get £400 a year. There is no check upon these men, and I find that, by a most peculiar arrangement, the men who have the testing of the clothing brought in also have a large voice in saying who shall be the contractor to supply it. Who are these two men? We had a question asked in the House this very afternoon about one of them. He was a most meritorious public servant, who was for 15 years a chief Inspector of clothing; but for two years before that unfortunate man left Pimlico he was practically blind. That is the man to whom we intrusted all the responsibility with regard to our soldiers' cloth-

  739
  ing. Of the man below him I do not want to say anything; he has redeemed his character, but it will not be denied that he was retained in Pimlico factory on condition that he was never to be promoted. An advertisement was issued for the post of Inspector of clothing, and it stated that no man above a certain age should apply. There were 50 applications for the position, every one of which was rejected, and the appointment was given to a man above the advertised age, without any competition whatever. There was no competition, but if it had been known that men of that age would be allowed to compete there would have been many applications. Now I come to the way in which contracts are given in this Department. Here I have not official evidence, but I wish to place some statements fully before the right hon. Gentleman, in order that he may inquire into them and find whether they are accurate or not. In the supply of clothing for the factory there is one pet contractor who, whether he tenders the highest or the lowest prices, always gets the bulk of the orders. For the scarlet cloth infantry, tunics, this man, who quoted the highest price, got nearly the whole order in 1880, and again in 1882 and in 1883, though smaller orders were given to those who made the lower tenders to keep them quiet. In 1884, 1885, 1886, and 1887 the same thing happened again. The same principle was observed with regard to scarlet jerseys, blue tweed, and the grey cloth for greatcoats. Upon this, I say, I have not official evidence, but I will place before my right hon. Friends the facts I have, that he may inquire into them thoroughly. Then I find a very important official giving evidence on these matters—the Auditor and Controller General. If there is one official whose inquiries ought to be encouraged by the House it is the Auditor and Controller General, for he is the only check on this secret system. As to contracts we know nothing of these, the people who tender know nothing of the results, all is done in darkness and secrecy, and known only to the Auditor and Controller General; and how does the War Office treat him? The Auditor and Controller General complained bitterly to the Public Accounts Committee about this, but the War
  740
  Office answered that it was purely a question of administration, that it was not a matter of accounts, and was no duty of his. That is not the line that official takes as to his duty, and if there is any doubt about it I think the War Office would do better to encourage the Auditor General to protect them than to try and stop his mouth. Passing from that I should like to know how this wonderful Department is manned. I should have thought that if there is one Department where employment could be found for old soldiers, it would be here; but no; it is a perfect rabbit-warren for Civil officials, and the few soldiers who in times past were employed there are diminishing day by day. The reason given shows how fearfully and wonderfully made must be the minds of some of the officials of the Department. Mr. Ramsden, the head of the clothing establishment, had, until four or five years ago, excellent discharged soldiers who did duty as clerks, and he complains that he has now to give £250 a year for clerks to do mechanical work that was done better by soldiers who had bad experience in these things. After a time the War Office took it into its head that instead of letting the head of the Department make his selection among old soldiers there should be a roster, and men should take up the work in turn, but Mr. Ramsden soon found that he did not get the men he wanted, and he dropped the system. He was asked did he not make complaint to the Adjutant General, but that did not occur to him; he did not do that, it was not worth his while; he said not a word on the subject. Then, again, we had some light thrown upon the way in which the accounts of the Department are kept. We had practical men to examine them and report, and these practical men, Messrs. Winny and Waterhouse, reported that the books, as far as they related to the cash expenditure, were virtually not books at all, and that no private establishment could possibly be conducted with such accounts. And yet the Clothing Department is not content with doing its own work, but works for many other Departments of the State, for the General Post Office and Telegraph Service, the London and Dublin Police, the Irish Constabulary, the Customs House, the Board of

  741
  Trade, the Convict Service, the Prisons Board, Colonial Governments, India, the Office of Works, the Courts of Justice, Trinity House, and other Departments. Of these the Post Office and Police pay for the work done, but the Treasury has laid down the rule that payment should not be demanded from other Departments. But why should these Departments have the work done for nothing, and the amount go to swell the War Office Vote? Surely we ought to know what the Defensive Services cost us. But this Department, which is so anxious to go beyond its scope and do work for ether Departments, does not do its own work. It was set up to stop sweating in the manufacture of clothing for the Army. The Department, we have been told, could employ 1,600 hands, but actually employs only 1,200. But surely, I should think, having all the expenses of staff and plant, the Department should be worked to its full extent, and extend its employment over as large an area as it can. Here I come to by far the most grave charge against the Department. It was originally intended to stop sweating, and to manufacture the clothing of the Army, but it has been the direct cause and encouragement of sweating. This is not my statement alone; it is the statement of the Director of Army Contracts himself, given before the Sweating Committee. He says evidence has tended to show that Army Contracts have been used for years as a vehicle for sweating, and that the sweating business has been carried on under War Office provisions. This is not merely in reference to accoutrements, as has been stated from the Treasury Bench, but in the more important clothing for the Army, and other Departments of the State. Sweating under the Rules of Pimlico, the Director of Contracts says, has extended to every Department of State that has anything to do with clothing. Then he goes on to compare the prices paid for work inside and outside the factory. A large number of women are employed, and I do not object to that, but the girls only get 8s. or 9s. a week. Lord Dunraven refers to an instance in which a man, having taken a contract for supplying greatcoats at an exceedingly low rate, was asked by the Director of
  742
  Contracts how he could do the work at the price, and he replied that he knew his wages were not high, but at all events they were double what were received at the factory and for shirt-making. There is a direct contradiction between the evidence of Mr. Nepean, the Director of Contracts, and Mr. Ramsay, the head of the Clothing Department. Mr. Nepean said that the wages were higher outside the Department than inside, while Mr. Ramsay stated the direct contrary. I will leave them to settle their differences, but I should have thought it was a thing they could have made their minds clear about. What prices are paid outside? Take the case of Post Office overcoats. We find the price formerly paid was 2s. 9d. a piece. In 1887 it was reduced to 2s., and then further reduced to 1s. 8d., or a third less than two years previously, and the same witness who gave this evidence went on to say that some of these coats had been made in the same room where a child was lying ill, and there is universal testimony that these contracts are sub-let. When the evidence came out before the Sweating Committee what happened? Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Nepean proposed that a factory clause should be inserted in all contracts, binding the contractor not to sub-let. Mr. Nepean also promised that he would fix a scale of prices; but it appears he only promised it with regard to accoutrements, and no promise was made with regard to clothing. He also said he would negotiate between the masters and the men, in order to get fair wages for the latter. It is a scandal to the Government that sweating should be encouraged in one of its own Departments. The men have never been approached; Mr. Nepean has not seen them, and nothing has been done in the way of getting the wages raised. Again, how far has the factory clause been made use of? Mr. Ramsay said the Department had never taken any step to ascertain whether contractors had complied with the factory clause or not. The Director of Contracts also stated that at present no one is responsible for the discharge of that duty. There is a penalty imposed in the contracts, and yet the factory clause is not carried out. There is no inspection at the present

  743
  time. The only attempt that has been made has been on the part of the Director of Contracts, who has endeavoured to see that in the East End of London the factory clause is complied with, but we do not pay him for such work; the man who gives out the contracts is the last man to do it; it should be left to an authorised Inspector. Indeed, I doubt whether there is more than one solitary instance in which the penalty has been inflicted, and yet there is evidence that this rule as to the factory clause is broken day after day. It is in time of war that the stress will come. What are the precautions taken against that emergency? We have practically no reserve of clothing in Pimlico at all. The German and the French Armies have large reserves of clothing for time of war, whereas we have clothing for 50,000 men, and nothing more, except, I believe, an additional quantity of warm-climate clothing for 30,000 men. What would happen if a war suddenly broke out? Mr. Ramsay said—
  "I am afraid that, during a pressure of that kind, we should not be inclined to be very particular as to the enforcement of the factory clause. We should be glad to get the clothing wherever it is made."
  What is the report of the Sweating Committee on the whole system, and the way in which contracts are given out? I wonder if any public official ever smarted under such a Report, and received no censure but rather praise. Not in Lord Dunraven's Report, but in the mild and watered-down Report of Lord Thring, an opinion is expressed that there are grave irregularities in the system of giving out contracts, that greater diligence should be exercised, that the staff of viewers is too small and their wages too low, and often the men who are called on to report are taken from the works of the contractors. I said a good deal about this last year. It was then treated as "rank blasphemy;" but now it is justified by the Report of the Lords' Committee on Sweating. What, after all, is the justification or necessity for all this waste of money, and the possible waste of life, if, when a war comes, our soldiers are badly clothed and badly armed? I can see no reason for all this complicated machinery. The cavalry make all their own clothes in the
  744
  regiment by their own tailors, and why cannot the same principle be applied to the infantry? The one branch does not move about more than the other. They all wander about the country, like a travelling circus, in what seems to me a most unnecessary fashion. If there is an Army in the world in which the manufacture of clothing by the regiments on the spot should be encouraged it is the English Army. Our Army contains proportionately more women on the establishment than any other Army in the world, and they might be advantageously employed in making clothing. The system of having ready-made clothing from Pimlico sent down to the regiments is one of the most ridiculous systems that can possibly be imagined. A clothing roll is made out every year, and the men are measured in a rough-and-ready fashion, but the clothing comes down in assorted sizes, and when many of the men are no longer in the regiment, and every set of clothing practically has to be re-made by the master tailors on the spot, thus adding to the original cost. Sir Redvers Buller admitted that the system of the distribution of the clothing to the troops is a ridiculous one, and that he had often tried to get it altered. From the top to the bottom there is nobody, either in the War Office or in the regiment, or any individual whatever, who has any distinct or personal interest in seeing that these clothes are properly made, or that when they reach the soldiers they are made to last as long as they might last. In every other Army in Europe the soldier has a distinct inducement offered to him to make his clothing last as long as he can. In our Army no such inducement is held out. My hon. Friend shakes his head. Well, I know there are certain regulations as to compensation, but they are for the most part absurd. No soldier is allowed compensation at the end of a year unless the commanding officer can say that the whole of the clothing, with the exception of boots, will last during the whole of another year. If a soldier has satisfied the commanding officer on this point, he still has to go to the general officer commanding the district, and get his assent to the arrangement for keeping his clothes. That is the way colonels of

  745
  regiments are treated by the War Office. The result is endless restrictions and distinctions, and the occupation of clerks in long correspondence. When a soldier is made chargeable for loss of, or damage to, any portion of his uniform, the commanding officer has to work out an intricate arithmetical problem, in order to ascertain how much wear and tear of the article the country was deprived of. The thing is ridiculous, and it becomes the more so when it is borne in mind what ultimately becomes of the clothing. How do the Government dispose of the clothing to which, in the case of a single article being damaged by the soldier, they attach so much importance? Why, the whole of the disused clothing of the whole Army, with the exception occasionally of great coats, is disposed of in one lot to one single contractor. Moreover, it is not disposed of when the clothes actually come into disuse, so that the War Office know what they are selling and the contractor what he is buying, but a great number of the articles thus sold have never been used at all. Last year the contract entered into for the sale of the clothing for the entire Army was actually for three years in advance, at the rate of £50,000 a year, so that the War Office did not know what they sold or the contractor what he bought. The whole thing is a gross speculation. And as to the applications for tenders sent out in connection with this sale, only two were sent out in 1885. That is the way in which the contracting is done. You do not even get public competition. I contend that in this direction, also, a great reform might be made. I hold that the sale of the disused clothes should be intrusted to commanding officers of districts; and I believe if that system were adopted, and the clothes were sold in smaller lots, a much larger sum would be realised for them. Another evil connected with the system is this—and I mentioned it last year—that much of the clothing thus sold has never been in use. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made some improvement in this respect; but it is not worth much if the commanding officers cannot be intrusted with selling anything of more value than 6d. I fully agree with Sir Redvers
  746
  Buller that this contract system of disposing of the disused clothing of the Army is monstrous. But the evil runs throughout the whole system of Army administration. Nearly every other Department is in as bad a condition as this one, and I propose to show when other Votes are discussed that the Clothing Department is no exception. I recognise fully the great pains which my right hon. Friend has taken since he had been at the head of the Department in order to improve it; for few Secretaries of State have worked harder than he has done. Yet, at the same time, I think it would be well if my right hon. Friend would take all advantage he can of the criticisms and facts that are brought before him. If, therefore, I have exposed any blots in the present system, and have shown the existence of abuses that ought to be remedied—and I have brought forward facts and official documents in support of what I have said—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think I have been actuated by any hostile feeling towards him. I know that much of his time is taken up with schemes of military organisation and mobilisation which too often end in smoke, but these are matters which a civilian War Minister might well take in hand. In these days when our territory is extending, when we are taking upon ourselves obligations which it may require the whole Force of the Empire to defend—when our frontier is no longer the sea, and we are becoming a great land power in Africa, Asia, and America, our Army will be a much more important element of defence than it has been in the past; and if the people of the country are to be brought to believe, as I believe, that the Army should be great and strong, the very first duty that the War Office owes to the nation is to let it feel that the money spent on it is thoroughly well spent. In that case I am certain that the people of this country will never grudge the money given for the defence of the Empire; whilst, on the other hand, if the present system of maladministration continues, we shall discover that, however great our necessities, we may some day find the people of this country unwilling to spend money which will be wasted away under this chaotic and idiotic system. (8.45.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): My hon. Friend the Member for Preston has pronounced a strong indictment against the Army Clothing System, and has put before the Committee in very clear language his objections to this Vote. He has complained generally of the system, and his charges are definite, but they are unsupported by facts, and contrary to the experience and opinions of those who are best qualified to speak on the subject. He has told us that not only is the system defective in itself, but that the factory at Pimlico is in the wrong place, and that the wrong men are at the head of that factory. With regard, however, to the results of the system, my hon. Friend has told the Committee very little in support of the strong indictment he has drawn up. He has stated that the clothing of the Army is shoddy clothing, but he did not bring before the Committee a single fact, argument, or suggestion, to fortify that statement.
  MR. HANBURY: I think I mentioned Lord Wolseley.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The utmost my hon. Friend attributed to Lord Wolseley was that some foreign Armies had clothing decidedly superior to ours. I do not desire to detract in any way from the authority of Lord Wolseley; but I must say that that was a somewhat haphazard statement on which to found an assertion as to the value of the whole of our Army clothing. If my hon. Friend were to turn to the Report of the Committee which investigated this subject with the utmost care and attention, and was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), he would find that that Report does not contain a single word by way of attack of the quality of the clothing. When the hon. Member for Preston supports himself by citing Lord Wolseley, I must refer the hon. Member to the answers Lord Wolseley had given to the Committee.
  MR. HANBURY: Lord Wolseley distinctly stated that the clothing of the Army was in most cases too dear, and in some cases extravagantly so.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not remember that Lord Wolseley has used such language in speaking of clothing
  748
  generally. It is possible he might have applied the term "extravagant" to some detail, such as the bearskins of the Guards; but the possession of these is more a question of prestige and sentiment than anything else, and it is not fair to take a remark made upon some item and use it as if it had been a condemnation of the whole clothing of the Army. On the other hand, in reply to questions respecting the German Army, Lord Wolseley said the material of the clothing was good, but the clothing was poor, and the German soldiers fought under great, difficulties on account of their clothing. Lord Wolseley also stated how much longer certain articles were worn in the German Army than in the English Army; but in this connection the noble Lord remembered that ours was a Volunteer Army, for which recruits would not be obtained unless it were a well-dressed Army. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that, in the German Army, one pair of trousers is issued every 15 months, but I am certain that if we were to adopt such a system, complaints would very soon be made in the House of Commons. The hon. Member laboured somewhat ungenerously the question of the quality of the boots supplied, because, in consequence of complaints made formerly, the quality of the boots have been greatly improved, and there have been scarcely any complaints during the last two or three years. In fact, it is well-known that rejected Army hoots fetch a good price in the general market, and if the boots that were rejected were good, it may be fairly inferred that those which passed the Inspector were better. The whole question lies in discovering what is the feeling of the military officials themselves? The Military Authorities have no reason to be specially prejudiced in favour of Pimlico for this reason, that a civilian takes the responsibility of manufacture, and that soldiers have the responsibility of inspection. What is the result of the Reports on the clothing in this last year? There were 3,995 Reports received from the various regiments and various, establishments. Of these, there were no complaints at all from 3,219 cases. Of minor complaints, more in the form of suggestions than anything else, there

  749
  were 603. Of serious complaints there were 173. But 60 of these related to the great coat cloths, which had been, already condemned, and which I informed the House some time ago is to be improved.
  MR. HANBURY: The great coat cloth was raised from 3s. 9d. to 5s. 6d. four years ago. Is that cloth still complained of?
  *MR. BRODRICK: My hon. Friend is aware that we have some reserve at Pimlico, and so everything does not go out at once to the soldier, and I think he will find that the cloth complained of is that which has been superseded. It is very important that this House should not be under any sort of misunderstanding as to the organisation of the Pimlico Establishment itself. Now, my hon. Friend has fallen foul of the whole of it. He has referred in strong terms to its location. Well, we found it there when we came. It is a large factory, and a very good factory. It certainly would be an enormous expense to remove it. It has great advantages of locality, which I am afraid my hon. Friend does not sufficiently appreciate. I think he will find that it is not so much the case as he generally supposes, that the work-people are not living adjacent to the factory, and he will find also that it is au excellent store house and centre of distribution.
  MR. HANBURY: What is the rent?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I cannot at this moment state the rent. It is impossible to answer every question off-hand, though I could do so if time were given me. My hon. Friend, I think, has directed his whole mind to criticism, so that he has not realised the advantages of the situation of the factory. He asked why in the time of war the distribution of clothing was not under the Director of Stores and not under the Director of Clothing.
  MR. HANBURY: I said nothing of the sort. I said the way in which clothing is administered in time of peace is totally different from what it is in time of war.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Gentleman has not correctly stated his case. What he complained of was that the Director of
  750
  Stores is not given the custody of the clothing already made up. You cannot have it both ways. If the Director of Stores is to have the custody he must have the distribution also. My hon. Friend has expressed himself in favour of decentralisation, and here you have a factory which is close to all the large railway stations, so that within 24 hours, the whole of the arrangements being already mapped out, we can supply every article of clothing that is necessary for the whole of the troops. My hon. Friend has made a very severe attack on the whole of the officials administering the Department. He spoke in a tone unnecessarily condemnatory and contemptuous. He spoke of the Head of the Department as a mere War Office clerk, appointed by his relative some 30 years ago.
  MR. HANBURY: I said that he was inexperienced in the work, having come from the War Office.
  *MR. BRODRICK: My hon. Friend constantly reiterated that he was a mere War Office clerk A public official has no power of reply save through the Minister. Here is a man who has long served his country, against whom there is no suggestion that he has not properly discharged his duties, who has not been censured either by the Committee of this House or the Royal Commission before whom he gave evidence—a man thoroughly conversant with his duty, and a man, if he is to be attacked, should only be attacked on definite grounds.
  MR. HANBURY: What I said was this. Of course, Mr. Ramsay has had over 30 years' experience. No one denies that. But I entirely object to the principle of appointing as the head of the Clothing Department a War Office clerk who can have had no experience. I say you ought to have experts at the head of this Department.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I wish my hon. Friend had stated that as clearly before as he has now. That conveys an entirely different impression. I am entirely in accord with him as to appointing experts, but it is not always possible to secure them. Well, then my hon. Friend pointed out our difficulties with regard to the inspection of clothing. I really think the public will sympathise

  751
  with us to some extent in the difficulties in which we found ourselves. Mr. Burnard was a most valuable public servant and he was suffering from a most trying calamity—the loss of his eyesight. His doctors assured him that it was very probable that he would regain his sight. We were anxious not to be deprived of his services, nor did we wish to penalise him because of his misfortune. His duties were discharged for him for a period. His touch was still of value, although his eyesight was deficient; and when we were satisfied that there was no longer reasonable hope of his recovering his capacity of viewing he was pensioned. Then, my hon. Friend says there were a large number of competitors, and that, in spite of that fact, Mr. Wrigley was engaged, though he was over the proper age. It is true that we laid it down that 40 years of age should be the limit, and it was equally true that Mr. Wrigley was above that age, but we were in this position, that although Mr. Wrigley was past 40 years of age his testimonials led us to believe that he was undoubtedly a better man than any of the other applicants. His papers, together with those of the other applicants were submitted to two experts, and these gentlemen unhesitatingly gave it as their opinion that Mr. Wrigley was the person who should be appointed. Under the circumstances we felt that it was absolutely necessary to take the best man, who, I may remind the Committee, was in the very prime of life, with 20 or 25 years of good work in him. He was content to come to us, and, for our part, we considered ourselves lucky in being able to secure his services. The hon. Member brought forward a most serious charge in the matter of sweating. In regard to that, we have been placed in a position of extreme difficulty at the War Office. Contractors of all kinds are willing to compete against one another, on terms which are barely remunerative, if, indeed, they are remunerative at all, for some contracts have been undertaken at an unremunerative price, in order to prevent the establishments of the contractors from being broken up. My hon. Friend holds that we ought to fix the rate of wages, but no Government has been able to do so successfully since the days of the early Edwards.
  MR. HANBURY: That was not my suggestion. I only referred to a suggestion made by the Director of Contracts in evidence.
  *MR. BRODRICK: What the Director of Contracts undertook to do was to ask the contractor at the time a contract was made for the rate of wages he was paying. It would then be possible for us to have regard to that rate of wages in giving out contracts, and, if necessary, to pass over those contractors who were not paying fair wages.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS): Had the Director of Contracts seen the list of prices in the accoutrement trade—the wages paid to the men?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am not referring to that. We bound the contractors to put up the rate of wages paid to their workmen, but that does not arise under this Vote. Most unhesitatingly I say I shrink from adopting the recommendations of my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman attacked us for not doing that which it is extremely difficult to do, namely, to settle the rate of wages amongst those who tender against each other. He complains that we have not properly administered the factory clause. In point of fact, we have imposed a fine in certain cases, but there are other cases in which it is extremely hard to carry out the factory clause. I thoroughly recognise the value of my hon. Friend's suggestion that the wives of the soldiers should be employed in making clothing for the Army. About 4,400 women are so employed at present, and there can be no objection whatever to extending the system, if possible. With regard to what has been said about pet contractors, I may make this remark. The Director of Contracts may accept the lowest tender without reference to a higher authority, but he cannot give the bulk of an order, or any part of it, to a higher tender without the consent of the Financial Secretary or the Secretary of State. If the lowest tender is recommended to him he has power to accept it, but if he desires to give to the man who has tendered at 4s. 6d., 10,000 out of 90,000 yards, and the remainder to a man who has tendered at 5s., he is bound to refer the matter to the Financial Secretary, It is impossible to give the bulk of an order to the highest

  753
  tender without referring to a superior authority. The system on which we have endeavoured to administer tenders is clear. We do not pay anything over the lowest tender if we can avoid it. If a man has previously tendered for the supply of a large amount of cloth, and has carried out his contract satisfactorily, no doubt the facts are in his favour, but ever since I have been at the War Office, our desire has been to give to the lowest tender every yard of cloth we think the contractor can supply, unless the reports against him and the rejections in the case of previous contracts have been so large as to render it necessary to be careful—for we cannot spend the whole of our time in inspecting and throwing away cloth. I can assure my hon. Friend, who has so little confidence in the present administrators of the War Office, that these contracts are given out with the greatest care—as he will find if over he sets foot in the office himself. My hon. Friend was carried a little too far by his animus against the Director of Contracts when he cited a portion of the Report of the Lord's Committee on Sweating. The Report of that Committee says that grave irregularities have doubtless occurred in the "furnishing" of Government contracts. The paragraph reflects, not on the Director of Contracts, but upon those who ought to have inspected goods in times past. I fully admit the unfortunate results of such enormous orders having been given out in 1885, and the Departments are fully alive to those unfortunate results, and have taken them to heart. The Committee was strongly of opinion that greater vigilance should be exercised in placing the contracts; but the experience the Committee was working on was of the enormous orders given out much too precipitately in 1885, the unfortunate results of which we have seen. The hon. Member alluded to the insufficiency of the staff of viewers for the work they have to discharge, and cited the Report as to the small salaries which they receive, which throws great temptation in their way, but my answer is that the staff of viewers is not under the control of the Director of the Contracts. It must be remembered that if it is suddenly determined to spend eleven millions and to
  754
  give out orders in every direction, great difficulty must be experienced in seeing that those orders are properly carried out. The hon. Member has attacked the Department very severely on the subject of the system we adopt in selling disused clothing, and has maintained that such clothing should be sold piecemeal and locally. I must say we differ from him in that respect. The advice we received from a great many quarters has since been confirmed by experience that a much better price is obtained for disused clothing when it is sold in large quantities than when it is sold locally in small parcels. My hon. Friend makes a comparison between our Army and other Armies. But Lord Wolseley pointed out that under the practice in Germany the troops never move. The soldier has a large box in which he keeps his clothing, so that he can use it to the very last. "We, on the contrary, shuffle our men out of their old clothing the moment it is done for," says my hon. Friend; but there he makes a mistake. Every commanding officer keeps that clothing as long as he likes. We, on our part, have no desire to hand over a single garment to the contractor that the officer commanding a regiment desires to keep. But our commanding officers have this difficulty to face, that they have to take these men on foreign service, and be prepared to move with them from place to place, and they will not hamper themselves with a large quantity of clothing, so that what occurs is not the fault of the officers, but of the system. My hon. Friend contended that we should effect a saving if we did not sell in such large quantities. Well, in deference to his views and those of others, we called for tenders, either for part or the whole, for any garments separately and in any numbers, and the result of that system is that tenders for the whole are infinitely higher, relatively, than tenders for a part of the same articles. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) calls us to account for having a large establishment at Pimlico, and for not using it up to its full capacity. That is really a question of policy. We think we should need a very great expansion in time of war, and we cannot provide for that expansion solely by

  755
  means of contractors. In our opinion, we should do well not to work our factory above 50 or 60 per cent, of its capabilities. We consider it a wise policy to maintain factories of such producing power that there will be no necessity for running to contractors all over the country in case of any sudden emergency arising. The hon, Member was, I think, a little hard upon the Department when he complained that work was done at the Pimlico factory for the colonies and the Post Office. If other Public Departments want their work done at Pimlico that shows that, in their opinion, the work done there is efficient and of a highly satisfactory character. Complaint has been made that we have not a sufficient reserve of clothing. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind if I say that on that point he based his complaint on an isolated answer of the Director of Clothing. We thought it desirable at the time that not too much information should be given. I do not wish to say at what period of the year we had an enormous reserve and at what period we had the least reserve, but I may tell the Committee that the figures given related to by far the smallest reserve in that year. What my hon. Friend said about the discussion as to small expenditure on repairs was extremely amusing, but I am sure he will admit that these are not things of every day occurrence, and it is obvious such repairs should be and are executed at the regiment. With regard to the clothing for which the soldier is charged we cannot, I think, make too accurate a calculation when we are stopping the amount from the man's pay. Now, I trust I have shown that the Department does not deserve all the hard things my hon. Friend has said of it. We feel as strongly as he does the necessity of having the clothing of the Army in a thoroughly practical and efficient condition, and we are very far from shutting our eyes to any improvement that may be suggested. The Quartermaster General, who has been cited, has full opportunity of representing his opinions very strongly, and his views have immense weight with the Department. We desire to preserve the factory at Pimlico, as at present, so as to be capable of expansion and to keep up the trade all over the country, so as to
  756
  ensure the high quality of the garments supplied. I do not think anything has fallen from my hon. Friend which would justify the Committee in assuming that the country has lost anything by the system that has been pursued during the last two or three years. I admit that there have been times of pressure, when the supply has not been as satisfactory as it might have been, but we are always ready to recognise the efforts of those who, like my hon. Friend, do their best to show us where we can remedy defects. We shall use every effort to provide that contractors who get a fair price from us give a fair price to their workmen. In this respect, the advice of any Member of the House who is interested in trade will be valuable, and I would invite suggestions from any Member on either side of the House, and information as to any case of sweating under a Government contract.
  MR. HANBURY: One practical question. My hon. Friend invites suggestions. Will he see that proper Inspectors are appointed to see that the Factory Acts are put into operation, so as to prevent sweating?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say the War Office would do everything they could to put down sweating. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can read the Report of the Lords Committee on sweating with keen satisfaction. The Government Departments have not come out of that investigation at all well. If there is one body more than another which can and ought to keep its contracts free from all kinds of sweating, it is a Government Department. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was nothing to complain of in connection with the strictures of the Lords Committee. I think the very paragraph he quoted, as far as it relates to the placing of contracts, taken in connection with the other comments of the Committee on Government contracts, is something which the representatives of the War Office ought to look into. I would point out that the one; thing which has been told all through is that, wherever possible, the factory clause has been introduced into contracts. The evidence of the Director of Contracts himself, however, and the strong state-

  757
  ments which appear in the Lords' Report, show that the factory clause, as put into contracts, is simply a delusion and a snare. If the factory clause is put into contracts, why do not the Government see that it is carried out? You had better by half leave it out of contracts altogether than delude Members of the House with the idea that it is having a great effect in doing away with sweating when it is doing nothing of the kind. The Director General, in the course of his evidence before the Committee, stated that all the clothing contracts now contained the factory clause, but said he had no means of inspecting the factories during the execution of the contracts. Asked whether anybody had a right to check the contractors, he said the Home Office Inspectors visited them for the purpose of the Factory Act. He was asked, "Is it nobody's duty to find out whether the factory clause is carried out in Government contracts?" and his reply was "Not at present." He said he trusted to the bonâ fides of the contractor and that in large contracts it was more economical for contractors to do the work themselves than to get it done outside. Now, Sir, I do think that before this Vote is passed we ought to have a distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) that machinery will be created for the purpose of putting the factory clause into force. I do not intend now to go into the questions so ably dealt with by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury). I would merely say that, after trying as an outside Member to get the knowledge that is necessary to protect the working people, I have arrived at the conclusion, which I think is also the conclusion of the Lords Committee, that the best thing we can do, at all events for a start, is to get the factory clause put into all contracts and thoroughly carried out. It is because we believe this would tend to suppress the sweating that has undoubtedly gone on, and full evidence of which will be found in the Report of the Lords Committee, that we press the right hon. Gentleman for some statement as to the action the War Department is going to take to provide that the operation of the factory clause is not a sham but a reality.
  COLONEL NOLAN): I think this Debate shows that it is
  758
  a doubtful question whether the Government ought to have a clothing factory or not. The maintenance of such a factory cannot bring them directly in contact with all questions affecting labour and capital. It a different thing at Woolwich and Enfield, where the best classes of labour are employed, and the men are highly paid. In a clothing factory you have to deal with a class of people who get about the lowest wages in the country, and the question at once arises whether the Government should take upon itself the settlement of any of the problems of work and labour. I believe private manufacturers could supply clothing quite as well as any Government factory. It is very necessary we should have a Government factory for warlike stores; but I cannot think it is necessary to have a Government factory for clothing. Soldiers like Members of this House do not want the best material. They like to have new clothes on; after a time they get absolutely sick of old clothes and desire to cast them aside. They therefore do not require the best material. Soldiers do not care for a great coat that lasts for ever. On the whole, I think the clothing is tolerably fair. There are some regiments that are very expensive. The Financial Secretary instanced the Guards. There are also Highland regiments, and several of the Cavalry regiments, whose clothing is expensive, something like £6 per head. There is one point which lays the Government open to suspicion, and it is that the contracts are not published. No one knows whether the lowest tender is accepted or not. The non-publication of the, tenders is a system which may lead to corruption. Of course, I do not mean to say that the person who at present is in authority is at all dishonest; but the only way to get rid of the possibility of corruption is to publish the winning tender. Again, I think the troops ought to be localised more than they are at present. We should save a great deal of money, and add greatly to the comfort of the soldier. On the Continent there is considerably less movement; but here regiments are moved from Aldershot to Dublin, from Dublin to York, and hack again to Aldershot, and all in the space of a very short time. Another point the Secretary of State

  759
  ought to turn his attention to is the food of the soldier. I think the soldier is sufficiently well-dressed to attract recruits, but I think he ought to get more food or more pay. I do not think he should get a larger ration of meat or bread, but at present the soldier has to find his sugar and butter. The least we could do would be to give the soldier a free breakfast. Again, I have found lately that the Infantry soldiers are very small and young; you are taking them about a year younger than you used to do. They, of course, grow into fine men, but I think it is bad policy to take men who are too young for their work. The result is that you are practically paying 1,000 men when only 600 or 700 are available. I have no doubt it is very difficult to find recruits. The soldier is beginning to thoroughly realise that he does not get a pension, and that he does not get his food free: all he gets is ¾ lb. of meat and 1lb. of bread. I should like to know what is the price paid for meat.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I quite admit the time has arrived when the rations ought to be increased. At the present time there is difficulty in recruiting, and the difficulties increase as the wages of civilians increase.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I wish to interpose at this point to remind the Committee that there is a general desire on the part of hon. Members to reach the discussion of a matter of great importance to the Army. Although I cannot suppose it will conclude to-night, I understand there is a general desire to begin the discussion to-night. With regard to what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, he seems to suggest a doubt as to whether the clothing factories should exist at all. The idea is that we should hand over to each regiment the duty of providing their own clothes. That system was tried, and it broke down. There is one important matter to which I should like to draw attention. We are always liable to strikes, and I can well believe the Army might be placed in a most dangerous and difficult position in a time of crisis when we required garments on the
  760
  shortest notice if we were not able to control the supply. I am quite ready to admit that the clothing factory may not be established in the best place, but still it is of great advantage to the Army. The hon. Member for Preston asks what is the rent of the ground. It is £3,500 a year; we hold the ground on leasehold tenure. Then my hon. Friend asks a question with regard to the wages paid at the clothing factory. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the rate of wages in the clothing factory compares not unfavourably with that in any other establishment. Machinists get from. 23s. 6d. to 24s., and sewers from 14s. a week. The hon. Member says the clothing supplied is not cheap clothing, and he goes on further to advocate very strongly the principle of open contracts. I have always told him that I feel very strongly that the system of open contracts is the better system; but surely the hon. Member will see that the system of absolutely open contracts is impossible of application at the same time that you are trying to abolish the system of sweating. If you allow complete competition between contractors you cannot ensure that they will not resort to sweating.
  MR. HANBURY: You must not take the lowest tender.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: My hon. Friend, says we need not take the lowest. I thought it was the very point of the discussion, that if one thing was more desirable than another it was that we should take the lowest tender.
  MR. HANBHRY: I mean that it should be seen what the contractor gives his men.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: An hon. Member also suggested, I think, that we should quote the prices at which the contracts are obtained. So far as I am concerned, I have a perfectly open mind on the question of making tenders public. My hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty is equally disposed to adopt that system which, upon the whole, seems the best in the interests of the country. We have directed inquiries to be made to contractors in all parts of the country, and to bodies perfectly well able to gauge what is the best course to be adopted, and we find the preponderance of opinion not only among contractors, but Chambers of

  761
  Commerce was that it is not desirable to make those tenders public. And two responsible officers, to myself and to my hon. Friend, reported that after the most careful consideration, they did not think it in the public interests to make tenders public. I have considered the matter, and speaking for myself, after considering that Report, I came to the conclusion that it was founded on sound principles, and that it is not expedient that tenders should be made public. Then the hon. and gallant Member spoke of the movement of troops, and I entirely agree with him that economy should be consulted in moving the troops as little as is consistent with efficiency and comfort. But you cannot always keep the troops in one quarter. There are only a certain number of pleasant billets in the United Kingdom, and if, when you bring troops from foreign parts, you were to put them in uncomfortable quarters—I will not say in what part of the United Kingdom—where they have discomforts, and where they have not the society of their friends, you may depend upon it the system of voluntary enlistment would be seriously endangered. Therefore, we are obliged, in the interests of the Service, to give all our troops a share of pleasant quarters; otherwise, the Service could not be carried on satisfactorily. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary calls my attention to the fact that as regards the cost of transit in the present year we are enabled to show a saving of £10,000. Then, also, the hon. Member referred to the question of inspection. I think both hon. Members will admit that the responsibility of factory inspection does not lie with the War Office, but with the Home Office. Factories in which goods are produced for the War Office must be inspected just as much as any other factories by the Home Office. But we do accept special responsibility with regard to certain particular points; and I told my hon. Friend, in answer to a question which he addressed to me some weeks ago as regards clothing, that the Director of Clothing has taken care that certain officials from the Clothing Department should visit the factories. But my hon. Friend suggests that we should appoint one Inspector. For my part, I think very considerable advantage is derived
  762
  from the existing system of having, instead of one Inspector, a change of Inspectors who are not known to the contractors. I have dealt with the various points that have been raised, and I only want to refer to two other points. My hon. Friend has talked of the Clothing Department, and he has attributed all sorts of evils to the system which is pursued there, and he told us in language very minatory that this Department was only typical of what was going on in the various Departments of the War Office, and when the time comes he will show that to be the case. If he can only show that the other Departments of the War Office are conducted as well as the Clothing Department, I will be very glad. I believe, for my own part, that the Department is conducted in a manner which reflects the utmost credit upon its managers. I am very certain that every inquiry that has been instituted has only resulted in showing that it is one of the best conducted Departments in the Public Service. I will go very much further. I invite any hon. Member of this House to visit that factory. He shall have access to every branch of it; he may see the books, and every facility will be given him to ascertain the system of management, and I am perfectly confident he will come back to this House filled with the belief that there, at all events, is a Public Department conducted on sound principles of economy, combined with efficiency. One other point my hon. Friend talked about, the reserve of clothing, and he quoted from a Report now several years old. What I have to say to the House now is practically only a repetition of what I said when I made my speech on the Vote for the Army Estimates. We have given our closest attention to the question of the reserve of clothing. It has been insufficiently attended to. I do not want to blame one official or another, but it has not been fully attended to until recently. We have given our utmost attention to the reserve of clothing, and at this moment I am happy to be able to say that we have not only a satisfactory reserve of clothing, but we have such arrangements as will enable us, in the event of the mobilisation of all the Forces of this

  763
  country for the purposes of defending the United Kingdom, to supply within a reasonable period, calculated according to the probabilities of the notice we should expect, within a perfectly reasonable and a very short period, all the troops of the regular Army, the Reserves, and the Militia, with the further clothing that they would require properly to take their places in the defence of the country. I hope that statement, broad as it is, will be satisfactory to the House. One step further. My hon. Friend talks of the necessity of decentralisation with regard to clothing, and he points out that we have decentralised other stores. Why, ha asks—and perfectly reasonably—do we not decentralise the clothing? I will tell him why. Supposing the troops in a particular dep6t centre were called out for service at this moment. There may be a regiment of Highlanders, and, you may have had in the year before a regiment of a totally different character, and for which the clothing would be absolutely useless. Nor can you tell the size of the men for whom you are called upon to provide clothing. On the whole, considering the necessary changes that take place and the different sorts of troops which are found at any given station from year to year, we feel that an absolute economy of time is produced by keeping the main portion of the clothing in one centre, so that when the occasion arises for the issue of it for the purposes of mobilisation, it can be despatched, as we are absolutely able to do within a very few days, to the quarters where it is required, and according to the needs of the particular place. I hope the House will think that the War Office has made reasonable provision, and that it will now allow the discussion of the further Vote, in connection with which there are questions to be raised in which a very large number of Members are specially interested.
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.): The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the inspection of factories. The Factory Inspector has no right to interfere with what is intended to be interfered with under the Factory Clause. In the present position of the labour market, the outcry against sweating in all parts of the country, and the
  764
  very severe condemnation of the Government system in the Report so recently issued, I do think that the right hon. Gentleman should take special care to enforce the Factory Clause. I quite agree that the present system of inspection is better than having one man to go from place to place, and I do urge upon him to see that the Factory Clause is absolutely carried out.
  MR. W.REDMOND): The right hon. Gentleman has stated, as I understood him, that 14s. 6d. is paid for a week's hard work. I should like to know how that compares with wages paid in other factories. I think that in matters of this kind the Government ought to set a good example, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out some hope that these people will be paid in the future something like a fair amount of wages.
  MR. HANBURY: My right hon. Friend has spoken of this Department as being of great use in case of a strike. May I ask him whether these persons are entitled to anything in the shape of pension? because, if not, I cannot see in what way the Pimlico factory can be regarded as a protection against strikes.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I believe it will be found that the amount of wages paid compares favourably with what is paid elsewhere for the same kind of work. I may add that we are very careful in the selection of those who are employed in this work, and that we have made admirable arrangements for providing them with excellent food at an exceedingly low rate.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £258,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891."
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am under a pledge to the House to state what are the views the Government entertain with regard to the Report of the Commission presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale. And I do not think I should properly be discharging my duty if I did not ask the Committee to allow me to express to the

  765
  noble Lord and his Colleagues my very hearty thanks and the thanks of the Government for the manner in which they discharged the very arduous labours they undertook. That Commission was a very strong one indeed. It contained no less than three ex-Secretaries of State. It contained, also, two or three men who have had a large experience in the administration of other Services, as well as men of business habits, and altogether nobody can deny that they formed a very strong Commission. There is one thing on which I desire to say a preliminary word. There was an exceedingly able article in the Times newspaper describing the recommendations of the Report in a manner to which I do not desire to raise the smallest objection, but it did me the honour to include me as one of the members of the Commission. I am bound to say I can claim no such honour. I was not a member of the Commission, and I am rather sorry that in the otherwise very accurate Report that statement should have been made. Now, the Commission over which the noble Lord presided went to the very root of the matter and discussed principles of the most vital importance, and laid before us a State Paper which we read now with great interest, and which I venture to say will remain on record as one which those who have to administer, either the Army or the Navy, for many years to come will undoubtedly require to have recourse to. I propose to deal, first, with the preliminary Report of the Commission. And here I may say that, with the exception of one particular recommendation in the preliminary Report bearing on the Admiralty, I do not propose to refer to the recommendations in relation to the Admiralty. That is for my noble Friend; but the particular proposal to which I am about to call attention is one that affects not only the War Office, but also the Admiralty. There is a proposal in the preliminary Report that there should be established a Naval and Military Council for the purpose of considering questions affecting the War Office and the Admiralty. Now, I ought to say that I think the actual differences between the War Office and the Admiralty have been very much exaggerated. The experience of my noble Friend the First Lord
  766
  of the Admiralty, as well as my own, leads me to the belief that there is no necessity for any friction or serious difference between the two Departments. Of course, my noble Friend and myself have had differences of opinion on many questions affecting the two Departments; but those differences have never assumed any acute form, or one likely to endanger the efficiency either of the one Department or the other. But there are matters between the two Departments in connection with which the work must necessarily overlap. The more they desire to do their work well the more is the work likely to overlap; and I think, for my own part, there is nothing more important as regards the proposal of a Military and Naval Council than a paragraph which I will now read, and which shows the particular points it is most desirable should be referred to such a Council if It should be established. The Report of the Commission says that the Council should be summoned from time to time
  "To consider and authoritatively decide upon unsettled questions between the two Departments, or any matters of joint naval and military policy, which, in the opinion of the heads of the Services, required discussion and decision. It would he essential to the useful ness of such a Council and to the interests of the country that the proceedings and decisions should be duly recorded, instances having occurred in which Cabinet decisions have been differently understood by the two Departments."—
  Now, the criticism which I have to offer on the part of the Government upon that proposal is this—we do not think that it covers ground enough. We think that questions affecting the Army and the Navy also in many respects affect the Colonial Office, the India Office, and sometimes even the Foreign Office, arid the Government think, therefore, that any scheme that might be adopted dealing with these matters will be essentially incomplete if it do not take into consideration the wants and wishes of those two great Departments. Having, therefore, taken into consideration the recommendations of the noble Lord and his Colleagues, and bearing in mind that criticism which I have mentioned to the Committee, we think that a Naval and Military Council might be formed within

  767
  the Cabinet under the presidency of the Prime Minister. I do not at the present moment desire to lay down any basis limiting either the functions or the constitution of the Committee, but we think it is essential for the naval and military policy of the country being conducted in relation to and in concord with the other great Departments to which I have alluded that such a Committee should, in some form or another, be constituted. We agree also with the recommendation of the Commission that the Resolutions of that Committee should be formally recorded. We think they should be submitted to the Government for approval, and that after they receive the approval of the Cabinet they should be recorded not only for the benefit of all the Departments concerned, but also for the benefit of our successors in office. Now, Sir, I proceed to deal with the further Report of the Commission; and, first of all, I should like—dealing, I will not say with minor questions, but with questions not of the first importance—to invite the attention of the Committee to the recommendations in paragraph 100 of the Report. Paragraph 100 recommends the establishment of a permanent War Office Council, under the presidency of the Secretary of State, and the object to be atained is "securing unity of administration and strengthening the consultativn element in the War Office." Most Members of the House are aware that in former times there existed at the War Office a Council to which various officers were summoned to give their advice to the Secretary of State on important questions that might arise. But we perfectly agree that meetings of that sort require to be placed upon a more definite, permanent, and secure basis than that on which they now stand, and we are of opinion that in future there should be a formal War Office Council meeting under the presidency of the Secretary of State, not in any way derogating from or depriving him of complete and sole responsibility for all that goes on within the walls of the War Office, but, nevertheless, assisting him in a more formal manner than hitherto in arriving at decisions of primary importance to the country. We have said that that Council should be
  768
  composed of civil and military officers, and we have taken steps to provide for freedom of discussion in the Council, and for recording the decisions at which it may arrive. Closely connected with this is the question of the establishment of a Promotion Board. The question of promotion, especially to the higher ranks of the Army, acquires very great importance from the fact that promotion by seniority to the higher ranks will be abolished, and that selection becomes the rule for the rank of colonel and also of general. We take this opportuaity of securing that promotion to the higher ranks which, I believe, for the most part in times past has been satisfactory, shall be not only satisfactory in itself, but shall recommend itself to the general opinion of the Army. We think that can best be done by the establishment of a Promotion Board connected with the War Office, which shall recommend to the heads of the Department men who ought to be selected for promotion to the higher grades. In this way we believe that a better choice would be made than has hitherto been the case. I now come to the much larger and graver question—the great crucial question—which I may sum up in the proposal for the abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. I do not think I can better state what I want to say than by quoting from the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, while acknowledging to the full the services rendered by the present Commander-in-Chief, go on to recommend that when a vacancy occurs certain great changes should take place. In paragraph 67 they say—
  "While we have considered it necessary to indicate the defects in principle which exist in the present organisation of the War Office, we recognise that the unique position so long hold by the present Commander-in-Chief may have rendered it undesirable to adopt any other system in making the recent changes, and that his great experience may have enabled the existing system to work with the success claimed for it during the short period for which it has been in operation. His Royal Highness has on all occasions accepted with the greatest loyalty the changes which successive Secretaries of State have thought it right to introduce, and he has brought to bear upon the work at the War Office a personal popularity with the Army in general which cannot fail to be of public advantage."
  And they go on to say—

  769
  "But it is clear that no possible successor could enjoy a position and influence which years of service to the State are alone capable of establishing. We therefore proceed to indicate the general lines upon which we think the administration of the War Office should he based, and towards which, on the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of Commander-in-Chief, or at any favourable opportunity, future changes should be directed."
  Nobody can deny that the recommendations which follow are far reaching. They are to the effect that the office of Commander-in-Chief as it at present exists should be abolished, and that there should be established a Chief of the Staff, who should be responsible to the Secretary of State, and who would promote unity of administration at the War Office. I say again that these are very far-reaching recommendations indeed. They affect almost every branch of military administration, and they raise questions as complicated and perplexing as any Government has ever had to face. It is quite clear from the discussion which has taken place that some of these questions excite opposition of the most varied character. And they affect not only the working of the War Office, but also the position and relations of the War Office to the general government of the country and to the Crown. These recommendations, supported as they are by high authority and contained in a State Paper of extraordinary importance, have engaged, and are engaging, the most serious attention of the Government. We feel that it is not a question to be disposed of off-hand nor without the fullest investigation and consideration, and, while we are fully aware that no decision of ours upon this great question can bind any successors of ours who may happen to be in office at the time when the vacancy in the office of Commander-in-Chief occurs, we reserve to ourselves the right to announce at the time of our own choosing our definite opinion upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I desire, on the part of the Government, to express our concurrence in the terms of the paragraph in which the Royal Commission state their views as to His Royal Highness. I think I am entitled to speak with some little authority as to what His Royal Highness has done, and this, at least, I will say—and I am sure right
  770
  hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have had similar experience will agree with me—that I believe there can be no doubt that, whether in the occasional differences that happen between the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief the Commander-in-Chief is wrong or right, he is always actuated by a feeling of devotion to the Service to which so long a period of his life has been given, and by a keen desire to maintain its honour and promote its interests. While I have no desire to express a final decision upon the main principle, we think that there is no reason why, at the present time, we should not fill up the office of Adjutant General, which is shortly about to become vacant. I have seen it stated in some of the newspapers that Lord Wolseley was retiring because of personal differences with myself. I am very glad to say, in spite of the newspaper paragraphs, that my relations have been always uniformly of an extremely friendly character with Lord Wolseley. He is retiring from the War Office now, having exceeded the term of office for which he was appointed. He will retire on the 1st of October next, and I cannot allow that to pass without saying that I think he may rest satisfied that the work he has done for the War Office during the seven years that he has been connected with it as Adjutant General will undoubtedly leave a permanent mark. He may be perfectly satisfied the foundation has been laid of an organisation which I believe will be satisfactory, and likely to remain the permanent organisation of the Army. We have also had to consider his successor. Our desire, our feeling of responsibility leads us to say that two conditions ought to be fulfilled, first, that we ought to have the strongest man that it was possible to draw from the ranks of the Army; and, second, that we ought to have a man not only acceptable to ourselves, and to me personally, but also acceptable to the Army generally. Of course, there is a name which naturally springs to the minds of a good many of us—I mean the name of Sir Frederick Roberts. It is the desire of the Government that the great services of Sir F. Roberts should be utilised in the best way and in a manner which will result in the greatest advantage to the Public Service, and lam quite certain, speaking

  771
  as I do at a great distance from Sir F. Roberts, that if he were here to-night he would cordially share that opinion. He has never been desirous of pushing any claim. He has always been desirous of trying to serve his country in that post in which he finds himself, and after very careful consideration of the whole position of affairs the Government has come to the conclusion that in the excellent work which Sir Frederick Roberts has done and is doing in India he ought not to be disturbed or interrupted. We have, therefore, with his consent, decided that he is to remain in India for the next two years. The successor, therefore, of Lord Wolseley will be Sir Redvers Buller. I think that in choosing him for this important post we are choosing a man who, as far as we can judge, will deserve and obtain the confidence of the Army. Personally, I deeply regret to remove him from the post which he has filled with so much advantage to the Public Service. The position of Quartermaster General is one of great importance. Not only must the man there be one of great ability and of first-rate industry, but we know that at certain critical times it is a post on which the very efficiency of the Army largely depends. That leads me to make one further remark. My experience is that in certain critical times the War Office has been nearly denuded of officers, who are appointed to the field. I am the last person to deny to them the opportunity of gratifying their legitimate ambition of going to the front when they can. If we denied it to them I am sure we would have difficulty in filling the posts, but it is not right that both the principal Staff Officers of the Commander-in-Chief should leave the country and go to the front. I think it is necessary to lay down the complete understanding that, so far as we are concerned, it will not be possible for both these officers to go to the front. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I say one word personally of myself. These questions of Army administration are—I am sure the Committee will admit it, though I think they hardly know the fact to the full extent to which I myself can speak of it—of the utmost difficulty and complexity. I think I may say that I have had more than my fair share of them. Over and over again I have had the forbearance and the con-
  772
  sideration of the House of Commons when I have had to make known to it the views of the Government with regard to these important questions; and, without that regard and consideration, no Secretary of State would wish to administer, or could satisfactorily administer, the important Department of the War Office.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N. W.): I had hoped that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale or some occupant of the Front Opposition Bench would have risen to debate the extremely important question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend, who has so well acquitted himself in a very difficult position indeed. He has not stated quite as much as I could have wished, and I hope on some future occasion to hear more with regard to the Commander-in-Chief. He commenced his speech this evening with a very important statement indeed with regard to the Naval and Military Council which it is proposed to create. Now, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Report, because I think it is virtually important we should have them before us. The first point which strikes me in the consideration of the organisation of the two great Departments is that while in action they must be, to a large extent, dependent on each other, and while in preparation for war they ore absolutely dependent on each other, yet little or no attempt has ever been made to establish regular intercommunication or relations between them or to secure that the establishment of one Service shall be determined with reference to the requirements of the other. Now, in time of war it would be the duty of the Army to defend our distant possessions, such as India and the Colonies, and no perfect military organisation would enable the Army to do that effectually unless backed up by the Navy, which would be called upon to transport the troops. On the other hand, while the efficiency and power of the Navy is perhaps less absolutely dependent on the Army, yet the latter is necessary to give security to our military ports at home and abroad. Now, my right hon. Friend has said nothing about the preparations

  773
  for action by the Army and Navy in the case of certain contingencies arising.
  *MR. B. STANHOPE: I spoke distinctly of joint Military and Naval Forces.
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: I wish to know whether schemes are already prepared to be put in operation in certain cases of eventualities—such as an attack on Constantinople, or India, or the Colonies? My right hon. Friend has, indeed, said that there is to be a Committee of the Cabinet; but unless experienced Military and Naval Officers outside the Cabinet are taken into the Committee, or into direct consultation with the Committee, its schemes for the defence of the Empire will not be satisfactory. I look on the gravity of this question as exceedingly great. I think the Naval and Military Members of this House may congratulate themselves on having brought this question prominently forward. They did me the honour two years ago to ask me to propose the Motion which resulted in the formation of a Committee of the Cabinet, and that Committee has increased greatly the strength of the Navy and arranged for the defence of our Colonies. This was followed by the appointment of the Royal Commission, presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, whose Report constitutes a valuable contribution in the interests of the country. I know the difficulty of coming to a conclusion on this point suddenly; but I understand my right hon. Friend has agreed that a Council shall be appointed at the War Office to assist him in carrying out all these great objects which come under his consideration. It is very well to have a Council, but we should like to know how that Council is to be constituted, and how it is going to act in regard to the Commander-in-Chief, for that is a very important thing. The Commission, presided over by the noble Lord, has suggested that there should be a Chief of the Staff. I infinitely prefer a Commander-in-Chief or a General Commanding-in-Chief. Such an officer ought not to be subservient to the Government that appoints him. What the Army want is an independent man, so independent that he will not be subservient to any particular Party. The Army feel that if
  774
  the Commander-in-Chief or the Chief of the Staff is independent of the Secretary of State for War, so far as constitutionally he can be independent, their services will meet with that fair consideration which they deserve. Soldiers will feel aggrieved if the question of promotion is intrusted entirely to an Adjutant General, or any man who is not in the highest military position. These things have been pressed upon us strongly, but I will not, until we have had time to consider the statement of my right hon. Friend, go into details. The Secretary for War has been silent about the subject of ordnance. If there is one subject which deserves consideration more than another, if there is one subject in respect of which we have allowed foreign nations to get in front of us, it is the subject of ordnance. In old days we refused to begin making breechloading guns and allowed other nations to outstrip us, and now we are paying the penalty, and have not, even now, anything like the quantity of guns we require. The same may be said with regard to shot and shell; and some of our guns are so nearly the same size of bore that shot has been sent by mistake for one class of gun which was intended for another. Difficulties of the kind have, in fact, occurred very recently. Then, are we certain that we have yet got the best rifle? It would be wise to re-organise thoroughly the Ordnance Department, and the expediency of doing so ought to be gravely considered by the Cabinet, but especially by the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S. W., Ince): I believe the arguments against putting the Army and Navy administration under a Ministry of Defence or a single Department are perfectly sound. I think the financing of each Service requires the full attention of a Cabinet Minister. As to the constitution of a Council under the Presidency of the Prime Minister I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend proposes that course, and I certainly agree with the view that it is most undesirable that there should be a member of that Council who is not under a sense of

  775
  responsibility. I think the club utterances of men competent to form an opinion, but who are imperfectly informed of facts and have no sense of responsibility is one of the great difficulties of the present day. With regard to the protection of our military ports, I agree with the view held in the Navy that the military should be responsible. They should—assisted by torpedoes and by floating batteries, which might be fashioned out of old line of-battle ships, and strengthened for the purpose, our fleet proper being kept free to act abroad. The internal administration of the War Office is a matter of far-reaching importance. It is not a mere question of the best arrangement for the organisation of a Government Department; it involves the entire relation of the military to the civil power in this country. The object of the country in establishing and maintaining the present quasi-dual system has been that the military power should never be the rival of the civil power, and that the Army should be kept free of politics. And whatever shortcomings may be urged against our military system, it must be admitted that this object has hitherto been successfully achieved. We have no Boulangism as in France, we have no meddling in political demonstrations by military students, we have no "pronunciamentos," as in Spain. Our military system has also been successful in maintaining a uniform system of discipline; and I fear that if there is not a general commanding-in-chief, a military head to the Army to enforce that advantage, the system of discipline will soon be found to vary under every command. I hold, therefore, that the office of general commanding-in-chief should be retained. Officers at the head of Departments at the Horse Guards are too much absorbed in matters of routine to give sufficient attention to, and to keep up with, military progress and invention abroad, and a military officer as chief of the Staff is also most necessary. Mechanical invention has made wonderful progress in recent years, and woe to that country that does not keep abreast of that progress. Mechanical invention as applied to war had little existence through the campaigns of Frederick the Great and the First Napoleon, it had some effect on the
  776
  Crimean War, and in the years since has made rapid progress. For instance, in 1866, the Austro-Hungarian Army entered on a campaign with muzzle loaders against breech loaders, with a result that might have led to the collapse of the Empire, and no generalship or courage could avert it. A complete change in armament was necessary, and even a change of uniform. In 1870 the Prussian Guard attacked at St. Privat in a formation for infantry, which had been condemned by Von Moltke in 1865, and lost in a very short time nearly 8,000 men, almost as many men as the British used at Inkerman. It is most necessary, therefore, that there should be a Department which is not entirely absorbed by routine and personal questions, but which will have time and opportunity to study these matters. I am very glad to hear from the Secretary of State that it is proposed to have a Board of Promotion, for this is a question of much importance to the efficiency and welfare of the Army with the reduced list of Generals. It will, I think, be found desirable, also, to re-organise the Ordnance Department with a view to the complete and efficient arming of both the Army and the Navy; but I believe that if the office of general commanding-in-chief is abolished, and the Secretary of State made the head of the Army, the Army will not be kept free of politics, while the only excuse for a civilian being War Minister will cease. This is a grave question, which should be very carefully considered by those who propose to abolish the office. I am very glad to see it is proposed to increase the position, the consultative position, of the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. In the next naval war we may have the misfortune to be engaged in, it will be found that squadrons on the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Channel, and even the American stations, will be within supporting distance of each other, and may have to act in combined operations, they will be in telegraphic communication through the Admiralty, and practically the First Naval Lord will control movements over this vast area.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to move that you do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Admiral Mayne.)
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: As there are evidently several Members who desire to speak on this important question the Government will offer no opposition to that Motion.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c.): When will the consideration of the Vote be resumed?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot answer that with certainty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the question to the leader of the House, who will be here in a moment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman says there are obviously many Members who desire to speak, and this is such an unusual reason that it should be noticed. I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman say on that account he will offer no opposition to the Motion to report Progress. I only wish the Government would occasionally extend the same consideration to Motions of the same kind from this side of the House.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: When there is any genuine desire for Debate the Government are always ready to meet it. When such Motions are made for obstructive purposes, they feel it their duty to oppose them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to give an instance of such obstruction on this side. [Cries of "Order!"]
  *DR. FARQUHARSON): Suppose the Debate upon Vote 10 should conclude to-morrrow evening, will the right hon. Gentleman then go on with Vote 2?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: After this Vote it is proposed that my noble Friend (Lord G. Hamilton) shall submit the Naval Vote, which has relation to the same subject, and which it is desirable to take next. After that we shall proceed with Vote 2 in the Army Votes.
  *DR. FARQUHARSON: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give notice of
  778
  the intention and allow adequate time for a discussion upon that Vote, in which much interest is felt.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I am quite ready to say it will not be taken without reasonable notice.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.): I would ask the Secretary for War whether he means that the determination of the Government with regard to the formation of the Council of Defence is that it shall consist of a Committee of the Cabinet composed of the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I think my hon. Friend will see it would be exceedingly inconvenient to attempt to answer that question on a Motion to report Progress. If the hon. Gentleman will raise that question in Debate I will endeavour to answer him fully.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR): This is a question of first-class magnitude, but it is unfortunately distributed over two different Votes. If it is also to be discussed at the fag end of different sittings and at uncertain intervals that will be in no way satisfactory. I therefore ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when again before the Committee, the Vote will be taken at such an hour as to enable the Committee to have something like an exhaustive discussion on the whole matter?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government are exceedingly anxious that ample opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of this important question. We had hoped that sufficient time would have been obtained to-night; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are not responsible for the interruption which has prevented the full discussion of the Vote. The Vote will be put down for tomorrow in the hope that it may be reached at a reasonable hour. If it is not reached at a reasonable hour, other Votes will be proceeded with.
  It being Midnight the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 241.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUM (IRELAND) (OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION) BILL.— [No. 358.)
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [2nd July], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
  And which Amendment was, in page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words "whose whole time has been devoted to the service of such asylum."—(Mr. Crilly.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday, 17th July.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 366.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  OPEN SPACES BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 303.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.—(No. 8.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING (RECOMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 350.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  FISHERIES IRELAND BILL—(No. 43.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACARTNEY): May I ask if it is the intention of hon. Members opposite to have this Bill printed this Session or not? If not should not the Order be discharged?
  MR. SEXTON: I will put the matter before the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

  MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND, BILL. (No. 38.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SEXTON: This day, Sir.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member whose name is not on the back of a Bill to say to what day it shall be deferred?
  MR. SEXTON: In the absence of a Member whose name is on the back of a Bill I presume it is in order for any hon. Member to move.
  MR. MACARTNEY: One of the hon. Members whose names are on the back of the Bill is in the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps that hon. Member will name the day to which the Bill is to be deferred.
  MR.T. D. SULLIVAN: This day, Sir.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.
  Ordered, That the parties appearing before the Select Committee on Aldershot Roads Bill have leave to print the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee day by day from the Committee Clerk's Copy if they think fit.—(Mr. Brodrick.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.