Commons Sitting of 26 May 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL (by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, considered.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. Thomas Ellis)—Compensation to yearly tenants—is not in order. It cannot be moved with the Speaker in the Chair.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to move a new clause to prohibit the use of barbed wire in the fencing the Corporation may erect. I understand from the paper which has been circulated by the Corporation of Birmingham that they do not object to the insertion of such a clause should the House see fit to insert it, and, indeed, in reference to one estate I find that such a clause has been inserted. It appears to me that if it is proposed to have such a provision in reference to one estate, it should be good for all the estates concerned under this Bill. I think there is a general feeling in the country against the use of this barbed wire for fencing; it is cruel to animals and it causes a great deal of unnecessary annoyance. As I understand there is no opposition to the clause, I need not trouble the House further.
    New clause—
    (Barbed wire.)
    "The Corporation shall not use any barbed wire in connection with the erection of any fences or otherwise,"
    —brought up, and read a first and second time.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "erection" to insert the words "or maintenance."—(Mr. Brunner.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have to move the new clause in the form in which it appears on the Notice Paper, and my reason is that the common rights involved should be under the control of a representative and independent body. By Clause 46 of the Bill power is given to the Corporation to acquire common land by agreement, which implies that if the Corporation offer sufficient inducement commoners may dispose of their rights, and those rights would then be disposed of without consultation with any independent authority. But I think there should be some independent authority to protect public rights other than the rights of commoners. After all, the importance of these common lands is due to the fact not only that certain individuals enjoy certain rights in the commons, but that the general community have an interest in the commons, and it is the interest of the community we desire to protect, not merely that of individuals. Secondly, the object of my clause is this. By Section 49 of the Bill power is given to the Corporation to make bye-laws regulating sheep washing, the digging of turf, the cutting of ferns, fishing, recreation, and things of that kind. Now, I do not think that unrestricted power should be given to the Corporation to make such bye-laws as they may think proper, subject only to the approval of the Secretary of State, who, of course, will have no local knowledge. An investigation should be held on the spot in accordance with the policy pursued in the Local Government Act passed by the present Government. It is right, I think, that the local County Councils should have some power of intervention in the matter instead of the bye-laws being left entirely to the Birmingham Corporation, whose interest, of course, it will be to make such bye-laws as stringent and restrictive as possible. These bye-laws should be prepared by representatives of the people resident in the district. The Councils will naturally regard the interest of all parties of the ratepayers, as well as of the Birmingham Corporation, the community generally, and the tourists who visit the district. The clause proposes that

    1859
    the bye-laws shall have the final approval of the Board of Agriculture, and so I think they will be fair to all parties.
    New Clause—
    Page 42, after Clause 49, insert the following clause:—"The common or unenclosed lands (as aforesaid) and the common or commonable rights over such lands shall be subject to the management and control of trustees, to consist of three persons to be appointed by the council of the county of Radnor, two persons to be appointed by the council of the county of Brecon, and one person to be appointed by the council of the county of Cardigan, the persons so appointed being removable by, and vacancies filled by the body who appointed them, such persons to be called 'The Trustees of Common Lands.'"
    The said trustees may, as respects the common or unenclosed lands, as aforesaid, make bye-laws for the prevention of the pollution of the water flowing through and from such land.
    The bye-laws may include all or any of the following purposes:—

    (1.) The regulation of the cutting peat or turf for fuel, and the cutting of fern and rushes;

    (2.) The regulation of the exercise of fishing rights by the people of the district and town of Rhayader in the upper reservoirs and streams flowing into the same;

    (3.) The prevention of nuisances and of any act tending to the pollution of the water flowing through the common and unenclosed lands;

    (4.) The regulation of recreation on the said lands, and the prevention of the disturbance of stock growing thereon by dogs and otherwise;

    (5.) All such bye-laws shall be made by the said trustees, subject to the approval of the Corporation and the Board of Agriculture,"

    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As Chairman of the Committee I may state to my hon. Friend and the House what was the view taken by the Committee of this matter. The Committee, very reasonably I think, sympathised with the desire of persons in the locality that they should not be absolutely at the mercy of the Corporation of Birmingham with regard to the bye-laws to be made. At the same time, the full extent of these proposals hardly
    1860
    commended itself to the Committee—namely, that the County Councils of the different counties concerned should have a hand in the framing of the bye-laws for the purpose of protecting from any danger of impurity the waterworks of the Corporation. Surely the Corporation are themselves in the main the best judges of what is necessary for this purpose; but in order that local interests might be protected, and to meet local ideas, what the Committee did was to provide that the bye-laws should be subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, the central authority to whom is deputed the duty of protecting local interests in these matters. But the Committee also made the suggestion, which was adopted by the promoters of the Bill, that before being submitted for the approval of the Board of Agriculture a copy of the proposed bye-law should be sent to each County Council, in order that the Councils might have the opportunity of making suggestions in regard to it. Accordingly in Clause 49 of the Bill it is provided that the Board of Agriculture shall be the authority to which the bye-laws shall be submitted, provided that a copy of the proposed bye-law shall have been sent to the Clerk of the County Council in each county where the bye-law is intended to operate one month at least before application is made for its confirmation. Thus full opportunity is given to the County Councils to point out where any mistake may have been made, or where there is any unnecessary infringement of the rights of commoners. I may say generally the Committee were most careful to preserve the rights of commoners and of all persons resident in the locality, and I believe the Bill goes much further than any Bill I can remember in the direction of the protection of local rights. I am bound to say also that we found the Corporation most willing to meet our reasonable view in this respect, and I can confidently say that comparing this with any previous Water Bill of a similar character Parliament has had to deal with, far greater care has been taken to protect local rights, and I am not aware of any right that has not been fully preserved, so far as it is possible to preserve it, under the

    1861
    provisions of this Bill. If this is not so in any case, then it is contrary to the intention of the Committee. With regard to these bye-laws, there was a statement expressed that the casual wayfarer would have his feelings less disturbed if he found that the regulations were signed by the local County Council rather than by the official of the Corporation, but I do not think there is much in that sentimental view so long as substantially the people of the locality have ample power to make their voices heard and opportunity to make their views prevail. They have this under the Bill, with the protection of the approval of the Board of Agriculture, and I really do not think it is necessary to insert this clause.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I am quite ready to recognise that in the later stages the Corporation did, under pressure, consent to make considerable changes in their Bill, but I venture to say the clause as it stands will not serve the purpose the Committee desired to attain. In the original Bill the Corporation desired the power of buying up in toto all rights over 32,000 acres of common land, but in Committee a change was made by which the commons are still to remain in their present condition and under the present tenure, so that peasants and tenant farmers may still retain their common rights over these 32,000 acres of common. There is at present no authority whatever to take care of this fundamental question of the purity of the water. It is for securing the purity of the water that, according to Clause 49, these bye-laws are to be framed. But, according to the provisions and intentions of the Committee, these common rights are to remain as they are under the Corporation of Birmingham, and it is only by consent under Clause 46 that common rights are to be bought up. Now, in the meantime, and before the Municipality of Birmingham acquires the common right over these 32,000 acres of gathering ground for their water supply, there will be no authority to look after the interests of the commoners. Now I venture to think that even in the interest of the purity of the water you should by this Act create some body as
    1862
    trustees to look after these matters. It is much more than a sentimental question; it is a question of safeguarding the rights of commoners and of the inhabitants of the district. It is impossible for the Municipality of Birmingham, even with very good intentions, to know of all the interests in the case, and I think the least that should be done is that some responsible representatives of the Local Authority should have the initiative in the making of the bye-laws for the general management of the district. I think in the interest of the purity of the water, and until the common rights are bought up—if they ever are bought up, which I hope they may not be, and even then—that the Local Authority in the interest of the population of the district should have a voice in the making of these bye-laws. I trust that the Chairman of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) will see that not alone in the interest of the locality, but in the interest of the purity of the water supply the clause proposed by my hon. Friend is well worthy of consideration.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: If the intention is to give to these trustees authority to make bye-laws for the land not acquired by the Corporation, that is not the meaning of the clause. The new clause simply applies to "the common or unenclosed lands ('as aforesaid')"—that is, those lands which have been acquired by the Corporation. If, therefore, the object is to regulate the use of the land not bought by the Corporation the clause entirely fails to do it. I am bound to say, as a member of the Committee, that it is not correct to say that the Corporation of Birmingham yielded under pressure to the changes in their Bill, because from the first, and in the opening speech of their counsel, they expressed their desire not to acquire greater powers than were absolutely necessary for the main purpose of the Bill and the security of the purity of the water. I do not pretend to a very large experience in respect to these Water Bills, but I am bound to say I hardly ever knew the promoters of a Bill more anxious to limit their powers to the necessities of

    1863
    their object and to meet the wishes of the Committee and the petitioners than the Birmingham Corporation were in this instance. With regard to what the hon. Member has said as to the rights of the public over these commons, I would observe that there is no such thing as the right of the public over common lands; they belong to the lord of the manor and the commoners; the public have no right. ("Oh, oh!") That is so; the rights are those of private ownership, and except on the Queen's highway the public have no rights whatever. They may have an easement; they may have a right of way; but as to a general right to wander over such unenclosed lands, it has no existence, and I believe it is not known to the English law. In this Bill we have rather extended than diminished any rights of the public.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I do not think any of the Members who represent the Principality desire to deny the willingness of the Corporation of Birmingham to meet the natural necessities of the case, and to deal in a fair spirit with the demands made by the people of the locality; but, of course, this is a Bill of such an unusual character as to remove it altogether from the category of ordinary Water Bills, and it is therefore our duty to look more closely into details than might be necessary in other cases. While we recognise to the full the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as to the desire to protect the interests of the people of the locality, we do not feel that that has been secured under the Bill. It will be observed that a copy of the bye-law is to be sent to the clerk of the County Council; but there the matter stops, and there is no power given to the County Council to take any action under the Bill. The difficulty would be met if the Council had some operative power conferred upon it. If the County Council had the power to call upon the Board of Agriculture to institute a local inquiry that would be something. I hope it is not too late to adopt some proposal in the direction of the clause.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: On behalf of the Corporation Birmingham I recognise the friendly
    1864
    spirit in which this matter has been dealt with by hon. Members. I am very glad to see there is no idea of antagonism to the Corporation, the intention being to protect the interests of the inhabitants as well as of the Corporation. I can confirm what has been said by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sydney Gedge), that from the first the Corporation frankly said that their only desire was to obtain such rights as were necessary for their purpose to secure the purity of the water. If it were possible to arrange this without the acquisition of the freehold by the Corporation I should have been delighted to have avoided what I feel is an enormous responsibility. Now, the whole question has been considered by the Committee from this point of view, and the Committee have imposed on the Corporation certain changes in the Bill intended to safeguard local interests. Of course, if the Corporation had regarded the matter from a different point of view, though they might not have been able to resist the decision of the Committee, they might have accepted the conditions with the intention of restoring the Bill to its first shape during the progress of the Bill in another place. But the Corporation had no such intention; they accepted all the alterations which, after a full hearing, were suggested by the Committee, and they have no intention to endeavour to obtain any alteration of the concessions made. With regard to this, which is, after all, a minor point, I need only point out to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that the Corporation are investing an enormous sum of money in this undertaking, and I am bound to say, speaking as one very much interested in the prosperity of Birmingham, that it is a painful necessity; that nothing less than the apprehension of a water famine would induce us to undertake such an enormous responsibility. But as we are about to expend six millions of money we must take care that we secure the purity of the water we supply. To that purpose are these clauses directed, and only to secure that do we in any way desire to interfere with the use of the commons; and in making these bye-laws, to insure that consideration

    1865
    shall be given to local wishes, it is provided that the bye-laws shall be submitted for the approval of the Board of Agriculture. The suggestion has just been thrown out that the Board of Agriculture should hold a local inquiry, if requested to do so by any of the County Councils interested, before confirming a bye-law prepared by the Corporation. This appears to me a most reasonable proposal; and in principle I shall be glad on the part of the Corporation to accept it. Of course, there is a difficulty in introducing just the right words at a moment's notice; and perhaps the hon. Member will now withdraw the clause, on the pledge given, that the representatives of the Corporation will consult with hon. Members below the Gangway with the view to the insertion, in another place, of an Amendment which will provide that a local inquiry shall be held when such, in the opinion of the Local Council, appears to be necessary.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Upon that understanding I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw this clause.
    Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. MORTON: I have now to ask the House to adopt the Amendment, notice of which I have given to Clause 5—namely, to add the words—
    "As are within the limits of deviation, and required for the reservoirs and works by this Act authorised."
    I am aware of the difficulty of inducing the House to make an alteration of this kind after a Committee has considered the Bill; but, however, an addition has been made at this stage showing that at any rate we are justified in giving consideration to these matters even now. As I understand the matter, the Corporation propose to take many thousands of acres more than they really require for their works; and I do not see why this should be allowed in this particular case, and I understand it is not usually allowed. I understand that when a railway company or other promoters are given powers to acquire land, then any surplus land left, after completion of the works, is sold within a certain time, or else the promoters lose that land
    1866
    altogether. It appears to me there is no sufficient reason why this Corporation should take large quantities of land they really do not require for the purposes of these works in any way whatever, and probably against the interests of the people of Wales. I am told, in the papers which have been circulated by the promoters, that this re-opens the large question with regard to the acquisition of land which has been considered by the Committee, and I am told also that in another clause they deal with this matter to some extent by proposing to let the land. But this does not appear to me enough. I quite agree that Birmingham ought to be allowed to get a good supply of water, although I am not certain that they ought not to be compelled to pay the Welsh people for taking this water from Wales, or, at any rate, to make compensation in some form, because the proposal includes something more than supplying water to Birmingham. The Corporation propose to supply water to other districts, so that to some extent it has the appearance of a gigantic speculation, upon which the Corporation are embarking with the money of the ratepayers. But I do not think they ought to speculate with the ratepayers' money, and, therefore, I propose to limit these powers of acquisition to land actually required for the authorised works. Perhaps we may have some explanation why this large quantity of land is to be taken, and, meantime, I move my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 5, after the word "reference," to insert the words "as are within the limits of deviation, and required for the reservoirs and works by this Act authorised."—(Mr. Morton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: To carry such a proposal would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the whole matter was discussed on the Debate on the Second Reading, and it was very carefully gone into by the Committee. I believe I have the authority of the Chairman of the Committee to say that the Committee had no hesitation in agreeing to the contention of the Corporation that it would be

    1867
    impossible to successfully conduct this great scheme without the Corporation having full control over the drainage area.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must correct one word used by my right hon. Friend. He says the Committee had no hesitation in accepting the view of the Corporation; but the fact is, we had in one sense a great deal of hesitation; that is to say, on the first blush—I speak for myself particularly—I was very much opposed to this acquisition of land. But the more the matter was examined the more did the necessity for this appear. The land, or a vast extent of it, is unoccupied; it is not altogether waste land—it is pasture land; and the interests affected are comparatively few. If we had seen any way of avoiding this large acquisition of land, we should have been glad to adopt it; and we were fortunately able to suggest, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge), a proposal to the Corporation that when the value of the land had been ascertained—purchased as it were—that then it should be given back on a 999 years' lease to those to whom it belonged if they chose to exercise their right. That seemed to us to meet the case, and to save the interests of those concerned, while securing to the Corporation that control which it was forced upon us day after day it was necessary the Corporation should have. That having been secured, I think the Committee at that stage, and when we came to our Report, had no hesitation or difference of opinion.
    *MR. MORTON: Under the circumstances I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw my proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MORTON: My next point refers to the same matter—it has relation to the rent to be charged for these lands we have been speaking about, and which are to be let on 999 years' leases. This rent is to be, according to the Bill, three per cent. on the cost of the land, including, of course, all the costs in connection with the taking of the land and the minerals under the surface. But in the conditions of the leases no mineral rights will be disposed of, so that the Corporation
    1868
    will not be re-letting all that they have purchased. It has occurred to myself and others that, considering the reservations made by the Corporation, two and a half per cent. would be sufficient to cover the actual cost of that which is re-let. I see that the promoters in their statement say that they will have to borrow the purchase-money at three per cent., and, therefore they ought to get three per cent. on the land purchased with the money. But as I have pointed out, they do not re-let all that they purchase, and should therefore make some allowance, which I think may fairly be calculated as the difference between three and two and a half per cent.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 16, to leave out the word "three," and insert the words "two and one-half."—(Mr. Morton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has very frankly said, in moving this Amendment, that it has reference to the same subject as his last Amendment; and as he was good enough to withdraw the last, so, to be consistent, I hope he will withdraw this also. I am sure he will be the more inclined to do so, for I hardly think he does justice to his own financial reputation. Let me point out to him the effect of the Amendment. The suggestion is that the Corporation of Birmingham, which will have to borrow the money at, I am sorry to say, three per cent., or perhaps a little more, shall then invest the money at two and a half per cent. Now, if they were to adopt such a financial policy as that, I think the Corporation would start on the road to the Bankruptcy Court.
    *MR. MORTON: That is not my proposal.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Further, it is to be observed that on the terms of compulsory purchase and conditions attached the owners will be at a great advantage in selling their land, and they are not compelled to take leases. I think the hon. Member must see his proposal is not a reasonable one.
    *MR. MORTON: If I maybe allowed to explain, I would point out again that, though the Corporation may have to borrow at three per cent., they do not re-let all they purchase; they reserve all mineral rights.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The hon. Member is, I think, mistaken. If he will read the clause he will see that the three per cent. is not on the full purchase-money, but on such sum less the value of minerals, &c. Surely the hon. Member will not press his proposal?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    *MR. MORTON: My next Amendment refers to the same matter, but to a different class of tenant. The Corporation are to let farms now occupied by annual tenants or by those who have short leases on leases of twenty-one years, rent and conditions to be arranged. Now, it occurs to me that if the Corporation are willing to let the land for a term of twenty-one years, then at the expiration of that term I do not see why the tenant, if he desire to do so, should not be allowed to take a fresh lease. I have not heard why a tenant should be turned out at the end of twenty-one years any more than at the end of two or three years. I think if the tenant has this right of protection for twenty-one years he has an equal right to that protection in perpetuity.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 18, after the word "years," to insert the words "and shall renew the same from time to time for further periods of twenty-one years if demanded."—(Mr. Morton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am very sorry my hon. Friend, who takes such an interest in this question, did not attend some of the proceedings of our Committee upstairs, when he would have seen how careful we were to protect the interest of these very tenants. Apart from the usual and ordinary proceedings in Committee on a Private Bill, this Hybrid Committee called for independent testimony from the district without the intervention of counsel, and we had the account from themselves of some
    1870
    six, eight, or ten farmers who were to be affected under the clauses of this Bill, and in the result the Corporation agreed to meet the case by this provision of twenty-one years' leases. We were told that these tenants are annual tenants at present with no leases whatever and no fixity of tenure at all, but that they are well treated by their landlord and hold their farms at a very fair rent. They not unnaturally had a fear that this dreadful Corporation, coming in with mercantile ideas, might treat them in a severely commercial manner, and make their fate much worse than it had been. I think, having gone the extreme length of offering to a man who has no lease at all, and is absolutely uncertain as to his position, a twenty-one years' lease at the admittedly very moderate rent now paid, we have done as much as Corporation, Committee, or Parliament can be expected to do.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to press this Amendment, but I take the opportunity to say that the right hon. Gentleman has rather exaggerated the generosity of the Birmingham Corporation in this matter. I do not doubt that the Corporation will make liberal compensation to the landowners, but I am certain that this treatment of the tenants is the very least which in equity should be given. It is quite true, and the truth is a scandal, that these tenants are in the position of being liable to be turned from their holdings at six or twelve months' notice; and it seems to me that to give them the security of a tenure for twenty-one years is the very least that should be given. I hope, even if the Amendment is not accepted in its present form, that, at any rate, in another place the Corporation of Birmingham will, in the case of land not required for the works, give present tenants the first choice in the renewal of leases; and, further, I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who has charge of this Bill, that in another place some consideration, some regard, shall be had to those tenants who actually will, under this Bill, be turned from their homes and sent adrift in the world. I find that it is, technically, not

    1871
    possible for me to move the clause with which I intended to deal with these cases; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that liberal compensation shall be given to tenants who are to be turned from their homes after occupation extending over thirty, forty, and even in some cases more than seventy, years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some undertaking on these points—that, in cases where farms are not wanted, the present tenants shall have first choice of renewals of leases; and that where tenants are actually turned out liberal compensation shall be given them.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only pledge the Corporation to this: that they will undoubtedly be most happy to give the fullest consideration to any suggestion made by the hon. Member in the interval between now and the promotion of the Bill in another place. In regard to these particular cases concerned in the Amendment now before us, the tenants were, as the Chairman has said, fully heard, and I think I am justified in saying that when they understood what the Committee proposed to do for them, they went away absolutely and perfectly satisfied. At the same time, if there is any chink, any hole, any lapse in the proposal considered in Committee to which my hon. Friend will call attention, I can assure him that the fullest consideration shall be given to it by the Corporation.
    MR. MORTON: As I understand the matter will be re-considered, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But do not let me be misunderstood. The proposal now is for perpetual renewal of leases, and this the Corporation must undoubtedly refuse.
    MR. MORTON: I understand that consideration shall be given to the position of these tenants in consultation with my hon. Friend, and I will not press the matter further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. ELLIS: Clause 53 has been amended in deference to opinions expressed in the House, and I confess that even as it is, it is not an admission of the rights of the people of the locality. But I would point out to
    1872
    the Chairman of the Committee, in reference to what he has said as to the desire of the Committee to protect the rights of the locality, that as the clause stands at present there is no real guarantee that the people in the district will have the rights and privileges referred to in the Bill secured to them. I venture to remind him of the experiences in regard to the Corporation of Liverpool in a similar matter. The clause has reference to the rights of fishing. Now, I am not a lawyer, and I am not quite certain whether there are actual rights of fishing to be proved by Statute Law, but this at any rate is certain: that from time immemorial the inhabitants of the district and the town of Rhayder have, unmolested, enjoyed the rights and privileges of fishing in all the streams in this tract of 34,000 acres of common land. My present Amendment is to insert after "rights," the words "and privileges," and this followed by a consequential Amendment to line 26 adding the words "hitherto enjoyed," so that there may be no doubt as to the rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by the inhabitants and the town of Rhayader. There is, I believe, no record of an inhabitant ever having been molested by a landowner in the exercise of this privilege. It is said in this statement issued by the promoters that it is only a right enjoyed on sufferance; but whether it is or not it is a very substantial right or privilege; it is of great benefit to the people of the locality, and its abrogation will give rise to much expression of feeling. It is in order that there may not be that annoyance and litigation which have arisen in connection with the Liverpool Corporation reservoirs that I propose this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 23, after the word "rights," to insert the words "and privileges."—(Mr. T. Ellis.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and privileges,' be there inserted."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the Committee, so far as I can speak for them, were entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend, or in substantial agreement with him. We had a good deal of evidence

    1873
    on the point; and as to the right or privilege, whichever it may be called, of the people of the district of Rhayader and outside the particular water area, to fishing in the waters there, the Committee considered the question of inserting the words "and privileges," and we determined not to do so, our reason being that we did not wish by the Bill to create any new rights. We only wished to maintain and not to interfere with existing rights. Although there is this very free privilege of fishing, yet it has the nature of a privilege, and it was not for us to convert that into what my hon. Friend speaks of as a statutory right. As we understood, it was only reasonable to expect that the Corporation would be perfectly willing that people should continue to fish just as they have fished. I do not know that a man fishing on the banks of a stream will make any difference in the purity of the water supply. The view of the Committee was that they should not assent to the insertion of the somewhat vague expression "privileges." But I believe that all that is wanted by my hon. Friend is secured by the clause, and I would advise the House not to accede to the proposal to insert these words, which I may say was not very seriously put before the Committee.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I can assure my right hon. Friend that this is regarded in the locality as a very serious question. The privilege of fishing has, as my hon. Friend has said, been exercised in the district from time immemorial, and it is highly valued. This privilege is in danger of destruction under the Bill. We are not seeking to create anything new; we simply wish to maintain what admittedly exists. It may perhaps seem an unimportant detail to some hon. Members, but it really is an important matter in the district. I hope the promoters will agree to make this concession to local feeling, and surely it is undesirable to leave the matter open to vexatious litigation. I think we ought to press this Amendment.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the words he proposes do not add anything in substance or
    1874
    force to the clause as it stands? The clause as it stands does not provide for what my hon. Friends want, nor does it give any protection to the class to whom they allude. The clause should read that the Birmingham Corporation shall not interfere with any person fishing in the district, except to prevent the pollution of the streams. The clause as it now stands in no way confers any right, and if the addition suggested by my hon. Friends is made, it will even then confer no right. They ought to secure that when the Birmingham Corporation take any proceedings for trespass, the matter should be investigated in some local Court, so that these Welshmen may not be brought up to London to have the fishing rights tested. In twenty years' time there will be a Corporation in Birmingham that know not Joseph, and they will not know the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman has pledged his word in this House. This Bill is to be passed for all time, and the Corporation might in the future take a very different view of their rights from that which is now expressed.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill stated that he did not wish to confer any new rights. That maybe so, but I think he also admitted that it was intended to commute the existing practice so far as it interfered with the object of the Birmingham Corporation. The existing practice is that the inhabitants have been in the habit of fishing in these rivers, but unfortunately they have no right of fishing. A right of fishing is not acquired by long usage like a right of way, and a right of fishing could never be gained in private waters. But despite that fact fishing has been practised without interruption from time immemorial, and the landlords never would have interfered with these rights, although they may not be legal rights. What we want is that this practice shall run no greater risk of being interfered with by the Birmingham Corporation than by the landlords. The Committee have to a certain extent recognised this fact in giving leases to the tenants, and I think a similar protection ought to be afforded in this matter. I cordially agree with the hon.

    1875
    Member for North Longford that different words should be introduced in this clause, because the word "privileges" does not mean legal privileges, and will confer no real privileges in this matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill will give some undertaking that will satisfy us that this practice, although a practice that is not compassed by law, shall not be interfered with in the future; and moreover that the Birmingham Corporation shall not have the power to interfere with those rights.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I do not know who is responsible for the drafting of this clause, but it seems to me to be a very onerous one so far as the tenants are concerned. It throws upon them the onus of proving that they have the absolute right of fishing in these waters. In the last line of the clause you have the words, "without interruption by the Corporation"; but to secure that freedom from interruption the tenant must prove that he has the absolute right to the fishing. This right does not exist, but it has been a custom from time immemorial, and we desire that these people should remain undisturbed, and that a right shall be given to them by Parliament to continue the practice of fishing in these waters. I hardly think the alteration proposed will meet the circumstances of the case; and I think it would be much better if the clause were made to read—
    "The Corporation shall not interfere with any person fishing or cutting fern or turbary unless for the purpose of preventing pollution, or subject to the bye-laws authorised by this Act."
    If the clause were passed in some such form as that anyone could claim the right or privilege of fishing, and it could be established in a Court of Law. The right should be given to the tenants to go on that land and fish in these waters as they have been in the habit of doing. The clause should not be agreed to as it stands, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) will be willing to communicate with those who are interested on behalf of the tenants, and see if a clause cannot be drawn up to meet the case.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to point out that the Bill was drafted by the Corporation of Birmingham; that it was submitted to the Board of Agriculture, and was the subject of a local inquiry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow some alteration to be made, so that the Bill may go to the House of Lords in proper form.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: An appeal has been made to me, but I thought that the whole of the facts and reasons had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). But the wishes of hon. Gentlemen seem to have changed whilst this matter has been before the House. What the Amendment asks for is not a matter of very great importance. It would not do the hon. Member much good and it would not do us much harm, and if it will shorten this discussion, and the hon. Member will meet me on the matter which proposes to give these gentlemen the right of fishing in the river—that provision would be absolutely impossible, because it would take away from the Corporation the control of the water—but if he will meet me on that I will meet him on this. Now, the question has been widened by the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), who has taken the Welsh Members under his charge, and constituted himself their voluntary legal adviser. He proposes to transform some doubtful privileges into an absolute and inalienable right. As I understand the question, the position which has been taken by the Committee was that they would go to the full extent of the limits of their power in order strictly to reserve any right or privilege that could be shown to exist; but, on the other hand, they thought they would be going beyond their powers if they created any new rights. And, if the hon. Member asks that a new right should be created for the first time at the expense of the Corporation, I cannot agree to it.
    *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) told the House

    1877
    that while the Birmingham Corporation wanted the Welsh water, they did not want to take the Welshman's fish. As one of those who think that the right of fishing, which the inhabitants have exercised for years, ought not to be interfered with, and understanding the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to say that Birmingham wanted nothing but the pure water, I cannot see why he should not be satisfied with full power to keep the water pure by bye-laws. I hope the hon. Member will press this Amendment to a Division.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think this is a matter that is worth contending about. The clause says:—
    "All rights of fishing in the rivers Elan and Claerwen and their tributaries flowing through the Manor of Grange and the Manor of Builth above the upper end of the upper reservoirs and in the lakes adjacent thereto by the inhabitants of the district and the town of Rhayader and all rights of turbary and of cutting fern and rushes over such commonable land shall be preserved to the said inhabitants as heretofore and without interruption by the Corporation, subject nevertheless to the bye-laws authorised by this Act."
    The Committee wished to protect to the full any existing rights, but it is not our business to create new rights or to alter the law so as to make into right what is now only custom.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: It seems to me that this clause professes to give what it really does not give. There are no rights of fishing in these waters, and the clause only concedes the right in the future to those who possess it now. I understood that the Corporation was willing to concede this, and it seems to me that the proposition of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) will give us just what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) says he is anxious that the Welsh people should have. It cannot do the Birmingham people any harm, because what they want is only the clear and undiluted water, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Longford would exactly meet that. The Welsh people are not going to be trapped into the belief that this clause gives them rights, when, as a matter of fact, it does no such thing. We ought
    1878
    to have these rights, and I think the Corporation of Birmingham ought to meet the Welsh people in the matter.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I have the greatest sympathy with the Welsh Members, but I must say that the proposal of the hon. Member for North Longford amounts really to a new clause to protect these fishing rights. I think I can say on behalf of the Committee that this question was most fully and elaborately considered by them. They called before them witnesses able to speak with even more authority than my hon. Friends who are not perfectly acquainted with the localities, and the decision the Committee came to was one which seemed to have gone to the extreme limit in protecting any fishing rights which exist.
    MR. GEDGE: I would suggest that it is a pity to waste ten or fifteen minutes in a Division on this point. I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well agree to this Amendment, which after all makes no legal difference, and let us come to the third of these Amendments, which covers the point we are now discussing.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: It seems to me that we cannot deal with the question properly on this Amendment, and I think we had better come as soon as we can to the Amendment which raises the question. My own impression is that when we come to look practically at this question we shall find that the only way to deal with it is to appoint a Board of Conservancy for the whole of the district, and that these fishing rights shall be vested in this Board.
    Question put.
    (4.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 171.—(Div. List, No. 144.)
    On Motion of Mr. THOMAS ELLIS, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 53, page 44, line 26, after "thereto," to insert "hitherto enjoyed."
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to move the insertion after "Act," in page 44, line 30, of the words which stand in my name. The purpose of my Amendment is to create in the reservoirs

    1879
    in the common land the right of fishing for the people who live in the town of Rhayader. I understand from the expressions which have fallen from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and from a Paper which was circulated among Members this morning, that two great objections are taken to this Amendment. The first is, that it creates a new right; the second, that it does not safeguard the purity of the water in the reservoirs. In regard to the first objection, this is not the only new right created, or proposed, to be created, by the Bill; for after the passing of the Bill Birmingham obtains a property in the heart of Mid-Wales which will have a value for them in a few years of from three-quarters to one and a half millions. That is creating a new right and property which few Acts of Parliament have created for any Municipality. What we ask for is a quid pro quo for the people in this district, and I think it is a fair claim. By the preceding clause the Corporation admits that the people who live in this district have had, and should have, safeguarded to them in the future the right of fishing in the streams and lakes within the area of the common land. In this Amendment I ask for no right of fishing in reservoirs which will be made on land which will become the private property of the Corporation. They propose ultimately to make six or seven reservoirs, two or three of which will be in the area of the common land, and in these reservoirs, on common land created by the streams running through common land, where the people have hitherto had the right of fishing, I ask the House to vote that they should continue to have the right of fishing, and so give the people a simple and small quid pro quo for the loss they sustain by the passing of the Bill. I do not think the second objection will hold water; for by the preceding clause the House gives power to the people of the district to fish along the Elan and Claerwen for many miles in the water which will fill the reservoirs. This fishing will be safeguarded by bye-laws to secure the purity of the water in the streams, and surely the same bye-laws will efficiently safeguard the purity of the water in the reservoirs.
    1880
    I would also venture to appeal to the House on the ground of experience. In the Great Vyrnwy lake in Montgomeryshire, made by the Corporation of Liverpool, fishing with rod and line is granted by the Corporation to gentlemen from Liverpool, but is not given to any of the inhabitants of the district who had been fishing for years in the valley now submerged, and yet they would no more pollute the water than the gentlemen from Liverpool. Therefore, from the point of view of a simple quid pro quo, and from the point of view of the experience in connection with the Vyrnwy Lake, and from the fact that no pollution could take place if the bye-laws were carried out, I appeal to the House to give these people the right of fishing with rod and line in those two or three reservoirs subject to the bye-laws to be made by the Corporation.
    Amendment proposed,
    Clause 53, page 44, line 30, after "Act," insert "And whereas some portion of the commonable lands and the streams running through the same will be acquired for reservoirs, it is hereby provided that, in lieu of the rights and privileges of fishing in the streams so acquired, the inhabitants of the district and of the Town of Rhayader shall have and enjoy free right of fishing with rod and line on the banks of the upper reservoirs on the Elan and Claerwen, subject to the bye-laws authorised by this Act."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that I cannot agree to this Amendment, as it would seriously interfere with the rights of the Corporation of Birmingham. The hon. Member says it is a quid pro quo for something the people are expected to give up. They are expected to give up not the right, but the privilege or practice they have enjoyed on sufferance in so much of these small streams as will be needed for the purposes of the formation of the reservoir. That privilege is an almost infinitesimal one. There is no talk of taking away any right they have enjoyed generally, but only from that portion which will be required for the reservoir. Anybody who knows anything about these Welsh streams knows that the fish in them are extremely small, though they give very good sport, as I know by experience.

    1881
    But if you are to substitute for these streams—where the fish are only two or three inches long—a reservoir in which pond trout of good size will be cultivated, the fishing will be a privilege which will be tremendously prized; and if the Corporation were bound to create a new right and let anybody who pleased go and fish in the reservoir, they would be establishing an interest in their property which would do them the greatest possible injury. I think we have sufficiently safeguarded the fishing by reserving all the rights and interests in the streams, and it is a little too much to ask that everbody should have a free right to enter on the works of the Corporation for fishing purposes.
    MR. KENYON: The right hon. Gentleman takes a view of this matter which the case hardly warrants him in doing. May I venture to give the right hon. Gentleman a little piece of advice? He is one of the great pillars of law and order; and I would recommend him to grant this right to the people, for the sole reason that if he does not grant it they are extremely likely to take it themselves. The gentlemen in the neighbourhood are known to be extremely devoted to the sportsmanlike art of fishing—not always, I am afraid, with rod and line—and I think, in the interests of law and order, I would recommend him to consider the question and accept the Amendment. I will not be responsible for the evils which may arise if he does not accept the Amendment.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consent to a provision preventing a gate or trap being placed at the entrance to the reservoir, which would let the fish from the stream get into the reservoir, but would prevent them getting back into the streams?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an entirely different matter, and I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. STOREY: I voted with the Welsh Members, but as I cannot sacrifice common-sense on the altar of friendship, I cannot vote for this Amendment. The reservoirs would be made at the expense of
    1882
    Birmingham; and if there should be any fish in them worth catching, they would be put there by the Corporation, and there is no doubt the Corporation will stock the reservoirs with trout. The Amendment proposes that the inhabitants should go along the banks of the reservoirs for fishing purposes, but anybody knows that few fish would be caught that way; it is necessary to go out in a boat, and that would be an invasion of the rights of the owners which I cannot support. There is one point I should like to refer to. When the reservoirs are stocked with trout no gate or trap would prevent the fish getting up the streams when a flood came, and I would suggest to my Welsh friends that they will get their compensation in that way. I do not quite agree that the trout in the Welsh streams are so small as suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. If they are, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman went, even for once in his life, after such small fry. It is very certain that the larger fish from the reservoirs will get up the streams, and the compensation of the people in the district will be that they will get a better class of fish.
    MR. DILLWYN: I wish to remove any misapprehension which the House may be under in consequence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I have fished in both these streams, and, instead of fish only two or three inches long, I have taken many fish over a pound in weight.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): I can give the House some information on an analogous case. The Corporation of Liverpool impounded the head waters of the Vrnwy River, of course disturbing the fishing rights, and they reserved full control of the fishing rights on the lake so formed. They have stocked the lake, and have let the fishing under very strict supervision so that there may be no injury to the water. What was accorded to Liverpool ought to be accorded to Birmingham.
    Question put.
    (4.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 208.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  COLOUR SERGEANT FINN'S PENSION.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain why Colour Sergeant Finn, of the 1st Volunteer Battalion, Cheshire Regiment, was discharged with a pension of sergeant instead of one of colour sergeant, after twenty-six years' service, in view of the facts that it is usual in such cases to give a colour sergeant's pension, and that Sergeant Wallace of the same battalion received a colour sergeant's pension?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The case of pensioner Finn has been referred back to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital for re-consideration, with the view to the amendment of the pension.

  THE WRECK ON BRIGG'S REEF.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lifeboat authorities at Groomsport, as well as the coxswain and crew of the lifeboat, are of opinion that the wreck of the iron ss. Emily, wrecked in 1889 off Groomsport, would be a source of great danger to the lifeboat, especially at night, were the services of the crew required to assist a vessel on Brigg's Reef; and whether, as the conical buoy placed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to mark this wreck is useless as a warning at night, and the cost of clearing away the wreck would be small, he will give directions for its removal forthwith?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave last week on the 16th instant to the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir E. Birkbeck). I have no power to give any direction with respect to the wreck of the Emily, except upon a recommendation
  1884
  from the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and no such recommendation has been made to me.
  COLONEL WARING: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to ask whether he is aware that his officer who made the inspection, or who ever supplied him with the information, ever went near the place; and also whether it is a fact that another steamer has since been wrecked upon the same spot?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The officer who made the inspection is not my officer, but the officer of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and I know nothing about the later wreck to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I would really advise the hon. Gentleman to communicate with the Commissioners of Irish Lights on the subject.
  COLONEL WARING: Will the right hon. Gentleman with his experience of Ireland explain how it is possible to overcome the vis inertiœ of these officers?

  BRITISH TRADE WITH BRAZIL.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there would be any objection to state to the House the present state of the negotiations with Brazil as regards the preferential treatment accorded to the United States, and with the United States as regards the preferential treatment accorded to Brazil?
  SIR F. MAPPINhad notice of the following question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, in consequence of a Treaty, ratified in April, 1891, between the respective Governments of the United States of America and Brazil, goods from the former country are admitted into the latter country duty free, while the same description of English goods are subject to a duty varying from fifteen to twenty-five per cent.; and whether any steps are being taken by the English Government to place the manufactures of this country upon the same favourable footing?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Perhaps the hon. Member

  1885
  for Hallamshire will permit me at the same time to answer his question. On the 19th February I answered a question of a similar character put by the hon. Member for North Manchester. I then informed him that communications had been made to the Government of Brazil, but that that Government had not been willing to enter into negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with this country; and I have nothing to add to that answer. With regard to the last sentence of the hon. Baronet's question, which only appeared on the Paper this morning, I have to say that no preferential treatment is being accorded by the United States to Brazil. No differential treatment is accorded to British goods as compared with Brazilian, and consequently no negotiations have been entered into on that subject.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: Do I understand that Brazil is accorded no preferential treatment by the United States?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The position of the matter is this: that Brazil gives preferential treatment to the United States as compared with goods which go from this country to Brazil; and the United States gives no preferential treatment to Brazil as compared with goods that go from this country to the United States.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any applications have been made by the Railway Companies to postpone further the operation of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; and whether, before taking into consideration such application, the Board of Trade will give the traders an opportunity of stating their case in opposition to such postponement?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have received an application to postpone the operation of the London and South-Western Railway Rates Provisional Order Act until the 1st January next, at which time the schedules in the Provisional Orders now before Parliament will come into operation, and I have reason to believe that similar applications are likely to be made in
  1886
  the case of the other Railway Companies whose schedules were settled last year. It seems to me primâ facie desirable, for many reasons, that all the schedules should come into operation at the same time. But I shall be happy to receive and consider any representations which may be made to me on behalf of the traders against such a course.

  POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the speech delivered by Lord Dufferin at the annual dinner of the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris, wherein His Excellency is reported to have said—
  "In modern times a very proper prominence is given in entrance examinations to political and economic subjects. Every year the Secretaries of all our Embassies are required to produce an elaborate Commercial Report, a duty which, as I have been able to judge, is carried out with zeal and diligence. Every week in Foreign Embassies our attention is drawn by the Foreign Office to questions affecting English trade with other countries";
  and whether, in view of this statement by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, the Government will consider the desirability of re-introducing Political Economy — which they have expunged from the list of compulsory subjects—as one of the necessary subjects for the entrance examination for the Diplomatic Service, so as to ensure that members of the Diplomatic Service, whether at home or abroad, may be acquainted with at least the rudiments of that science?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Lord Dufferin appears to have overlooked the change which has recently been made in the subjects of examination. They were adopted after very careful consideration as those best calculated to test the real qualifications of the candidates, and to afford as little room as possible for "cramming." There do not appear to be any sufficient reasons for making further change, but consideration will be given to the best means of encouraging the members of the Diplomatic Service to study

  1887
  such branches of Political Economy as would assist them in the preparation of their Commercial Reports.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: Might it not be arranged that the examination in Political Economy should be placed on the same basis as the examination in International Law?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, I think that would be a very desirable way of meeting the views of the hon. Gentleman and of many others who take an interest in this matter. It will require some careful consideration before it can be finally settled, and probably the Treasury will have to be consulted with regard to it; but it is in that direction the opportunity for examination will be afforded.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Admiral Erskine on the Polynesian labour traffic, which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, stating, as the result of three years' experience in command of the Australian Squadron, that—
  "Even under the most stringent regulations wrongs and abuses occur in connection with the labour traffic, which invariably lead to bloodshed and accompanying complications and reprisals";
  and whether, in view of the statement made by Admiral Erskine that, under the terms of the protectorate which he was authorised to promulgate,
  "It was declared that the natives of New Guinea should not be taken from their country and compelled, under arrangements and contracts which they cannot possibly understand, to labour continuously for three years on Queensland plantations,"
  the Government are taking any measures to protect the natives of New Guinea from being imported into Queensland?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): My attention has been drawn to the letter referred to by the hon. Member. It will be observed that the very valuable experiences of Admiral Erskine were confined to a period during which the irregularities connected
  1888
  with the labour traffic have been admitted. If the hon. Member will refer to page 210 of the Parliamentary Paper C, 5091–1, Vol. 2, he will see that—
  "No deportation of natives is allowed either from one part of the territory to another, or to places beyond the territory, except under ordinances reserved for Her Majesty's assent and assented to by Her Majesty."
  The removal of natives from the island is prohibited by a law passed in Queensland in 1887 as well as by a law passed in New Guinea in 1888. The latter will be found at page 234 of the Parliamentary Paper C, 5883.
  MR. S. SMITH: In connection with that answer, may I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to a letter by Admiral Scott, the present commander of the Pacific, in which he expresses his regret at the proposal to introduce this labour traffic from that Colony into the country, no power being given for looking after the interests of the natives?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I think the Admiral is in error. I have already said that the natives cannot be sent from New Guinea to Queensland.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: What I want to know is whether, as a matter of fact, it is true that numbers of black people are at this moment being recruited from New Guinea, and also whether Her Majesty's Government have informed themselves that Clause 78 of the new Act of the Queensland Legislature requires that an armed boat should accompany the recruiting parties to the various islands?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I was not aware that recruiting is now going on in New Guinea. In fact, I have said that it is not going on. I do not think that the second part of the question arises out of the question on the Paper. An armed boat is required to accompany the recruiting parties for the purpose of protection.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies question No. 11, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to modify it in the following manner: Whether he is aware that the Legislative

  1889
  Assembly of Melbourne passed a Resolution yesterday, without a dissentient voice, condemning the action of the Queensland Parliament in proposing to renew the importation of Kanaka labourers into the colony, and urging the Government to resort to all the means in their power to render the protest of the Legislative Assembly of Melbourne effective; and whether Her Majesty's Government will re-consider their intention of not disallowing the Act of the Queensland Legislature?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been officially drawn to the notice referred to, and to the resolution which it would appear, from a telegram in this morning's Times, has been carried; but the hon. Member will see that the question raised by that resolution is one which, however important, must be settled by these great colonies among themselves without the intervention of Her Majesty's Government. It may also be observed that this resolution is not framed against native employment on humanitarian grounds, but is against all foreign labour, coolie or native.
  MR. S. SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with that answer, whether the Australian Colonies possess any means of preventing Queensland from renewing this labour traffic except through the intervention of the Home Government?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Certainly not. I am sure the hon. Member will see that a resolution passed by the Victorian Parliament could not—although, of course, it would be treated with all respect — influence Her Majesty's Government in the direction of not assenting to a Bill passed in Queensland.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: As this case involves, in the opinion of many, gross barbarities and a large quantity of bloodshed among these islanders, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this House or the Government has any power to veto—or has got any means of signifying their displeasure, should that be
  1890
  the pleasure of the House—this Act being put in force?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has in its possession the figures of the number of Polynesian Islanders landed in Queensland during each of the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890; the percentage of deaths among the islanders working on the plantations during each of those years; and the numbers returned to the Islands during each of those years; and, in that case, will he state them to the House?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The numbers of those landed and returned are as follows:—Landed: 1886, 1,505; 1887, 1,988; 1888, 2,291; 1889, 2,039; 1890, 2,459. Returned: 1888, 1,292; 1889, 1,814; 1890, 1,373. We have no Return from the colony showing the percentage of mortality asked for by the hon. Member. The total number of deaths reported to the Polynesian Department for the years 1886–90 inclusive will be found at Page 54 of the Blue Book just presented. If more precise information is required, the necessary Return will be obtained from the colony.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I understand the Colonial Office have no information with respect to the mortality other than is in the Return circulated this morning?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: That is so.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware that it is admitted that the figures are not wholly sufficient?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Those are the only Returns we have. If he wishes to have a further Return, I will speak to my noble Friend the Secretary of State.

  PARCEL POST BASKETS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the baskets used for Parcels Post and general Post Office work are now made and repaired on Government premises; and, if so, whether the work is done direct by Government employees or by private contractors on the Government premises; what is the,

  1891
  rate of wages paid by either, or both, Government and contractors; and is the rate up to the recognised standard rate paid by employers in the open market?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): My right hon. Friend is absent on important public business, and he has asked me to answer this question, and to say that no new Parcel Post baskets are at present manufactured on Government premises in Great Britain, but a large number are repaired by workmen employed directly by the Department at its factory at Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell. All the men, with two exceptions, receive fixed wages of sevenpence an hour, and they work fifty-four hours a week. They are kept in constant employment throughout the year, and have the advantage of a fortnight's holiday without loss of pay. The supply of baskets is divided between the Board of Works and the Post Office, according to sorts. The Office of Works purchases some from prisons, and also employs a contractor, who has been informed of the Resolution of the House of Commons. There are some also manufactured at certain Asylums for the Blind. In Ireland some of the baskets used by the Department are made and repaired at the Mountjoy Prison, and the Department pays certain fixed prices for this work.

  THE EGYPTIAN DEBT.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, considering the present favourable opportunity, will urge on the Egyptian Government the necessity of converting the Domain Loan into a Three-and-a-half per Cent. Stock similar to the Privilege Stock, thus effecting a saving of £75,000 per annum, and completing the financial programme of Egypt?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Egyptian Government has most able financial advisers of its own, who have successfully carried out a very large scheme for the conversion of the Unified Debt. This was done of their own initiation and unaided by Her Majesty's Government.
  1892
  Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not consider their intervention to be called for.

  CASE OF ANDREW MORGAN'S WIDOW.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have received a memorial on behalf of Mary Morgan, aged fifty-seven, widow of Andrew Morgan, late coastguard in charge of Millisle Station, praying for pension or other assistance to enable her to support herself and two helpless children, now in a destitute condition; and whether, considering that Mrs. Morgan's claim has been supported by the Inspecting Commander of Donaghadee Coastguard Division and the Captain of H.M.S. Belleisle, and that Morgan entered the Navy in 1852, served at Sebastopol, and was awarded medals for bravery in battle, and for life saving and good conduct in the Coastguard Service, and would have been entitled under the Rules of the Service to a pension of £62 per annum and a good conduct gratuity of £20 had he lived six months longer, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will favourably consider the claim of this woman, and grant her such remuneration as will enable her to support herself and her children without having recourse to the workhouse?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Mrs. Morgan's application for assistance has been considered by the Admiralty, but, so far as I know, no pension or gratuity can be granted out of Naval or Greenwich Hospital funds to her. The widows and children of seamen and marines are not entitled to receive any such assistance, unless the husband or father is killed on duty or dies from the direct effects of extraordinary exposure or exertion on service. The late Andrew Morgan's death was due to natural causes, and the Admiralty have so far been unable to accede to the widow's petition for direct assistance.

  IRISH POST OFFICE ASSISTANTS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether attention will be paid to the claims of the Irish Post Office assistants who perform the general work of the General Post Office and are not recognised by the Department; whether, many have upwards of eight years' service, and do from ten to fourteen hours daily, and frequent night work; whether these assistants are engaged and dismissed by the Postmaster; and whether, under the circumstances, an inquiry will be made into the alleged grievances with a view to their redressal?
  SIR J. GORST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Assistants are employed by the Postmaster of the smaller post offices in Ireland in the same way as in England and Scotland, and are usually young persons in training for established appointments, which they often receive after a comparatively short period of service. In fact, it is a common complaint of Postmasters that, after having trained their assistants, they cannot retain them, as they so quickly obtain appointments elsewhere. There may be cases in which assistants have, for one reason or another, not obtained appointments—possibly have not desired or deserved them—and have remained in their original employment as long as stated; but it is not known that their hours are unduly long, and no complaint has been received on the subject. Assistants are often occupied partly in the post office and partly on the private business of the Postmaster, whose servants they are, and by whom their services are engaged and dispensed with. It is not thought that there are any general grievances of the kind alleged, but if any particular office can be specified in which hardship is believed to exist, inquiry will be made with a view to its removal.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a memorial has been recently forwarded from the local post offices, signed by upwards of two hundred and forty of these Irish Post Office assistants, calling attention to these grievances? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in
  1894
  view of the fact that this memorial has been sent forward and has been received by the Post Office, it will receive the consideration due to it and to these men?
  SIR J. GORST: No; I gather that my right hon. Friend knows nothing at all about that. But if any such memorial has been received no doubt it will be considered.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR STRANGERS IN THE HOUSE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider whether it is possible to provide accommodation for overcoats, umbrellas, &c., for strangers under the Gallery and in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I have considered the matter very carefully, and consulted the authorities of the House on the subject, but I am sorry to say that there is really no place where provision could be made for such accommodation for strangers under the Gallery and in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery. I should be very glad to provide such accommodation if I could, but really I have no means of doing so.

  MAILS FOR THE NORTH-WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the mails for the north-west of Ireland are so long delayed at Dundalk; and why after their arrival at Enniskillen letters are so long in being delivered that it is impossible to reply by mid-day mail to the English correspondence?
  SIR J. GORST: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General has asked me to state that he has not received the information which would enable him to answer the question, and that he will communicate with the hon. Member when he has received it.

  CADASTRAL SURVEY OF BEHAR.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal Board of Revenue, and very nearly all the divisional

  1895
  and district officers of Bengal, who have been consulted about the proposed Cadastral Survey of Behar, have reported in a sense adverse to it; whether protests against the undertaking have been received by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal from all the leading Native Associations of the Province, including the Association representing the occupying tenants as well as that representing the landholders; whether the recorded opinions of the Board of Revenue, of Mr. Secretary Cotton, of Mr. Halliday, and of the other leading officials of Bengal, together with the memorials of the various Native Associations of the Province, will be considered by the Secretary of State before finally sanctioning the survey; and whether copies of those opinions and memorials will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of State has seen the Reports of the Board of Revenue and other Bengal officers, some of which doubt the expediency of the survey. I stated the other day, in answer to a similar question, that representations against the survey had been received and publicly answered by the Government of Bengal. The Reports in question, with the exception of Mr. Cotton's, which has not been received, have been considered by the Secretary of State, and are included in the Return now being printed. Copies of the memorials of Local Bodies have not yet reached the Secretary of State, though he has seen mention of them in the newspapers.

  SALARIES OF INDIAN SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the actual salary of the Rai Radhika Prasanna Mukarji, Bahadur, formerly a Deputy Inspector of Schools in the subordinate education service of Bengal, who was promoted to be an Inspector of Schools in the superior or graded service for long and exceptionally meritorious work, was the ordinary salary of the grade to which he was promoted; will he state what is the amount of
  1896
  the annual yearly increment of salary in that grade, to which every European officer so appointed is entitled; what amount of annual yearly increment of salary was recommended by the Director of Public Instruction to be granted to the Rai Bahadur; what amount was actually sanctioned for him; and how much less has he received, in consequence of these orders, since his promotion, than what he would have received if he had been a European officer?
  MR. CURZON: A European appointed by the Secretary of State as Inspector of Schools in the graded service receives Rs.500 a month, rising annually by Rs.50 a month to Rs.750. A native receives under the rules two-thirds of these amounts—namely, Rs.333, rising to Rs.500. The Rai Bahadur, a Deputy Inspector of Schools, was receiving Rs.460 a month when promoted, and he continued to draw that amount after promotion, with a special annual increase of Rs.10 a month for every year in the graded service. The recommendation of the Director General of Education was that natives promoted to the graded service, instead of coming under the two-thirds rule, should rise on the same scale as Europeans to the third grade, but should be ineligible for promotion to the second or first grades; but this plan was not adopted. The officer in question appears to be drawing Rs.570 a month. A European, appointed at the same time, would be drawing the maximum of Rs.750.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if the Secretary of State will take the opinion of the Local Authorities as to the advisability of granting this exceptionally meritorious officer the same terms as he would have obtained if he had been a European officer?
  MR. CURZON: I shall be glad to answer that question if the hon. Gentleman gives notice of it.

  POST OFFICE DEPOSITS IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Post Office deposits in Ireland and the rate

  1897
  of interest allowed on same to the depositors; what is the amount of loans issued by the Board of Works in Ireland, and the rate of interest charged to public Boards in that country, on advances; and if he will state what is the average profit made by the Board of Works in advancing Irish money for Irish undertakings?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The amount of Post Office Savings Bank deposits in Ireland on 31st December, 1891, was £3,966,000. The rate of interest allowed on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank is two-and-a-half per cent. per annum; but the expenses of administration amount to about a half per cent.—making a total expense of about three per cent per annum. The deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are invested in British Government Securities, and the rate of interest earned is barely more than sufficient to cover the three per cent. for interest and expenses. The amount of loans made by the Irish Board of Works and outstanding on 31st March, 1891, was £7,700,000 in round figures. The rates of interest charged on such loans range from three-and-an-eighth to five per cent.; but the average rate of interest actually received is less than three-and-a-quarter per cent. The loans made by the Board of Works are made out of the Local Loans Fund, which is Imperial, and not specially Irish. If the hon. Member wishes to have further information about the amount of profit or loss made on loans in Ireland, I will make further inquiries.

  CURE FOR SHEEP SCAB.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps will be taken in Ireland to stamp out the disease of sheep scab; whether he is aware that this disease has been successfully overcome in Australia and New Zealand; and why more effective steps have not been taken in Ireland by the Veterinary Department to provide some remedy against this disease?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am not aware of any necessity for further steps in regard to the sheep scab in this question. Ample provisions
  1898
  are at present in force for dealing with the disease, if duly carried out by the Local Authorities and owners of sheep. These provisions render necessary an immediate notification of the existence of the disease, then a continuing report thereon by the local Veterinary Inspector, to be made both to the Local Authority and to the Veterinary Department. Owners are required to apply remedial treatment, and the Local Authorities have large powers to secure complete isolation of affected or suspected sheep. Numerous prosecutions have been instituted by the police at the instance of the Veterinary Department where owners have failed to report the existence of the disease. I have no official information as to whether the disease has been successfully dealt with in Australia and New Zealand.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received a communication from the President of the Agricultural Society dealing with the question, and whether in view of the fact that the disease has been successfully overcome in Australia and New Zealand, the remedy which has been found successful in those countries cannot be obtained and extended to Ireland for the benefit of the sheep dealers, notably in the Counties of Cork and Galway?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that any information on the subject has been received, but if any information is received I shall be only too glad to communicate it.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and find out what is the best remedy, and if possible place it at the disposal of the Veterinary Authorities in Ireland?
  MR JACKSON: Yes, Sir.

  MR. LERESCHE AND THE PENDLEBURY COLLIERS.
  MR. ROBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement which was made by Mr. J. H. P. Leresche, Stipendiary Magistrate, in the course of hearing a charge of assault at the County Police

  1899
  Court, Manchester, on Tuesday, the 10th inst.—
  "The colliers of Pendlebury have for a long time past been notoriously devoid of moral sentiments, and have thought they can do just as they like";
  and to the fact that Mr. Leresche, having been requested by the miners' agent of the district to withdraw his statement, has declined or omitted to do so, and has not denied the accuracy of the report of his words; and whether it is his intention to take any notice of the language used by Mr. Leresche?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have called the attention of the learned Stipendiary Magistrate to this question, and he informs me that he did not at any time, either in so many words or in substance, use the language imputed to him; and that he has been frequently assured by those who were in Court at the time that the words were never used by him. It is not my intention to take any action in the matter.

  LICENSING CLUBS AND PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to form any estimate as to what would be the probable effect on the Revenue of placing clubs where intoxicating liquors are consumed, in the matter of Licence Duty and Inhabited House Duty, on a footing similar to that now occupied by the premises of licence holders?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am sorry I cannot form any estimate as to what would be the effect on the Revenue of placing clubs where intoxicating liquors are consumed on a footing similar to that now occupied by the premises of licence holders.

  WEST INDIAN TARIFFS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers with reference to the tariffs of the West Indian Colonies, which were promised on 17th March, will be distributed to Members?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The Paper had already been sent to press when a fire occurred at the printers', by which
  1900
  the type was destroyed. The type is being re-set, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to distribute the Paper.

  THE JEBU EXPEDITION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers with reference to the negotiations and disputes with the Jebus, which were promised on 24th March, will be distributed to Members?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: It is proposed to give the Papers as soon as despatches reporting the recent occurrences have been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government. Until these Papers can be given the correspondence will necessarily be incomplete.

  GUNNERY DRILL SHIP AT SHEERNESS.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended that a battleship is to be stationed at Sheerness as tender to the new gunnery establishment at the Naval Barracks?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The question of fitting a ship for drill purposes in connection with the Gunnery School at Sheerness is now under consideration, and no definite decision has yet been arrived at. The ship so stationed at Sheerness would have a "care and maintenance crew" on board. The gunnery establishment would provide the staff necessary for training.

  DISTRIBUTION OF BADGES TO POSTMEN.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state when the distribution of good conduct stripes or badges to meritorious postmen, which was promised by his predecessor last Session, will be made?
  SIR J. GORST (who replied): The distribution of good conduct stripes has been completed up to date both in London and most of the districts throughout the country. In one district, however—that of Nottingham—it is not quite finished.

  PROVINCIAL POSTAL INSPECTORS.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has had under his consideration for some time past the position and scale of pay of Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Postmen in provincial offices; and whether he is able to state what decision has been arrived at?
  SIR J. GORST (who replied): The matter is not yet settled. It is still under the consideration of my right hon. Friend.
  EARL COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state whether it is likely to be decided before the Estimates come on?
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I can hardly tell that.
  EARL COMPTON: I will put another question.

  SOLDIERS AND SHOPS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if soldiers of regiments are compelled by the War Office Regulations to deal at any particular shop or stores designated by their commanding officers, or if they have the same freedom as other citizens in this respect?
  *MR. BRODRICK: A soldier is perfectly at liberty to resort to any available shop or market, unless the commanding officer for some special reason and to safeguard the interests of the men thinks it necessary to declare a particular house out of bounds.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE INSPECTORS' RETIRING FUND.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Home Department whether he has any intention to compel the Metropolitan constables to subscribe to a private retiring fund for Inspectors; and whether the present voluntary funds have the sanction of the Police Authorities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): There is no intention to compel the Metropolitan Police to subscribe to a private retiring fund for Inspectors. The present
  1902
  subscriptions are purely voluntary, and have the sanction of the Commissioners.

  THE FISHERIES AT LOUISBURG.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, impressing upon him the importance of having the town of Louisburg, the nearest town to the best fishing grounds on the Mayo coast, connected by telegraph with the Irish and English markets, and urging him to use his influence with the Congested Districts Board to assist in supplying the necessary local guarantee to the Post Office; and whether, having regard to the extreme poverty of the Westport Union, and its inability to bear any additional local burden, he will make a representation to the Congested Districts Board upon the subject?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Congested Districts Board have not so far adopted a scheme for the development of fisheries in the immediate neighbourhood of Louisburg. The question, therefore, of whether it would be expedient for them to give a guarantee to obtain a telegraphic extension to that place is not ripe for consideration.

  THE LAND PURCHASE ACT.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that both the landlord and the evicted tenant of the lands of Tearnea, Parish of Ruan, County of Clare, are anxious to avail themselves of the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act of last Session, but that their application has failed through expiry of time; is he aware that a police protection party has been maintained on the evicted farm at heavy expense to the Government and to the local ratepayers, and that the dispute has been the cause of considerable disturbance and ill-feeling in the district; and whether the Government will offer any opposition to a short Bill extending the 13th clause so as to meet such cases?
  MR. JACKSON: I have caused inquiry to be made into the case of the evicted tenant referred to by the hon. Member, and find the facts are as follows:—On the 27th July, 1885, the tenant, Robert O'Brien, referred to, was evicted from the lands of Tearnea for non-payment of rent. He owed some four years, amounting to £230. The farm after eviction was farmed by the landlord, Mr. P. A. Dwyer. In 1888 his caretaker, Patrick Hallinan, went to live on the farm under police protection, but on the 3rd May the protection was discontinued. Patrick Hallinan left and was without protection till 1st September, 1890, when he was fired at and seriously wounded by John Brodie and Patrick Hartigan, who were convicted on the 22nd December, 1890, and sentenced to twenty years' penal servitude. Robert O'Brien, the evicted tenant, was then arrested on the same charge, and on the 12th March, 1891, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for conspiracy to murder. I cannot think that this is a case in which the House would feel itself called upon to pass special legislation of the nature in question.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlord agreed, if possible, to take advantage of the clause, but that it is impossible for him to do so, and that, in this case, it has been the cause of very considerable disturbances?
  MR. JACKSON: It is not in accordance with the information that came to me that it has been the cause of disturbances in the district. I do not see how the landlord and tenant could enter into negotiations, because the tenant is at present in prison. But I believe there have been some communications between the mother of the prisoner and the landlord, with a view to the mother taking the farm.

  THE PERSIAN TOBACCO CONCESSION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Tobacco Corporation gives up all its property to the Persian Government in consideration of receiving £500,000 for the £350,000 alleged by the Corporation to have been spent by it; whether he can state in what that
  1904
  property consists; and whether any estimate has been submitted to Her Majesty's Government as to its actual value?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Corporation is to hand over to the Persian Government its stock of tobacco, house property, furniture and machinery. These assets must be proved to the satisfaction of the Persian Government to have cost £139,000. The amount stated by the Company to have been expended in Persia on account of installation, travelling, salaries, rents, printing, telegrams and postage is £55,000. This is in addition to the Company's expenditure in London.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman make up the difference between the amount that he stated and £350,000?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is not part and never has been any part of the duty of the Government to make up anything in the matter. The claim was made by the Corporation who asked for arbitration. The Persian Government were not prepared to enter into arbitration in this matter and preferred to make an arrangement with the Corporation. That arrangement was made, and that is the arrangement of which the hon. Gentleman complains, and as to which the Government acted as mediators between the two parties concerned.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that when they acted as mediators between the two parties, the Government did not express the opinion that the amount of £500,000 was a fair and legitimate demand?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government expressed the opinion that they thought it was a fair demand to make. The Corporation had first of all demanded £650,000. The Persian Government did not feel themselves at liberty to meet that demand, and offered a lower sum. Eventually a compromise was arrived at for £500,000, a compromise which Her Majesty's Representative in all the circumstances of the case considered a fair amount.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the hon. Gentleman upon what data Her Majesty's Representative proceeded in stating that this was a fair and legitimate sum?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: If the hon. Member will have a little patience and wait a few days until the Papers are produced, he will then see exactly the course which Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran took in this matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the hon. Gentleman guarantee that I shall have an opportunity before the end of the present Parliament of dealing with this question, if I do not raise it on the Vote on Account?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The duration of the present Parliament does not rest with me.

  THE DAUGHTERS OF NAVAL WARRANT OFFICERS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will consider the case of the daughters of Naval Warrant Officers, with a view to their being considered eligible for compassionate allowances when left in distressing circumstances consequent upon the death of their parents, in like manner as provided for daughters of Commissioned Officers of same relative rank in the Navy and Army, seeing that the principle has been already conceded in the case of daughters of Warrant Officers who are killed in action, or whose death has been caused or hastened by exposure on duty, &c.; and whether existing regulations can be modified to meet their claims to be placed on a footing of equality in this respect with the daughters of other officers whose widows are entitled to pensions?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The alteration in the Army Regulations on this subject has been recently brought to the notice of the Admiralty, and the question of any Amendment in the existing Naval Regulations will be taken into consideration. Similarity of practice in the two Services may be desirable, but the conditions generally of Naval Service, so far as pensions and allowances are concerned, are more liberal than in the Military Service.

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what regulations were considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee at the Foreign Office in December last in relation to the proposed provisional regulations for the transport of bulk petroleum in the Suez Canal; what additions were framed by the said Committee with the object of safeguarding navigation, but only part of which were accepted by the Suez Canal Company; and to define the substance of such recommendations as were made by the Inter-Departmental Committee and which were declined by the Suez Canal Company?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It would be impossible to reply to the hon. Member's questions within the limits usually assigned to an answer. The several matters as to which the hon. Member inquires will appear clearly from the Papers which are being prepared.
  MR. FENWICK: Will these Papers be laid on the Table before Whitsuntide?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir; I hope before Whitsuntide.
  MR. D. RANDELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the proposed authorisation of the passage of bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal, which in the opinion of English experts threatens the security and safety of navigation in the Canal, whether, in view of Article 8 of the Convention between Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey, respecting the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, signed at Constantinople 29th October, 1888, in which it is laid down that the agents in Egypt of the Signatory Powers of the present Treaty shall be charged to watch over its execution, in case of any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal, and that they shall inform the Khedival Government of the danger which they may have perceived, in order that that Government may

  1907
  take proper steps to ensure the protection and the free use of the Canal, Her Majesty's Government will instruct its agent in Egypt to call the attention of the Egyptian Government to the threatened dangers as aforesaid?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The only ground for interference, under the Convention referred to, by any of the Signatory Powers thereto, is the occurrence of—
  "Any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal." By Article 1 "The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free, and open in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war without distinction of flag. Consequently the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal in time of war as in time of peace. The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."
  In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the passage of petroleum tank ships under the regulations issued by the Suez Canal Company does not threaten "the security or the free passage of the Canal," and consequently Her Majesty's Government have no ground for interference.

  THE ALLEGED ASSAULT ON LOUGHRAN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been ascertained, and what the Government have done or directed to be done, with reference to the attack on the boy Loughran, at the Queen's Island Works, Belfast, detailed in his statement reported in the Belfast Irish News of Monday last?
  MR. JACKSON: I have made very careful inquiry into the matter of this question, and the simple facts are these. On Thursday night the boy Loughran, a boy Elliott, and some other boys were going home, and the boy Loughran, apparently, complained that Elliott had trodden on his foot. He then struck Elliott on the face; Elliott retorted and struck Loughran on the face; they had a fight, and Elliott got rather the worst of it. On the following morning during the breakfast hour Elliott went to Loughran and asked him what he meant by the action he had taken the night before, and proceeded at once to
  1908
  knock Loughran down. A ring was formed while the boys fought, and the two boys fought it out. Loughran got the worst of it. These are the material facts of the case. I do not think any importance attached to it beyond an ordinary fight between two boys of about fourteen years of age.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the fact, as stated by Loughran, that some six weeks ago, long before this occurred, when he first went to the yard, he was threatened that if he dared to comeback to the yard after the holidays he would lose his life?
  MR. JACKSON: I am told that there is no truth whatever in that statement.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the fact—("Order!" and "Oh!")—I can quite understand these cries after the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury—that Loughran on Friday and Saturday last gave to three members of the Belfast police force the names of his assailant Elliott and of several men, who according to Loughran also assaulted him; and have the police taken any steps to obtain information on oath?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know anything about the police taking steps to obtain information on oath; I should say not. But I have taken every pains to inform myself, and have obtained reports from three distinct quarters which state the facts, and I have given the simple upshot of these reports to the House. The statement made by Loughran as to his having been assaulted by others than the boy Elliott, I believe, judging from the reports I have received, to be absolutely untrue. It is stated by several persons who were witnesses of what took place that nobody attacked Loughran except the boy Elliott, and both boys are between fourteen and fifteen years of age. I believe some Members of the House can remember the time when probably about that age they had a similar experience themselves, and when the result, as in this case, did not always come out on the one side. But I can assure the House that, as far as I can form a judgment from the reports, which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member if he desires it, there is absolutely no importance to be attached

  1909
  to this beyond an ordinary boys' fight, which took place on two occasions. In one case the result was on the one side; in the other case it was on the other.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—("Order!")—well, you will have it for the evening unless I am allowed to proceed—whether, if it is the fact, having regard to the circumstances of the second section of the Crimes Act in Ireland, that this poor boy has not only been beaten, but deprived of his means of living by being driven away from the yard by threats of violence, and by intimidation, the right hon. Gentleman will leave this question to be determined by Magistrates, or will the right hon. Gentleman constitute himself a Court of Law; and whether, if information on oath is laid, the ordinary course of the law will be followed?
  MR. JACKSON: If any information on oath is laid, of course it will, I presume, be the duty of somebody to take action upon it; but I doubt very much whether such a result will arise out of the circumstances. So far from there being any truth in the statement that the boy has been driven out of the works, it appears from the reports supplied to me that the foreman told the boy to go back to his work, and that he would take care—
  MR. SEXTON: He was afraid to go back.
  MR. JACKSON: Of course, he cannot compel the boy to go back to his work; but I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.
  MR. SEXTON: Do I go too far—("Order!")—one Gentleman on the other side is trying to distinguish him self in a very extraordinary manner. Do I go too far in asking for an assurance that if an information is laid on oath—the boy having told the police that he has been deprived of his living by intimidation—the ordinary course of the law will be followed, and that the decision in the matter will be left to the Courts, and not to the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. JACKSON: Unquestionably the ordinary course of the law will be followed.

  POST CARDS AND HALFPENNY STAMPS.
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the regulation which forbids a card with a halfpenny stamp upon it being transmitted without excess payment by the recipient could be amended without loss to the Revenue?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It will be very difficult to distinguish between the cost of distribution and the profit realised on the sale, but the amount is not large.

  TELEGRAPHIC CHARGES.
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the regulation which at present exists with reference to the single or double charge in telegrams upon all double words, such as "Herne Bay" and "Herne Hill," could be removed without inflicting injury or loss upon the department?
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include "Earl's Court" in his answer?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: All such double names could not be charged as one word without a considerable loss of revenue.

  SALARIES OF OFFICERS OF EXCISE.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why second class officers of Excise, though they perform duties identical with those of first class officers, are restricted to a salary with a maximum of £150, whilst first class officers go on to £250; and on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue do not acknowledge the right of an assistant or second class officer of Excise, or anyone entering the service at present, to claim salary beyond the £150 limit?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There are broad general distinctions between the duties and responsibilities of second class officers of Excise and those of first class officers, and there is naturally a corresponding distinction between the salaries attaching to these classes. The conditions of the salaries are known to all persons entering the Service. There

  1911
  is no right in that or any other Service to any salary on a higher scale than that laid down in the Regulations.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the objections to a progressive salary for officers of Excise from the minimum of £115 to the maximum of £250; and whether an arrangement could be made whereby the salary of a second class officer would go on increasing until he was offered promotion to the rank of first class, the increment to cease in case of non-acceptance?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have frequently stated that in the interests of good discipline and for the due organisation of the Service, it is absolutely necessary to maintain the principle of classification in the Excise Service. It would not be possible to adopt the arrangement which the hon. Member suggests in the latter part of his question.

  A REPORTED MASSACRE IN UGANDA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the reported massacre of Bagandas in Uganda; and, if so, who were the instigators of the massacre; will he inquire whether their assailants were armed with quick-firing rifles; whether, as is stated, the perpetrators of the massacre were assisted by soldiers from Rampala, and equipped with a Maxim gun; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a massacre?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to reply to this question. As I have already informed the House, no reliable information has been received from Captain Lugard since the date of the alleged massacre. From the known character and antecedents of that officer, it is impossible to believe that he was directly or indirectly a party to it. The next series of despatches from Uganda will probably contain a full account of the events which are supposed to have occurred about the end of January last.

  THE TRANSFER OF RICHMOND PRISON.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to the transfer of Richmond Prison to the War Office, and the sums expended on the prison by the Dublin Corporation?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand there is no objection to a Return asking the Dublin Corporation to state the sums expended by the Corporation on the site and buildings of the Richmond Prison, the date thereof, and the acreage covered by the prison and the grounds. This appears to have been what was promised by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I do not think there is any connection between the expenditure on Mountjoy and Richmond Prisons, and the amount expended by the Dublin Corporation. But there is no desire to withhold any information which the hon. Member or the House may wish, but perhaps it would be more convenient to give that information if he would put a question as to the expenditure for the last three years or for any period of time he likes as to the expenditure on Mountjoy Prison. There is no objection to state what has been the expenditure, but we wish to keep separate the two questions, because the Irish Government could not admit that the expenditure on Mountjoy is in any way connected with the removal or change of prisons.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will raise the question of the additional expenditure on Mountjoy on the Vote on Account, if that is a convenient way. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that portion of the question which asks how much advantage the War Office or the Government estimate they have gained by getting a free barracks for their troops? And I may remind him that, while the Dublin Corporation maintain that the Government got a £100,000 property without any compensation, the Government hesitated, nay, absolutely refused, to give more than £10,000—I believe not

  1913
  so much as that—towards building a new Court House in Green Street.
  MR. JACKSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot discuss the case now, but the view of the Irish Government is that there is no connection between the two questions. The prison was handed over to the War Office in accordance, as the Irish Government believe, with the powers under the Statute, and under these circumstances the Dublin Corporation are not entitled to any compensation for any act done by the Irish Government in that case. I do not know what the War Office estimate is the profit they have made. Probably the hon. Member will put his question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there have not been cases in England where, in similar circumstances, the War Authorities have given compensation to the amount of £15,000 or £16,000, and whether he sees no connection between how an Irish and an English Corporation should be treated, and no connection between the Government getting a £100,000 property, and then giving nothing for compensation, and refusing to give more, and even less, than £10,000 towards a new Court House?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not admit the correctness of the statements.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can I have the information in the Return?
  MR. JACKSON: No. I cannot bring the Return in in any such form, because the Irish Government cannot admit that there is any connection between the two. The Irish Government is perfectly willing to give any information separately which the hon. Member may desire.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who I see is in his place, if he can give me any information as to the estimate of the value placed on the building by the Military Authorities, and how much more they are going to spend on it?
  *MR. BRODRICK: No estimate has been made by the War Department as to the value of the building. The building was handed over to the War
  1914
  Office under the Prisons Act, 1877, and I do not think that, in that case, either in England or in Ireland, a Corporation is entitled to compensation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many more acres the War Office are going to add to this prison, and how much they are going to pay for those acres, and then we can get some idea of the value of it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will raise it on the Vote on Account.

  FATHER HUMPHREYS AND THE POLICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Reverend Father Humphreys, of Tipperary, was accosted by Sergeant Fogarty at the gate of the Catholic Church on Saturday last, and that the constable produced a warrant against the reverend gentleman; was the warrant issued in connection with civil proceedings; and, if so, why were not the proceedings usual in civil cases adopted by the policeman on this occasion?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are not as stated in the first paragraph, but that on Friday the Sergeant met the reverend Gentleman on the public road and asked him if he would pay the amount of the warrants issued against him for costs. The warrants were in the Sergeant's possession, but were not produced, as they were not demanded. The warrants were issued in connection with civil proceedings. No departure was made from the ordinary procedure in such cases.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the duty of the Constabulary to execute warrants of this nature, or is it the duty of an officer of the Civil Court?
  MR. JACKSON: I can only say that the ordinary procedure was adopted in this case.

  PENALTIES UNDER THE EDUCATION ACTS.
  MR. AINSLIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if

  1915
  he is aware that the penalty of five shillings inflicted on parents for the non-attendance of their children at school has lost its force in consequence of the abolition of school fees, and that it does not repay the costs incurred by the authorities of a school in prosecuting an offender; and if he will endeavour to provide a remedy?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The abolition of school fees does not appear to me to have any bearing on the sufficiency of the five shillings, which is the limit of penalty, and costs, for breach of an attendance order. That sum was frequently insufficient to defray the costs actually incurred by a prosecuting School Board before the abolition of fees, and will be so still, but I do not think that these extra costs ought to be defrayed either by the parents of the defaulting child or by the ratepayers of the county or borough.

  TREES ON THE TERRACE AT WESTMINSTER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works why orange trees and some palms cannot be obtained from Kew Gardens and placed on the Terrace, as well as other shrubs, flowers, and plants suitable to the season? I also wish to ask whether he will include eucalyptus trees in the list?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am afraid we have not got any orange trees or palm trees at Kew Gardens that could be spared for the purpose described by the hon. Member, even if it were desirable. I think there are very few seasons of the year in which the orange trees would not be subject to the southeastern winds, and I do not think they would be an appropriate addition to the Terrace.
  DR. TANNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that eucalyptus trees or orange trees may certainly be placed in the open in these countries from the end of the month of April to the end of the month of September: and whether, in view of the fact that it can be done, he will inquire from the authorities at Kew if some are not available in order to embellish a singularly deserted place?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am afraid I can not agree with the hon. Member about that.

  PAUPER ALIENS.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, when the United States authorities decline to receive emigrants from various parts of Europe on the ground that they are pauper lunatics, the Atlantic Steamship Companies bring these persons back and turn them loose on the Liverpool docks; whether he is aware that the maintenance of these alien pauper lunatics costs the ratepayers of the Borough of Bootle £350 per annum; whether he is aware that other harbour towns are put to similar expense; and whether he will include provisions to remedy this grievance in the promised measure to prevent the immigration of pauper aliens?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information, nor, I understand, have the Local Government Board as to the facts alleged in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend; but I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. I may add that the Government measure will apply to the grievance he refers to.

  DISTURBANCE IN LONDONDERRY BARRACKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that a fight took place in Londonderry Barracks on the 23rd inst., between the Derry Artillery Militia and the Lancashire Regiment, and that twenty of the former were injured, six of them seriously; and whether he can give the total number of men injured on both sides, and the cause of the quarrel?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The General Officer commanding the Belfast District has reported that the accounts of the disturbance have been grossly exaggerated. The disturbance lasted for about ten minutes; the injuries were slight, and no man is in hospital. The regiment marched out yesterday in good order. A Court of Inquiry has been held, but the report of the proceedings is not yet to hand.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seventy people have been arrested; and does that bear out his answer that the injuries are of a slight character?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is not according to the information we have received.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the origin of his Report?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Then I must ask the Question again.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MEETINGS ON THE HYDE MARKET GROUND.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to a special Regulation of the Market Committee of Hyde, Manchester, passed to prevent the Fabian Society from holding meetings on the market ground; and if this is legal, as all other bodies are allowed to use this ground for meetings?
  MR. J. W. SIDEBOTTOM: Before this question is answered, may I ask whether it is not a fact that no objection whatever can be offered to meetings of the Fabian Society on the Hyde Market Ground if the Society conform to the rules and regulations of the Town Council, and whether it is not the fact that all other bodies using the ground conform to the rules and regulations?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (who replied): I am asked to say that the Local Government Board have no information on this subject, but that they will cause immediate inquiries to be made with regard to it. In answer to my hon. Friend, I may say I have no doubt that the inquiry will embrace the matter referred to in his supplementary question.

  NIGHT MAILS TO ABERDEEN.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the practicability of accelerating the night mails from London
  1918
  to Aberdeen, so that the mail train now leaving Euston at half-past eight p.m. should arrive in Aberdeen earlier than it now does, considering that at present this train occupies twelve and a half hours on the way, whereas the passenger train leaving Euston at eight p.m. occupies only twelve hours, and having regard to the fact than an acceleration of the night mails might enable the delivery to callers on Sunday forenoon to take place at the same hour as the week day delivery?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The night mail train from Euston Station to Aberdeen was accelerated by about an hour in the summer of 1890, and it does not seem practicable to obtain any further acceleration. It is true that the eight p.m. passenger train performs the journey in half-an-hour less time than the mail train, but, owing to the large quantities of mails to be transferred on the way, more time is required for the station duties in connection with the mail train. There are, moreover, a number of branch trains which bring mails for transfer to the mail train, and in the event of one of them being late it is arranged for the main line train to wait for a few minutes in order to prevent delay to the mails. It is only with great difficulty and the utmost exertions that the present hour can be maintained.

  THE STATUS OF COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he would, before the Local Government Bill enters on the Committee stage, lay upon the Table of the House a Return, or short statement, of the legal status of county surveyors, which statement would explain how far the county surveyor is bound to follow the rulings of the Grand Jury or of Presentment Sessions, and in what points, as to passing of repairs, &c., he can act on his own initiative or judgment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I shall be glad to afford the hon. Member all the information in my power in reference to this matter. The duties of these officials are pretty clearly defined by the Grand Jury Act, but if the hon. Member wishes for a statement I shall be glad to furnish it.

  THE TAX ON RICE CROPS IN CEYLON.
  MR. HALDANE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Excise Paddy Tax of one-tenth of the rice crops in Ceylon has been abolished, while the corresponding Customs Duty of ten per cent. on rice imported from India is retained; and whether, as a consequence, about one-half of the native population will be eating rice free of taxation, while the other half, including some of the poorest Ceylonese living in the towns, will be paying ten per cent. ad valorem on their staple food to the Government?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The reasons for the recent measures regarding the taxation of grain in Ceylon will be found very fully stated in a despatch of the Secretary of State of 12th February, 1892. This appears in a Paper laid before the Legislative Council of Ceylon, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and a copy of which will also, if he wishes it, be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  REFRESHMENTS IN KEW GARDENS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been directed to the entirely insufficient provision of catering and attendance in the new refreshment rooms in Kew Gardens on Sundays and holidays; and why the major number of waiters there employed are Germans, unable to understand the English language?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have not heard of any complaints for a long time as to the arrangements with regard to the supply of refreshments at Kew. The truth is that owing to the uncertainty of the weather it is difficult to foresee the number of persons who may go to Kew Gardens on Sundays. So far as I can see, the refreshment department is conducted as well as can be expected.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last Sunday people were really helping themselves in consequence of the bad attendance there? I should also like to ask how it comes to pass that German waiters have the preference over English waiters?
  [No reply was given.]
  DR. TANNER: I shall call attention to the matter on the Vote on Account.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious loss that is being occasioned to all carrying on business in the Metropolitan Cattle Market, to the graziers in the Eastern and Midland Counties, and in Scotland, and to the Canadian cattle trade, by the prohibition, under the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act, of the removal of all beasts that have been exhibited in the above market beyond the Metropolitan Police district except for slaughter within four days, thus rendering practically valueless the one great staple market; and whether, seeing that the London cowsheds are the only source of danger from which pleuro-pneumonia can be spread, the prohibition might be directed solely to the cowsheds, and thus prevent the continued sacrifice of large and important interests to one comparatively small?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): It is erroneous to suppose that the London cowsheds are the only source of danger from which pleuro-pneumonia can be spread, and though of course I am aware that the restrictions which are necessary if pleuro-pneumonia is to be eradicated cannot be imposed without inflicting loss, which no one regrets more than myself, it would be premature in my opinion, and prejudicial to the ultimate success of our efforts, to adopt at present the course suggested in the question.

  IRELAND AND THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Attorney General if any sub-committee has been appointed to promote the representation of Irish industry at the Chicago Exhibition; and, if so, who are the members of it; what portion of the £60,000 granted to the Royal Commission for the Chicago Exhibition is to be devoted or has been devoted to Ireland; whether any statement has been made of the receipts and expenditure

  1921
  of the Royal Commission; and, if not, when it will be made public; and, what the heads are of the expenditure of the Royal Commission, what revenue do they derive from advertisements printed on the official prospectus, and if it is a fact that no postage is charged on their letters?
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Before the Attorney General answers this question I wish to ask him whether the grant of money has been increased from £25,000 to £60,000; whether the charge for space has been abolished; whether the Commission have appointed a Committee in Dublin with a salaried secretary; whether the Commission have been enlarged by the addition of representatives of Irish exhibitors; and whether the right hon. Gentleman or the Commission can suggest any further means whereby Irish interests in the Exhibition may be assisted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. WEBSTER,): In reply to the hon. Baronet I have to say that a sub-committee has been appointed to promote representation of the Irish industries at the Chicago Exhibition, but I have no list of the names. The Committee was, I believe, appointed in Dublin by the action of the Chambers of Commerce, the Corporation of Dublin, and the Royal Dublin Society. No portion of the grant to the Royal Commission will be specially allocated to Ireland, but a very considerable amount will be expended in connection with Irish industries and exhibits from Ireland in accordance with their requirements. No statement has yet been made public of the receipts and expenditure of the Royal Commission, but the Secretary, Sir Henry Trueman Wood, will be only too glad to give the hon. Baronet, or any other gentleman interested in the matter, full information. It is a fact that no postage is charged on outgoing inland letters. On foreign letters the postage has to be paid. In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for South Tipperary, I am able to state that the grant has been increased from £25,000 to £60,000. Steps are being taken for the purpose of providing an increase of Irish representation on the Commission. The charges for space have been abolished. The
  1922
  opinion of the Irish exhibitors was taken on the question of providing a separate Irish exhibit department, and they were almost unanimously opposed to such an arrangement—only two, I believe, being in favour of it.

  CHILDREN IN RAILWAY TRAINS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps this year to prevent the recurrence of accidents, many of them fatal, to children's excursions, such as occurred last year on the London, Tilbury and Southend and the Great Eastern Railways?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have been asked to reply to this question. As I explained to the hon. Member in answer to a question put by him last year, I think those who are in charge of children's excursions by rail ought to arrange that some person old enough to keep the children out of mischief should be put in each compartment. I am now informed that the Great Eastern Railway Company have issued a circular suggesting a due distribution of the adults of each party. I think that the accidents to which the hon. Member particularly refers arose from children opening the carriage doors by the handles inside, and I understand that the Great Eastern Company will, as far as possible, avoid the use of carriages fitted with such handles in children's excursions. In these circumstances, I do not see what further steps can be taken to secure the safety of the children.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company to see if they have done the same as the Great Eastern Railway Company, as the excursion season is now commencing, and children frequently go out in thousands from the East End in the excursion trains of that Company?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will see what can be done in the matter.

  THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government

  1923
  intend this Session to introduce legislation for the re-union of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland upon a national basis, and the re-distribution of ecclesiastical endowments in that country, in order to carry out the Resolution of the hon. Member for Inverness, adopted by the Government on Tuesday night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I observe that the Resolution passed on Tuesday states that it is highly desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be re-united upon a national basis. That is the opinion expressed by the House and shared by the Government, who would be glad to introduce legislation to smooth the way towards the ultimate consummation of the wish expressed in the Resolution.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring in a Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any legislation is required at the present moment, or that the question is ripe for legislation.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that the course taken by the Government on Tuesday was not meant to convey any intention of giving practical effect to the Resolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Resolution expressed the opinion that a certain object was desirable, but in order that that object might be attained, it would be necessary for the Presbyterian Churches themselves to take steps towards re-union. Legislation must be preceded by some spontaneous act on the part of the Churches.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a report in the Times of to-day of the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Established Church in Scotland, and whether he has observed that when a motion similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness was brought forward a large and important minority, led by leading Churchmen like Dr. Story and Dr. Donald MacLeod, divided against the resolution, and would have nothing to do with it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the report referred to, but I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman
  1924
  that the action to which he has drawn attention was only the action of a minority.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Will the right hon. Member undertake to re-introduce the Bill proposed in a former Session by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, or to introduce some Bill like it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask that notice be given of the question.
  DR. CLARK: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is likely to be legislation on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already explained that some action on the part of the Churches concerned is required before legislation can be initiated. At all events, I am not in a position at present to propose legislation dealing with the subject.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Then the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, assented to the Resolution without the least intention of carrying it into effect?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the contrary, I have expressed my desire that it should be carried into effect.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman had no such intention—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SUBORDINATE CUSTOMS' OFFICERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case which appeared in the Daily News of the 12th instant, where a Customs' officer was summoned at the Thames Police Court by a seaman for detaining twelve ounces of tobacco and a bottle of Florida water, and to the comments of the Magistrate on the proceedings of the Customs' Authorities; whether, in the inquiry held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891, into the complaints of the officers of the Outdoor Department of the Customs, that while superior officers receiving large salaries were granted substantial benefits, the subordinates—namely, boatmen, receiving very low pay, were granted nothing, but sustained pecuniary loss by the abolition of classification, and that, in consequence, a great

  1925
  deal of discontent prevails amongst the officers of this class; and whether, in view of the temptation to improper exercise of their duties which is caused by the low scale of salaries, the Treasury would grant an improvement in the position of these officers?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have nothing to do with the question put by the hon. Member.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I have had the question on the Paper for more than a week, and I should like to have an answer to it.
  [No further reply.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many Votes, irrespective of the Vote on Account, have already been taken on the Army and Navy and the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates, and how many remain yet to be taken?
  SIR J. GORST: There have been taken two Army Votes, two Navy Votes, and one Civil Service Vote—total, five. There remain to be taken sixteen Army Votes, fifteen Navy Votes, and one hundred and eleven Civil Votes—total, one hundred and forty-two.

MOTIONS.
  TELEGRAPHS BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision respecting Telegraphs."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some information with regard to the meaning of this Bill. If it is intended merely to remedy some defect in another Bill, I have nothing further to say; but if the whole question of the telegraphic system is to be opened up by it, we shall require some fair opportunity of discussing it. We are now approaching the Whitsuntide holidays, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fix the Second Reading of the Bill before the Recess. I would
    1926
    call his attention to the fact that a Committee in 1888 inquired most carefully into the whole question of the telegraphic system of the country, and that the late Mr. Raikes then admitted publicly and privately how much advantage he derived from the labours of that Committee. I would make the suggestion that a Committee should go into this question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information with regard to it, and also allow us a reasonable time before taking the Second Reading of the Bill.
    *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The short title of this Bill is a little misleading. The measure really refers to telephones, which, by a judicial decision, have been included in telegraphs. It is intended to carry out, as far as any legislative provision is required, for the purpose, the scheme which I explained to the House a month or two ago. But, as only a small part of the scheme requires such legislative provision, a Treasury Minute will be laid upon the Table setting out the whole scheme, and I hope that this will be done before the Second Reading of the Bill is moved. It is the intention of the Government, after the Second Reading, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I hope it will be possible to read it a second time before the Whitsuntide holidays.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 377.]
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Second Reading of this Bill too early, as it is one which requires some consideration. I hope it will not be taken till Friday.
    *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It will be set down for Monday, and can, if necessary, be postponed.

POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Post Office Act, 1891, in relation

  1927
  to its application to Scotland, and to apply that Act to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I think it is most unfair to the House to bring in this Bill, when the original Bill has not been discharged.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The original Bill will be discharged when we come to this Bill, which will be substituted for it. This is being done in order to prevent irregularity.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit that the proper course would be to first move the discharge of No. 8.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 378.]

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the Access of the Public to Mountains in Scotland."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask the Lord Advocate whether this Bill will be printed and circulated before the Recess? Many of our constituents are deeply interested in this matter, and we wish to have an opportunity of consulting them in regard to it. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will follow the example of the Postmaster General and give us now a slight sketch of the scope and contents of the Bill. If he is unable to do that, will he give us a full opportunity of discussing this Bill on the Second Reading.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have no doubt the House will have full opportunity of discussing the Bill. I cannot undertake to have it printed and circulated before Whitsuntide, but I will do my best.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 379.]

SUPERANNUATION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Anstruther be a Member of the Select Committee on Superannuation."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  MR. STOREY: I wish to call the attention of the House to the peculiar position in which we are placed with regard to this Bill. Its principle has never been discussed.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman can only object to the names of the Committee, and cannot refer to the merits of the Bill.
  MR. STOREY: My argument is that, as the principle of the Bill has not been discussed at any of its stages through the House, it is extremely important that the Committee which has to consider it should be more liberally constituted than it is at the present moment. Therefore, I object to the first name. There has been no explanation given of the Bill—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is no reason why the name of the hon. Gentleman in question should be objected to. The Question is, "That Mr. Anstruther be a Member of the Committee."
  MR. STOREY: I object to the name of Mr. Anstruther being added to the Committee, because the Committee as proposed will give a preponderance to one set of opinions and make the decision of the Committee practically settled before it meets. As proposed, there will only be three independent Liberal Members upon the Committee and one Irish Member; while, on the other hand, there are seven Members who have practically made up their minds on the subject, four of them being more or less officials. It would be extremely inconvenient and unfair that this Committee should be thus constituted. Instead of Mr. Anstruther, I contend there should be placed on the Committee another Member of the minority in the House, so that there should be some fair sort of discussion. I shall vote against the name of Mr. Anstruther being added to the Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his opposition. The Government, as a matter of fact, instead of being over-represented, are under-represented on the Committee, and have a majority of only one. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our only desire with regard to this Bill is that it should be amply discussed in Committee.
  (6.30.) Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 248; Noes 76.—(Div. List, No. 146).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Bristowe be a Member of the said Committee."
  DR. CLARK: I venture to suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury the desirability of adding two other Members to this Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) takes great interest in this question, and he has shown that interest during all the stages of the Bill. I think he ought therefore to be included in the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman will to-morrow or the next day add two more members the question might probably be settled.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The First Lord of the Treasury would have no objection to add two Members to the Committee. I should, however, like to point out that the Committee was constituted a small Committee at the request of hon. Members on that side of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Craig, Mr. John Ellis, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Hunter, Mr. King, Mr. Jackson, Mr. MacNeill, and Sir Matthew White Ridley nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  INDIAN COUNCILS ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]—(No. 182.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. MACNEILL: It is not my intention to trespass at any length on the time of the House in reference to this matter, and I think the First Lord of the Treasury will bear witness that I and those hon. Members who are acting with me abstained from all discussion of this measure on the Report stage. I then asked the First Lord if he could fix a day for the consideration of the Bill, when, so far as I was concerned, the discussion would be slight. He did not do me the honour of acceding to that request, and now on a Government day, when important matters in reference to a Vote for the country are coming on, he puts this Bill first on the list. It is neither fair to the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, nor to the other Members of this House, to place a measure which must be subject to slight discussion before a Vote of that kind, and to which we are looking forward with great interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate matters if he postpones this Bill until to-morrow. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accede to my request, and so I will reserve my right to address the House.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees, I should be pleased not to interpose with my important Amendment, which is on the paper. Therefore, I appeal to the First Lord to consent to the adjournment.
    MR. MACNEILL: On a point of Order, I reserve my right to address the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Both hon. Gentlemen having spoken, they therefore cannot, according to the Rules, speak again. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893.

  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £4,632,350, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893—namely:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.
  £

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  15,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  8,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  4,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  6,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  3,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  4,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  54,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  20,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  35,000

  Harbours, &c., under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

  3,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  2,000

  Caledonian Canal

  —

  Rates on Government Property

  10,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  20,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  8,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  11,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  13,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  17,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  —

  Board of Agriculture

  5,000

  Charity Commission

  7,000

  Civil Service Commission

  8,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  10,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  28,000

  Lunacy Commission

  3,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  15,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  —

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Public Record Office

  3,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Registrar General's Office

  8,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  60,000

  CLASS III.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  12,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  12,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  70,000

  Land Registry

  1,000

  County Courts

  —

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  500

  Police, England and Wales

  8,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  65,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  70,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  20,000

  Register House

  6,000

  Crofters Commission

  1,500

  Prisons, Scotland

  15,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  15,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  15,000

  Land Commission

  15,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  17,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

  13,000

  Constabulary

  250,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  25,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  25,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  1,000

  CLASS IV.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  Public Education, England and Wales

  1,150,000

  Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

  150,000

  British Museum

  27,000

  National Gallery

  2,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  400

  Scientific Investigations, &c., United Kingdom

  4,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

  20,500

  London University

  —

  CLASS V.
  Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

  90,000

  Slave Trade Services

  200

  Colonial Services, including South Africa

  25,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

  16,000

  CLASS VI.
  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  100,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  2,500

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  —

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  600

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  45,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  5,000

  CLASS VII.
  Temporary Commissions

  6,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  2,000

  Pleuro-Pneumonia

  20,000

  Highlands and Islands of Scotland

  5,000

  Chicago Exhibition

  5,000

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  —

  Total for Civil Services

  £3,202,350

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  £

  Customs

  100,000

  Inland Revenue

  100,000

  Post Office

  600,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  180,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  450,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £1,430,000

  Grand Total

  £4,632,350

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Committee and Her Majesty's Government will feel at the present period of the Session, and in the circumstances of Parliament, that we have reached a point at which it is not unreasonable that the House should be desirous of further information in respect to the probable course of Business and intentions of the Government with regard to finance and its measures, and so far foreshadowing the probable termination of the Session,
  1934
  and what may follow their termination. We have reached a period of the evening at which I doubt whether there will be more time perhaps than to discuss the variety of subjects which we have notice hon. Members intend—and in many cases with good cause—to introduce to the notice of the Committee. I should be sorry to say or do anything that would in any way retard the progress of the financial business of the Government, and I would, therefore, venture to make a suggestion which I think might be for the convenience of the Committee. I believe that it is advisable that those Gentlemen who feel it necessary to call the attention of the House to special subjects should, as we have now reached 7 o'clock in the evening, have the field open to them for that purpose, so that I do not propose to enter upon any general question, or invite any general declaration from the Government on the present occasion. But I think the Committee will feel that the time is approaching when such a declaration may reasonably be expected. I do not desire them to name a particular opportunity or a particular date; but the time is approaching, and I am not so anxious for its early arrival as I am that the statement when delivered to the House should be so far as possible an explicit statement to enable us to form a fair and reasonable judgment upon what we have to expect. There will be no difficulty in finding opportunities for the purpose, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that so far as I am concerned, in pointing to an eventual explanation of this kind, I do so not in the slightest degree with the idea or desire that it is likely to be made the subject of any prolonged Debate, but merely with the idea, on the other hand, that it may be simple and short, and that it will be greatly to the convenience and advantage of all portions of the House without any distinction of Party. I do not know whether the Government intend to follow up this Vote, if it is reported, with an Appropriation Bill. If they do, a stage of the Bill may offer a convenient opportunity at some future and not very distant date. If not, it may be found that there are demands by the Government for

  1935
  further appropriation of the time of the House, and there could be no difficulty by arrangement, and by a general amicable understanding, in thus making provision. I, therefore, confine myself at present to repeating that the time is coming, and I am sure the Government will feel it is so when some explicit information should be given to us as to the progress of public business, and the measures with which it is intended to persevere, and the probable time which those measures and proposals are likely to occupy. The time is coming—and when it does come it is not likely to fall into the category of what we call contentious matter—when an opportunity may very easily be arranged and full notice given to the House for such explanation as may be necessary. Perhaps when it does come it will be sufficient for the guidance of the House to reasonable and practical conclusions upon the future. I do not wish the Government to say now if they will do it on a particular day. I do not know precisely when the Whitsuntide recess is to commence, nor on what date it is likely to terminate—and I do not ask them to fix a particular day when this explanation is to be made; I only ask them to recognise it in principle, and to give the House an assurance that there will be no wilful loss of time in giving the explanation to the House, with a view to enable Members to form their judgment, and to enable the country also to form judgment upon pending events.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think we have reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the moderation of the tone of his observations. He raises the view that the time is approaching when some explicit declaration on the part of the Government would be desirable in the public interest, and is to be expected by both sides of the House. And he does not propose to pin the Government down to a particular day or week, and he expresses his own opinion that at any rate the time cannot be far distant. Well, Sir, I agree with my right hon. Friend in the views he takes on this matter. I think with him that a proper
  1936
  occasion may be easily found, by mutual arrangement between the two sides of the House, when the statement he asks for may be given; and, in the meantime, following out the suggestion which he has hinted at, rather than explicitly made, it would, perhaps, be best to defer until that occasion arises any statement on the part of the Government with regard to the state of public Business.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As we are now approaching the question of the Vote on Account I have a point to raise before the Committee deals with the Colonial Vote, and I am obliged to anticipate my hon. Friend.

  LINLITHGOW PALACE.
  *MR. MORTON: I rise to Order. I have a Notice on the Paper referring to a Vote which comes before that referred to by the hon. Member, and I presume I shall be allowed to go on with it. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100. I do not desire a Division on this matter. All I want is some information from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) as to the intentions of the Government respecting Linlithgow Palace. On several occasions during the past few years I have called attention to the bad state of repair which the palaces and public buildings in Scotland have been allowed to fall into. There is a general opinion in Scotland that ever since the Union it has been the policy of the British Government to permit those places to go to ruin, with the view of getting them out of the way as soon as possible. With regard to this particular palace, I may say that the Edinburgh Architectural Association, and other associations in Scotland, have expressed the opinion that the sum of £250 which is proposed to be spent both this year and another £250 next year is not anything like sufficient to put this palace in a proper state of repair. I have had a number of letters from these associations which I will not take up the time of the Committee in reading, although I should like to quote one or two extracts just to show what is the

  1937
  opinion of these bodies on this matter. Referring to Linlithgow Palace the Edinburgh Architectural Association passed the following Resolution:—
  "That the association feels that the buildings of the palace are presently in a critical state and express a hope that without delay such steps will be taken by the Government as will prevent the further internal decay of the palace through exposure to the weather and remove the immediate risk of the masonry falling, and thereby causing serious destruction to the remainder of the fabric."
  I may here mention that I have read that this building was wantonly destroyed to a large extent by British troops in 1746, and has never since been put into a thorough state of repair. Within the last few days I have received a copy of the Report of the Committee of Council of the Edinburgh Architectural Association, signed by the hon. sec, in which they say—
  "Looking to the extent of the buildings the sum of £500 which the Committee understand is proposed to be included for repairs, by two instalments in the Estimates of this year and next, is quite insufficient to ensure the safety of the buildings."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a full and complete answer as to what is proposed to be done in this matter, and that he will also consider the representations made by this Association, which are well worthy of his attention. No doubt other hon. Members take as much interest in this question as I do, although my profession is such as leads me to notice public buildings especially.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £15,000, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Morton.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The state of matters with regard to Linlithgow Palace I can very easily explain to the hon. Member for Peterborough. The grounds upon which we have asked for £250 for this year are that the whole matter has been carefully considered by our surveyor in Scotland—who is a very able officer—and he has reported to us that £500 will be sufficient for the purpose of preserving the palace from decay and further ruin. Another proposal which has been made to us is that the palace should be practically restored, and
  1938
  made in point of fact a habitable building—that it should be restored to the position of a palace of dignity and rank. Well, Sir, that is a proposal I cannot undertake to entertain. We believe that the sum we have asked for is sufficient for the time for which it is asked to preserve the building from any real danger of decay or accident. If, however, the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) should submit to me on the part of the various Associations he has referred to, or any other body, any reasons for thinking that the plans we have proposed and the money we have asked for are not sufficient to maintain in safety and preserve intact the natural beauty of the ruins of the palace, I shall be happy to consider them, but I cannot on behalf of the Government undertake to entertain any proposals that may be made for the restoration of Linlithgow Palace.
  MR. M'LAGAN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that a proposal has been submitted to him for restoring this palace again to the position of a habitable Royal Palace. I do not go that length, but I think a part of it at least should be so far restored as to be made available as a museum. There was one statement which the right hon. Gentleman made that I received with pleasure — namely, that if the sum voted to-day is not sufficient to put the buildings in order and preserve the ruins, he will be prepared to ask the Committee to vote a larger sum. At the same time, if he could see his way to carry out my suggestion, and add to its attraction as a beautiful ruin that of a museum, I think it would be of great advantage to the people who visit it.
  MR. MORTON: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I wish to ask him if he will let the Association have a copy of the Report of the surveyor in Scotland he referred to. The right hon. Gentleman, I presume, quite understands that the Association I have referred to do not consider £500 sufficient to put Linlithgow Palace into such a state of repair as to preserve it; and I will take care that they shall have an opportunity of presenting to the right hon. Gentleman any further observations they have to

  1939
  make on this important matter. I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. HUNTER: I should like to point out that although what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) said was very satisfactory as far as it went, he did not express any opinion upon what I understand to be the main point of the position. The Edinburgh Architectural Society are of opinion that there is only one possible way by which the ruin can be preserved, and that is by roofing it, and that this £500 falls short of what is required.
  MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough I may say it is not usual to lay these Reports on the Table of the House. I shall, however have pleasure in informing him of the substance of the report of the Surveyor in Scotland, but I have not a copy of it with me just now. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, I cannot undertake to promise to put a new roof on this building, but we will protect it in every way necessary to preserve it from further decay.

  KEW GARDENS.
  DR. TANNER: I want to say a work in reference to Kew Gardens. Up to somewhere about 1888 people were not allowed to take into Kew Gardens a basket or a packet of sandwiches, for fear they might throw paper on the walks or grass, and in that way damage these gardens. Well, Sir, after a good deal of trouble, the Government consented to the erection of a kiosque, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the management of it is distinctly bad. The tea is poured out from a big tin can, in which it is all boiled together, and this vile concoction, and coffee just as bad, is sold to the public, and served by German waiters, who are almost ignorant of the English language. I paid a visit to these gardens last Sunday, and I heard a great many people complaining about these things, and I hear that the management is just as bad on public holidays when people from London go down there to enjoy themselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to look
  1940
  into this matter. Then I should like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of making the ordinary summer houses in Kew Gardens brighter. With the manifest advantages Kew Gardens possess, they might be made very much more attractive. I hope the First Commissioner will look into these matters, for when he does he generally finds we are in the right. We had to agitate some time for the kiosque before it was erected, but now we have it we desire to see an improvement in the existing state of things. I might add, too, that the kiosque is not large enough for the public requirements on holiday occasions, especially when we are blessed with such waiters as are now employed there. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to this matter and give us a satisfactory reply.
  *MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: I could hardly believe the other day that the right hon. Gentleman was serious when he stated that in order to benefit students Kew Gardens are not open to the public before noon. To-day I went to the National Gallery, and I found that although students were at work the public were admitted. Why should not the same thing be allowed at Kew Gardens? These Gardens belong to the public—not only to Londoners, but to the whole country; and I say it is a perfect disgrace that they should not be open before twelve o'clock. On one of my visits to Kew Gardens, I asked some of the workmen whom I saw about whether there was any reason why the Gardens were not open earlier—I generally find one can get from the lower officials more information than from the higher—and they told me they did not know of any reason. I asked if they had ever seen students at the Gardens, and they said that occasionally they saw some. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be considerate towards the public, and I most strongly press upon him the desirability of opening Kew Gardens not later than eight or nine o'clock in the morning.
  MR. PLUNKET: The hon. Member for Mid-Cork (Dr. Tanner) has some locus standi for bringing forward his complaint, because he is really the

  1941
  author of the kiosque in Kew Gardens, and I may add that it has been a very popular institution there. Since he put his question respecting Kew Gardens on the Paper I have instituted inquiries, and I must say that so far as I can learn the hon. Member must have been unfortunate in the particular moment he was there, and in the waiters he had to address, because I am sure that the general opinion is that the refreshments at Kew Gardens are as good as can be expected in such a hurried entertainment, and that the same can be said of the waiters. It is impossible for the caterer to always have at hand a large staff of waiters, and, considering how the number of visitors to Kew Gardens fluctuates, some allowance should be made. Then I am asked about opening before twelve o'clock. The only demand so far as I know that the Gardens should be opened before that time comes from people who live in the immediate neighbourhood.
  MR. E. HOLDEN: I live in the South-west, and I have not been able to get in when I desired.
  MR. PLUNKET: The reason why the Gardens are not open earlier is because it would be necessary to increase the staff. We should have to engage more men if the public were admitted in the early morning, but if there were a substantial demand on the part of the public generally, the additional expense would not be allowed to stand in the way. The view that we take is that Kew is not only a place where the public can go to enjoy the pretty sights and pleasant gardens, but it is a great school of horticulture, not only for England and the Colonies, but for the whole world. There is no other place like it in the world, and very often students come from long distances to avail themselves of the advantages which the Gardens afford. I may say that any person who wishes to go there to take photographs or for any purpose of that kind will find no difficulty whatever, and I promise the hon. Member that if he will apply to the Director, he will at once receive the permission without any difficulty.
  MR. E. HOLDEN: What about the new guide?
  MR. PLUNKET: It is approaching completion, and will, I believe, be published in a few days.
  DR. TANNER: I should like to suggest that the tea at Kew Gardens should be served in small teapots instead of being drawn from one of those horrible apparatus which are in use in prisons, as many of us know. I should also like to suggest with respect to Hyde Park that at certain times in the day, at least, cabs and bicycles should be permitted to go through. Perhaps at a certain time of the day the aristocracy must be permitted to use the parks at the expense of the people, but I think during business hours cabs and hansoms should be allowed to drive through. The congestion in the Brompton Road, at Hyde Park Corner, and even at the Marble Arch is something terrible, and now that the timber pavement is up people are put to great inconvenience. The opening of the park would greatly relieve the obstruction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the mater. Then there is another matter int which I am not the only person who takes an interest, that is the question of plants on the Terrace. The matter was mentioned in 1883, and there is no doubt that something could be done. This portion of London is not particularly exposed, and is no colder than Paris, where orange and lemon trees are cultivated with great success. I have spoken to some of the officials at Kew and they tell me that plants could be placed along the Terrace without any difficulty. Hon. Members might have smiled when I put the question this afternoon. I think we ought to have some eucalyptus trees in pots on the terrace. You have plenty of them at Kew, and they would make the Terrace much more attractive. I should like also to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the want of ventilation in the Ministers' lobby.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): Order, order! That does not arise on this Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  DR. TANNER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question of plants that I have mentioned. Yesterday afternoon and evening this place was turned into a sort of flower garden for the benefit of some friends of the Home Secretary, and anybody who saw that display will know that what I want can easily be done. Then I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a sanitary matter. The gallery outside is really in a pestilential condition, and I am sure hon. Members will bear me out that during the warm weather of the last few days the atmosphere has been very bad. There is no top ventilation. The same remark applies to the lobbies outside the Committee Rooms, and owing to the absence of ventilation there the atmosphere is in a dangerously bad state. I say this is an absolute disgrace. I have gone thoroughly into the drainage system of this House, and I say that it is not what it ought to be. The main system is good, but there should be traps to all the smaller lavatories. We hear complaints of the atmosphere at the east end of this House, and that arises from the want of traps. This is a matter of great importance, and I hope some practical improvement will be achieved.
  *MR. MORTON: I have a notice of Amendment down; but, as time is limited. I will not press it. But I should like to ask a question about the salaries of the lower class officials of this House. I think they are not sufficiently well paid, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that matter into his consideration. We have heard that the Home Secretary had a party or soirée on the Terrace yesterday. I am only interested to know whether any part of the expense will appear in the Estimates, and also whether we may invite our constituents to a soirée on the Terrace and make use of the precincts of this House?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have nothing to do with the salaries of the officials; I have to do with the buildings.
  MR. MORTON: Who has?
  MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the hon. Member for Cork, I may say I am
  1944
  afraid he will not make much impression on me personally, because I am opposed to the introduction of plants. The scheme was tried, but the plants were taken away. My own personal feeling is that they would not be any improvement to the general effect of such a building as this; but if there were an expression of opinion in favour of the plan by a majority of the Members I should not allow my own personal opinions to interfere.
  DR. TANNER: On the subject of the kitchen I should like to say that I have heard a large number of complaints. The money advanced through the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms, £1,000, is not sufficient, and we shall never get the service properly effective until we grant a larger amount. I do not suppose I should be in order in moving an increase in the Vote; but I think another £500 ought to be added, and I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration, and see that the convenience of Members is properly studied.
  MR. PLUNKET: The kitchen does not come under my Department, and I am not a member of the Committee, but I will communicate what the hon. Gentleman has said to the Chairman of the Committee.

  THE PERSIAN TOBACCO CONCESSION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I asked a question the other day of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and, allowing myself to be carried away by my feelings, I made use of language for which I was very properly rebuked by Mr. Speaker. I therefore think it my duty to lay before the House the facts in regard to the intervention of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Tobacco Corporation in order that they may form an opinion as to whether I was right or wrong in the allegations I made. On the 8th March, 1890, the Shah of Persia gave a concession to a Mr. Talbot, who engaged to pay out of the profits of the concession when it was carried into effect a sum of £15,000 per annum to the Government of the Shah, and one-quarter of all profits. I do not believe that Mr. Talbot actually paid anything to the Persian Government, and his promises were all prospective,

  1945
  arising out of profits to be made. On the 3rd May Mr. Talbot sold this concession to the Eastern Concessions Syndicate Company. The usual thing when persons wish to bring out companies, and wish to withhold their own names, is that they call themselves a syndicate, and get up a company more or less bogus. Then these syndicates, unless they are intended to bring out other companies, disappear entirely from the face of the City. It is not stated what amount Mr. Talbot was paid for the concession which he sold to this Eastern Concessions Syndicate Company, and, judging from the dates, I should think that in all probability this company and Mr. Talbot were the same individuals. On the 3rd of November the Eastern Concessions Syndicate Company sold this concession, for which absolutely nothing had been paid, for £300,000 to the Tobacco Corporation of Persia. A portion of this money was paid in cash and a portion in shares. But not only were they to receive this amount, but they were also to have a number of founders' shares, which were to draw half of all profits over fifteen per cent. On the same day a prospectus was brought out asking the public to subscribe to the shares of the Imperial Tobacco Corporation of Persia, with a capital of £650,000. The prospectus is much after the usual manner of prospectuses, except that it seems to me rather more exaggerated in its statements than prospectuses usually are. The people who were unwise enough to take shares were asked to imagine that the profits were likely to reach as much as £371,000 per annum, or, in other words, that the Corporation was going to give a return of more than one hundred per cent. on all the capital really expended. In the present year the Government of the Shah found that the people of Persia were indignant at this concession altogether. The effect would be to raise the price of tobacco about one hundred per cent., and really the thing was, in fact, a regie. All tobacco cultivated was to go into the hands of the Corporation, who were to sell it, it appears, at any price they liked. In any case the price must have been excessive if they were to make this large profit. When the people almost rebelled
  1946
  against this concession, the Shah re-considered the matter and determined to abrogate it, and now comes in the intervention of Her Majesty's Government. I have asked for the contract, but have not been able to obtain it; but we were told at one time that there was a clause in the contract permitting arbitration. But the Shah refused or objected to arbitration, and, therefore, the good offices of Her Majesty's Government were employed on both sides. We have not got this contract, but common sense tells us that if there was any arbitration clause it was not put in with any idea that the Government of the Shah intended to abrogate the concession. What occurred in Persia we do not exactly know, because, although papers have been promised, we have not yet got them. I have elicited that the Persian Government were advised by Her Majesty's Government to pay the sum of £500,000 to the Corporation in consideration of having abrogated the contract. Have the Government looked into the contracts; have they estimated the value of the property of the Corporation; have they discovered what part of the £350,000 has been bonâ fide expended in giving effect to the concession? I gather that they have done absolutely nothing of the kind. The Corporation asked for £650,000, and then said that they would be satisfied with £500,000, and without making any inquiries Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran advised the Shah to pay that sum. We know the pressure put upon the Shah in this matter. We know perfectly well, from what appeared in the Times, that he thought he would have recourse to the Russian Government to get this money which was being extorted by the British Government for the benefit of these extraordinary speculators. Look at the position of the Corporation. None of the £350,000 really passed; and when I asked about that sum today, I was told that the Corporation had expended about £150,000 in Persia, so that between these sums there is an enormous difference. The Shah will receive what the Corporation says is worth about £100,000 in buildings and tobacco. I ask the Committee whether, under these circumstances, it was proper for the Government to interfere?

  1947
  When Lord Rosebery was head of the Foreign Office a Circular Despatch was sent round to Her Majesty's Representatives telling them they should be exceedingly careful in taking up cases of concessions and endeavouring to obtain money from foreign Governments. I think in all cases where a concession like this is obtained it must be left to the person who gets it to negotiate with the foreign Government, as the matter does not concern us. If it is desirable that these speculators should receive the support of the Government it seems most extraordinary that the Government, with these facts before them, and being able to see the contracts, should have pressed the Persian Government to give £500,000. The Persian Government will not get the money at less than five per cent., and so the unfortunate people of the country will have a charge of £25,000 a year imposed on them to pay a sum the greater portion of which has not been spent by these speculators who will simply divide the spoils among themselves. I have laid the facts before the Committee, and I think it will agree that I have been justified in what I have said.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I regret that the hon. Member did not wait to see the Papers before making what I cannot but call an attack on the Government. I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House that negotiations are still proceeding; the matter has not yet arrived at an issue, but I have very little doubt that very shortly a decision will be arrived at. Papers are in an active course of preparation, and will be immediately presented to the House. In the meantime, I may point out one or two mistakes into which the hon. Gentleman has fallen. In the first place, I maintain that the Government and Her Majesty's Representative were in no way called upon to inquire into the financial status or proceedings of this Corporation. A concession had been granted without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, which took no part in it. The concession was sold by Major Talbot to a Corporation—the Persian Tobacco Corporation. The
  1948
  Corporation got to work and expended a certain amount of money in Persia, and for a considerable time affairs went smoothly. Then the occasion arose when, in consequence of disturbances, it seemed good to the Persian Government to cancel the concession. Thereupon, a decree was issued by the Government against the concession. The concession contains an Arbitration Clause under which, in the event of misunderstandings arising between the concessionaire and the Government, the matter is to be referred to arbitration, and the words clearly cover this case. What was the action of the Corporation? The Corporation came to Her Majesty's Government and said, "This concession, which it has seemed good to the Persian Government to grant, and from which it may be presumed they were going to derive some benefit, has been suddenly abrogated. We would wish to submit the question of compensation to us to arbitration." The proper course—the only course—which Her Majesty's Government could take—and which they did take— was to suggest to the Shah and the Persian Government the desirability of submitting the question to arbitration. Negotiations went on for some little time. The Corporation pressed for arbitration in the matter; they were perfectly ready to refer their whole claim to arbitration. The Persian Government were not prepared at that time to accept arbitration, and negotiations went on between the Persian Government and the Corporation. The demand by the Corporation of £650,000 for compensation was met by an offer on the part of the Persian Government of £300,000. The two parties, however, did not agree, and negotiations still went on. Her Majesty's Government were again asked to press on the Persian Government the desirability, as they would not agree, of submitting the whole question in dispute to arbitration, and Sir F. C. Lascelles brought that consideration before the Persian Government. Soon after that the Persian Government and the Corporation agreed upon the sum of £500,000. The hon. Member spoke of the £500,000 being extorted; Her Majesty's Government never pressed for

  1949
  that or any particular sum, all they pressed for was that the whole calm should be submitted to arbitration. The Persian Government did not see their way to arbitration, and made an offer to pay £500,000, and take over the assets. That offer has been accepted. I am afraid it is impossible for me to go into further details as to what has passed since. As I have said before, the matter is not yet concluded, therefore it would be improper on my part if, while negotiations are going on, I said anything further. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Papers are almost ready for presentation, and we expect a settlement will be arrived at in a very short time between the Persian Bank—who are acting for the Persian Government in this matter—and the Corporation. As soon as that settlement is arrived at a full account of the part the Government have taken in the matter will be laid before the House.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: We have now had three accounts—that of the Times; that of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, and that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and they all agree. From the very first moment I had an opportunity of reading an account of the transaction in the Times, I felt, I must say, that it was a very doubtful case, and might become a very painful one. The first point on which no explanation has been given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the point on which I think the public would wish to have an explanation, is: Into whose pocket did the real money go—the money, that is to say, which some private influence on the Persian Government has put into the pockets of one or more private individuals? I accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the influence was not the influence of Her Majesty's Government; but it was the influence of someone belonging to this nation, and someone whose cause has been taken up by the Government. I do not think the British Government ought to have taken up this case at all unless they were prepared to give the House of Commons and the country explanations which would set the national conscience at ease. What has happened? Some private jobbers have got from the Persian Government a
  1950
  concession which it is very difficult to estimate at a less value than three or four millions, and with a nominal capital of £650,000, and a real capital of £300,000, the prospectus promised profits of £370,000 a year. That would be a net profit of about £300,000 to be taken from the Persian people, and given by the Persian Government to one or more private individuals for motives of which we know nothing whatever. The Government should have inquired—perhaps they have inquired—as to what those motives were before they took up the cause of these gentlemen. Anyone who has read the Oriental history of the last twenty years knows what tremendous pressure can be exercised by Ministers upon one of these small countries, and on a country which, to some extent, is a dependent country, as this story proves. If the Government had left the matter alone these jobbers would have got certainly not more than £300,000 in what is called compensation; I very much doubt if they would have got anything at all. Now, my belief is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has as high a standard with regard to financial matters as any man in the House, and I should be very glad indeed if he would look into this matter himself. We must remember that this power of pressure in commercial matters on the part of the British Government is a most valuable one when used in protecting legitimate commerce, and it should never be misused by doing injustice to half-organised and weak countries for the sake of people who cannot be thought to be pursuing legitimate commerce. The hon. Gentleman opposite used one expression which I was glad to hear—he said the thing had not come to a definite issue. I hope that means that the transaction is not complete, and I trust that the action which my hon. Friend has taken to-day will prevent the Persian Government being taxed, not to the extent of £25,000 a year, for the money would not be borrowed at five per cent., but to a far larger extent, to the end of time.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman opposite told us that the individual who originally

  1951
  got this concession was Major Talbot. There are so many Talbots engaged in the different stages of this affair that I think he must have made a mistake. I do not think he could have meant Major A. C. Talbot, who is the Political Representative of the Indian Government in Persia. I take it that it would be perfectly absurd that he, in his official seat, should have taken up this concession.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It is not the same person. There are two gentlemen named Major Talbot. The concessionee is Major G. H. Talbot.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: As a matter of fact, Major A. C. Talbot and Major G. H. Talbot are brothers, and they are family connections of Lord Salisbury, which, no doubt, made the management of the private negotiations much easier. I think my hon. Friend put the case too mildly when he said that pressure only came in when the question of £650,000 or £500,000 was at issue between the Corporation and the Persian Government. My belief is that the transaction took place something in this way. Major A. C. Talbot, Her Majesty's Representative in Persia, gets out his brother, letting him know that something very fine indeed is to be got by a little judicious management.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: At the time the concession was made Major A. C. Talbot was not in Persia.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I have known Major Talbot for a quarter of a century, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he has spent an enormous part of that time in service in or near the Persian Gulf, and his absences have not been long. I think I remember that he has occupied some position there longer than eighteen months. He has long been acquainted with Persia, and had all the opportunities I have mentioned, if he chose to use them, and could put up his brother and aid him in getting a very good thing if he went out to Persia. A Political Resident is all-powerful where such private and semi-private matters are concerned. I know this, having seen something of the Hyderabad-Deccan scandal, which was the subject of an inquiry in this House, and I was in Hyderabad in time to be
  1952
  the first to expose the swindle. In my mind the getting out of this brother and putting pressure on the Persian Government to entertain the matter of the concession was probably compassed in exactly the same way as the Hyderabad Government was duped into practically giving away a million of money for nothing at all to certain Europeans. As the hon. Gentleman did hot inform us to the contrary, we must assume that Mr. G. H. Talbot went to Persia with the knowledge of his brother, now Her Majesty's Representative in the Persian Gulf. We are now told he went there unknown to Her Majesty's Government, and obtained this gigantic concession unknown to the Government. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he obtained it unknown to his brother?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: His brother was not in Persia at the time; he was an Anglo-Indian official in Turkish territory.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I do not know what he was doing in Turkish territory, as he has always been engaged at or near the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us in what part of Turkish territory he was; how long he was absent from Persia; and what was to prevent him knowing what his brother was doing? There is no reason why the affair should not have been planted between the two brothers, and the Government have made no inquiries on the point. Or if they have made any inquiry, the hon. Gentleman has not told us that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to advise the Indian Government to take due notice of such a matter having been arranged between their public servant and his brother. Although he was not at that moment technically Her Majesty's Representative, he had spent years in service in Persia, and must be held to have a thorough knowledge of matters which would enable him to plan out such a concession and bring the required pressure to bear on the Persian Government.
  MR. BRYCE: Whether this was the case of a "plant" between these two brothers or not is a question which I do not intend to go into. But the Government have admitted

  1953
  enough to give much cause for suspicion. The first point which was left in doubt by the Under Secretary of State, and which I think suggests some serious questions, is: What is the nature of this Arbitration Clause? An arbitration clause in a contract usually is a clause providing for a reference to arbitration of differences that may arise between the two parties to the contract; but here we have a suspension of the contract altogether. Here the contract itself is nullified and put to an end by the Persian Government. The hon. Gentleman has not told us, and I should say that it is unlikely, according to the usual practice in these cases, that the Arbitration Clause is one which contemplates a suspension of the contract. Such a clause usually comes into force should a difficulty arise in the interpretation of the contract. Therefore, I do not think that the Committee will be in a position to form a correct judgment upon this matter till we see the Arbitration Clause. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the Persian Government refused to go to arbitration, although the Corporation was willing to do so. Why did the Persian Government refuse? Who suggested this arbitration? I do not think the Persian Government would have fared worse by going to arbitration than it eventually seems to have fared in the arrangement that was made, because the Persian Government was asked by the Corporation to pay compensation to the extent of £600,000, and ultimately they paid £500,000, although at first they offered them no more than £300,000. And I must say, judging from the facts, that that was very ample compensation, because it seems to be very far in excess of what the actual business of the company was worth, including the stock-in-trade and the expenditure which the company had incurred. Therefore, when we find that the Persian Government persisted in offering only £300,000 and then suddenly gave £500,000, we must conclude that the operation was only owing to the beneficent intervention of Her Majesty's Government, because nothing less would have induced the Persian Government to acquiesce in what was an exorbitant demand. If that is not pressure I do not know what pressure is. Surely nothing less than
  1954
  pressure applied by a powerful State, such as Great Britain, would be sufficient to induce the Persian Government to make such a concession to this Corporation as to pay them £200,000 extra. The hon. Gentleman has adverted to the circumstances under which this was done. I am bound to say if there is any case of a country where the power of the Foreign Office ought to be carefully used, it is the case of a country like Persia. Persia is a country which occupies a very peculiar position. It lies between, so to speak, two great Powers. One of these great powers is Russia, and the other is the Indian Empire; and if Persia is dependent upon any country, it is dependent no less upon its Indian than upon its Northern neighbour. Under these circumstances, our Government ought to be very careful not to press Persia unduly, not to make the Government of this country unpopular in Persia, and not to urge undue demands. Considering what the attitude of the other neighbours of Persia is, I should have thought that this was one of the cases in which the general principles that guide the Foreign Office in dealing with other Powers ought to have been very scrupulously applied. The Committee knows what are these principles. If hon. Members will consult the Papers laid before the House in 1886, they will find there laid down, following the Circular issued by Lord Granville in 1881, the principles that ought to be applied by the Foreign Office in its endeavours to support British subjects in pursuit of their commercial enterprise abroad, and especially in their efforts to obtain concessions from Foreign Powers. It was there laid down by Lord Granville, and afterwards by Lord Rosebery, and so far as I know it has hitherto been uniformly followed by both Parties in the State, that attempts to obtain concessions ought to be dealt with by the Government, and by Her Majesty's Representatives abroad, with most cautious care and tact, not only because it is desirable not to waste our influence, which should be reserved for political purposes, upon mere pecuniary matters, but also because a great deal of suspicion is likely to attach to the Foreign Office and its Representatives

  1955
  if they endeavour to press the claims of their own subjects. These are the principles which will be found to be in force, and the cases stated in the Despatches amply justify the view I take. I put it to the Under Secretary that the action of the Government was not taken in obtaining a concession but in endeavouring to obtain compensation.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: In obtaining arbitration.
  MR. BRYCE: I must repeat that I look at the matter by the result. What is contended on the part of the Government is that all our Representative did was to ask the Persian Government to go to arbitration. What we see is that the Persian Government which offered £300,000 found itself obliged to pay £500,000; and we can only account for that change by attributing it to the pressure and undue influence exercised by Her Majesty's Government through their Representative. I submit therefore to the Committee that in a matter of this kind, so far as my present information goes, the principles which ought to guide the Foreign Office seem to have been transgressed; and that that influence, which ought to be reserved for purely political cases, or at any rate for the promotion of commercial enterprise and not for the purpose of promoting mere personal speculation, has in this instance, so far as I can learn, been abused. Her Majesty's Government will be bound, when the proper times comes, to give a much more complete justification than they have given to-night for conduct which on the face of it has the appearance of being unfriendly towards Persia and calculated to bring Her Majesty's Government into disrepute both in Persia and wherever else it is known.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I wish to say a few words on the tobacco concession in Persia, and I should not have said anything at all about it but for what has been stated in this House. I think this is too grave a matter to pass without a protest against the very insufficient explanation that has been given by Her Majesty's Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He began his speech by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for
  1956
  Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had been guilty of several inaccuracies. But, Sir, so far as I heard, I failed to find a single point upon which any inaccuracy was pointed out. On the contrary, as the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman went on, the case appeared to me to be graver and graver, and to require more and more explanation. I wish to state what the facts are as they appear to me, without any knowledge of them beyond what has passed in this House tonight. Two gentlemen, said to be brothers, alleged to be officers of the Queen, one of them holding high diplomatic service, hailing from Hatfield, stated in the Debase to be relations of the Prime Minister—statements not denied—a concession obtained from Persia, upon what terms? Talk about company-mongering! I have the published prospectus in my hand. Here is a capital of £650,000; a profit estimate of £558,000 a year; 80 per cent.; Persia to have £15,000 a year and a small share of surplus profits out of it, and to begot out of the unhappy Persians for the payment of shareholders £543,000 net profit. You have to go back, in my opinion, to the old days of the jobbery under the East India Company to find anything more utterly atrocious than this affair. Then you find popular indignation in Persia aroused; the Persian Government quite unable to withstand it, and I do not wonder at it. Even in a country like Persia there is such a thing as public opinion. Poor Persia, obliged to cancel the concession, offers £300,000 to buy off these robbers, and it is refused. Why? Because they have got the English Foreign Office at their back. It has been owned by the right hon. Gentleman that our diplomatists, our representatives, in Persia pressed upon the Shah's Government that they ought to refer this thing to arbitration. Why did they not turn round and say: "This thing is a swindle; £300,000 is double the money you have spent; take your plunder and go?" The explanation given to-night casts a slur upon officers and public men, casts a slur upon the English Government, and casts a slur upon the Diplomatic Service, and cannot rest where it is. It must be cleared up—I sincerely hope

  1957
  it can be cleared up—and I think those Papers must be produced at once. They have been promised; we must have them at once, and we must have the fullest explanation. There is only one other thing that I want to say, and that is that these Papers and this explanation must come before a settlement is completed, and not after. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the matter was not completed, and it ought not to be completed. If there is any truth in the facts as they appear to any impartial man who has heard the Debate, and has heard the lame and impotent explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I say that, for the honour of England and for the honour of our statesmen, the transaction ought not to be allowed to be completed until the Papers are before us, and until a full explanation has been given of the facts.
  MR. MORTON: I do not desire to prolong this Debate, because I understand that Papers have been promised, but it must be quite obvious that the matter cannot rest where it is at the present moment, because it has been proved, so far as you can prove these things, that the influence and power of the British Government have been used to induce, in some way, the Persian Government to find a large sum of money, said to be £500,000. It is also mentioned that some of the parties concerned in what you may fairly and properly call plunder are not only officers of Her Majesty, but relations of the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—I am not making any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman, who not only answers questions very fairly, but is also always very courteous—whether the statement that these officers who have been mentioned are relations or connections of the Prime Minister of this country. It is just as well to tell us at once, because you cannot conceal it for very long, and we ought to know. There is another reason why I think this matter should be sifted to the bottom. We ought to take care that no wrong is done so far as we can help it. It is all very well for the power of this country to be used against a weaker and smaller Power for getting money in this way, but it
  1958
  always leaves a bad feeling behind, and it may be the cause of war at some future time. There is hardly one of the many little wars in which we are engaged from time to time which is not due to some extent to the ill-feeling created at some time in connection with money affairs. It is very unfortunate with regard to Persia, because the Russian Government is brought into the matter in some way, although we are told that the Persian Bank is going to find the money. But the Persian Bank will not find the money without it has security of some kind, and it is very likely that ultimately it will be British money that will be found to pay this large sum. I hope this Committee and the House of Commons will take care, if these statements are true, that the power and influence of this country are not in any way used to benefit these speculators or company-mongers, or whatever you like to call them. I am satisfied that if I, or any other humble Member of this House like myself, were to be engaged in trade, and wanted the Government to assist in collecting our debts, they would very properly refuse to do so Are these favourites of the Government, and relations of Ministers, as it has been said, who use the power of this Government to compel smaller and weaker Powers to find these large sums of money? I think it is high time, not only for the interests of the country, but for the honour of the country, that we should put a stop to it if it is so. I do not propose moving a reduction in this case, as Papers have been promised, but I trust these Papers and the fullest possible information on the subject will be forthcoming at an early date.
  MR. HUNTER: The question before the House has, I think, taken a very serious and grave aspect; and before another step is taken by Her Majesty's Government in a matter which appears, at all events, to gravely compromise the honour of the Government, there should be a special and searching inquiry before a Committee of this House as to the nature of this concession—not merely as to the circumstances under which it was granted, but as to the consideration for which it was granted,

  1959
  and as to the position of the Persian people. It does not seem to come within the category of those legitimate mercantile or commercial transactions which deserve the assistance of the Government. It is a strong measure for a Government to interfere to promote private interests in foreign countries. That is not the object of the establishment of diplomatic relations; and although undoubtedly diplomatic pressure may in certain circumstances legitimately be employed for legitimate commercial transactions, it is most important that the Government should not go one hair's breadth beyond what would be recognised by everybody as an honest and fair commercial transaction. But what is this? On the face of it an impecunious gentleman goes out to the Government of Persia. It so happens that his brother had for many years occupied the very influential post of British Representative in these dominions. We are told that at the moment when this transaction occurred the brother was not actually there, but it is impossible to disregard the fact of the Persian Government having entered into negotiations with Mr. Talbot. That is a matter which should be searchingly inquired into. But it is not all. Mr. Talbot gives no consideration for this concession. It is nothing more nor less than a conspiracy entered into between Mr. Talbot on the one hand and certain officials of the Shah on the other, to extort unreasonable and monstrous prices for tobacco from the people of Persia, the greater part of the plunder to go to Mr. Talbot and the smaller part to the Shah. The Persian people dealt with it as we should have dealt with it. They rose in rebellion against it, and I believe it is entirely due to the extortions practised by the concessionaries that they did so. Had they been moderate they might have been successful, but they wanted to make £370,000 a year for no consideration at all. Having regard to the relationship which exists between the gentleman who got the concession and his brother, a British officer closely connected with Persia, and having regard to the relationship existing between these brothers and the Foreign Secretary, it seems to me that this was of all
  1960
  cases in the world one in which the Government ought to have been very careful about interfering. "Cæsar's wife ought to be above suspicion." The answers which have been given are not satisfactory or sufficient, and we ought not to wait for Papers, but, before another step is taken, or the honour of this country is compromised any further in this equivocal and apparently discreditable transaction, the whole subject ought to be made a matter of inquiry before this House.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think that hon. Gentlemen have magnified the matter very considerably, certainly so far as the part which Her Majesty's Government have taken in the proceedings. Hon. Gentlemen have asked whether Mr. Talbot is a relative of the Prime Minister. I believe he is, but allow me to point out that the concession which has been referred to was obtained without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government were not informed that it had been applied for, they knew nothing whatever about it, and therefore I do not exactly see the relevancy of that suggestion. The action of Her Majesty's Government in the matter of compensation was called for after the concession had been rescinded—not before. The Corporation proposed that the question of compensation should be referred to arbitration.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Did the proposition for arbitration come from Her Majesty's Government?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No, it came from the Corporation. There was an Arbitration Clause in the agreement, but even assuming that there had not been, was it not a reasonable suggestion that the question of compensation should be a matter for arbitration? The Corporation admittedly had spent considerable sums of money on the faith of the concession by the Persian Government. They said they had spent no less than £139,000 or £140,000 in Persia; they had in addition purchased the concession for £300,000; they had also spent in salaries £55,000; and if hon. Members will add these figures together they will find they reach very nearly the sum of £500,000. I can only repeat that the proposal to refer the

  1961
  whole matter to arbitration seemed to Her Majesty's Government to be decidedly reasonable, and they therefore supported it. I have been asked what were the reasons of the Persian Government for refusing to submit the matter to arbitration, but I am not in the counsels of that Government, and I am afraid I cannot answer the question. No statement was ever made by the Representative of the Persian Government about the reason for that refusal. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government to be a reasonable and proper way to arrive at compensation, but the Persian Government for reasons of their own preferred to make an offer of £500,000, taking over all the assets. The Corporation were anxious that the matter should be referred to arbitration, and that was a proposal which Her Majesty's Government, supported. Thus it was that the arrangement was arrived at between the Corporation and the Persian Government—an arrangement for which Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible. The Persian Government did not see their way to accept the proposal that the matter should be referred to arbitration, and therefore the terms of arbitration were not entered upon.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: This is a question of some importance, and I shall move the reduction of the Colonial Office Vote by £500—
  MR. CREMER: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for further information with regard to the subject we are now discussing. I should like to know whether I should be precluded from doing so, if the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) raises quite a distinct question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be possible to go back to it.
  MR. CREMER: I would ask then that my hon. Friend should give way.
  *MR. SMITH: I am willing to give way now if thereby I do not lose the right of speaking on this question. I am quite in the hands of the Chairman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not for me—it is for the hon. Member to decide for himself.
  *MR. SMITH: I think I must persist, and go on with my Amendment.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I submit that as no reduction has been moved on the general Vote—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. SMITH: I have moved that the Vote be reduced by £500.
  MR. HEALY: Is it in the power of one Member to shut out all other Members of the House—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is for the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) to determine whether he should give way or not.
  MR. HEALY: If the hon. Member does not give way, are all other Members to be prevented from calling attention to questions in which they are interested?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Mr. Smith.
  *MR. SMITH: This is a matter of very great importance to the public, and many questions have been put in this House with the view of eliciting information as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it. I think it is the feeling of all who sit on this side of the House, and of many who sit on the other side, that the answers of Her Majesty's Government have been very unsatisfactory, and that the papers which were placed in the hands of Members this morning do nothing whatever to diminish the dissatisfaction which has been caused by the action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this question. My intention now is to direct the attention of the Committee to the whole subject of the revival of the Polynesian labour traffic with Queensland. I hold that the Polynesian labour traffic for the last twenty years has been as cruel as the slave trade of Africa in the worst period of its existence, and I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friends in laying the matter before the country, and in pressing upon the Government to take a totally different action to that they have hitherto taken with reference to it. It will now be my

  1963
  painful duty to refer to some of the disclosures which were made to the Royal Commission which sat in 1885. I will quote one or two paragraphs from the Report of that Commission, which will call the attention of the House to the characteristics of the trade, and which, I believe, are by no means absent at the present day.
  "The love of home of those Islanders amounts to a passion, and the recruiting agents had to overcome dislike to practical exile by the assurance that they would not be absent for any length of time; whenever there was pronounced unwillingness on the part of the natives to go in the boats, or remain on the ships, they were too often impressed by threats."
  The Commissioners go on to say—
  "The Government agents seldom seem to have informed themselves by personal observation and inquiry that the voluntary recruits understood the nature of their engagements."
  They further state—
  "So far as we could discern, when the recruits were brought on board ship, the Government agents sometimes tied a piece of calico round their necks, sometimes they entered their names in the official logs; very rarely indeed did they take any trouble to learn whether the recruits really appreciated that they had entered into an engagement, or the purpose of it."
  Now that was the general conclusion which was come to by the Commissioners, who made a most extensive inquiry into the whole question of engaging Pacific Islanders for this traffic. They decided that the system from root to branch was one of fraud and deception, that the natives were not voluntary agents, that they were totally ignorant of the purposes for which they were engaged; and that, in fact, they were virtually kidnapped. The Commissioners were directed to make inquiries with reference to six ships, and they spent thirty days in the investigation. They examined no less than 280 of the Polynesian labourers, and I will read from their Report what they say about the manner in which the recruits were obtained. The Commissioners state—
  "Our opinion is that all the recruits brought by the 'Ceara' on this voyage were seduced on board by false pretences, that the nature of their engagements was never fully explained to them, that they had little or no comprehension of the nature of the work they had to perform, and that the period for which they agreed to come was in no single instance for three years."
  1964
  They further say—
  "Our opinion is that a system of deliberate fraud was practised in engaging all recruits during this voyage … None believed they had agreed to remain in Queensland for three years."
  I will not weary the Committee by reading other extracts. They are all to the same effect, but in the case of the "Hopeful" a much worse charge is made.
  "The history of the cruise of the 'Hopeful' is one long record of deceit, cruel treachery, deliberate kidnapping, and cold-blooded murders. The number of human beings whose lives were sacrificed during the recruiting can never be accurately known."
  Now the monsters who were engaged on the "Hopeful" were tried for these murders. They were found guilty, and were condemned to penal servitude. But what happened? A strong petition was got up in the colony asking that their punishment might be remitted, and after a few years' imprisonment the wretches were let loose. It was even proposed to give them a public dinner when they came out of prison; but this, however, was dropped. I have now an observation to make as to the mortality amongst these unfortunate islanders. From twenty to twenty-five per cent. of them died in one year. A gentleman who has been through the plantations of Queensland, and who had made close inquiries into the condition of the labourers there—Mr. Hume Nisbet—assured me that in the course of ten months the men were practically used up, and that they generally fell into consumption. If that is not a deplorable state of thing, I do not know what is. These men were taken to the plantations in good health, but the hospitals were soon crowded with them, and very few of them returned to their homes in a healthy state—the majority of them were sent back to die. I have one more fact to add to this tale of horror. In some cases, when they were sent back, they were landed on hostile islands, where they were killed and eaten by the savages, who were cannibals. That was the state of things for twenty years before the year 1885, and no one can rise up and say one word of apology for this abominable traffic. I have had an

  1965
  opportunity of discussing this question with an old sailor, who explained to me the method of recruiting these labourers. He said that the chiefs at the islands were offered an old musket and ammunition for three slaves, which was the regular tariff. The islanders were then taken on board ship, where the Queensland agent asked them questions in English, of which they did not understand a word. Three fingers were then held up by him signifying that they were to be engaged for three years, but the men did not understand what it meant. Their names were then entered in the logbook, and the unhappy people were taken away to Queensland. That is how the abominable traffic was carried on. During the whole period up to 1885 most admirable regulations were in force on paper. No better regulations could have been made; and I believe that the provisions telegraphed to us the other day were substantially the same as the old regulations. All the vessels were provided with agents, who were to explain to the recruits the nature of the traffic. Yet, in spite of them, the islanders were kidnapped without the slightest idea that they were to be taken to the sugar plantations, or that they were engaged for more than three months. The consequence was that, parted from their wives and families for three years, their hearts broke, and they became miserable wrecks, being afterwards sent home to die. That is the plain, unvarnished story of what is called the Polynesian labour traffic for twenty years up to 1885. We have been told that since then all these things have come to an end, and that no abuses now exist. But it should be remembered that the trade is carried on under almost the same regulations as before 1885. I have paid a good deal of attention to this question for some years past, and I am well acquainted with the splendid work done by the New Hebrides Mission and its apostle, Dr. J. G. Paton, and I know that down to the present time these ships take away labourers from the islands—separating husbands from wives, wives from husbands, parents from children, children from parents, and that such things have been going on up to the present day.
  1966
  Here is a letter from Dr. J. G. Paton, who has lived as noble a life as anyone since the days of the Apostle Paul, and who has done as much for the New Hebrides as Livingstone did for Africa. Writing to Sir Samuel Griffith, the Premier of Queensland, and speaking of the year 1890, when the traffic was suspended for about two years, he said—
  "The minimum of the traffic evils in 1890 were appalling to all out of Queensland, and to some in it. Taking children from parents and parents from children, wives from husbands and husbands from wives, may appear to some a minimum evil in such a traffic, and all in the trade know that this is the common practice of every labour vessel to Queensland and all other places to which they are taken; and who knows how many were murdered in getting them away from their island homes."
  He further says—
  "Shortly before you closed the traffic one of our missionaries was requested by a number of men on his island to go with them to a labour vessel, which had got a considerable number of their wives on board, and had them confined to take away; but the captain and agent refused the application to give any of them up, and took them all away. The missionary was abused for pleading for them, and though one of the fathers held up his infant child, pleading for the mother to be given back to it or it would die, yet the slavers would not give the mother to the infant, or the infant to the mother."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): May I ask the hon. Gentleman what he is quoting from?
  *MR. S. SMITH: The letter of Dr. Paton to the Premier of Queensland. I could quote similar letters, but I will only refer to two others. Admiral Erskine wrote in the Times the other day—
  "Three years' experience in command of the Australian Squadron impressed upon me two important facts, viz., firstly, that even under the most stringent regulations wrongs and abuses occurred in connection with the labour traffic, which invariably led to bloodshed and accompanying complications and reprisals."
  Admiral Scott, at present in command of the same squadron, when also applied to for his opinion on the subject of re-opening the trade this year, replied—
  "I regret that it is proposed to introduce labour from the islands where there is no form of government to look after the interests of those who are recruited."

  1967
  He goes on to say—
  "The men engaged in the vessels and the recruiting agent should be wholly honourable and trustworthy men."
  Then mark the next few words—
  "It is a difficult matter to find men who are fit for such a service."
  These are guarded words; but they contain a great deal when one reads between the lines. I agree with these two Admirals, that no means that can be applied would prevent these abuses. There is no practical difference between the present regulations and those which existed before. The labour agents, who have to see that the regulations are carried out, are mostly young men of roving dispositions—often failures at everything else—and they have to live for months together with the captain and the crew. It is not human nature that they should withstand the pressure which is brought to bear upon them to neglect, or, at least, to take a perfunctory view of their duties. Now, all that the labourers get for their work is £6 a year and their keep, and they used to have to wait till the end of three years before they were paid. This is the reason why the Queensland Government will not apply to India or China for labourers. The coolies of India and China would not work for £6 a year. The reason why the Kanakas go so quickly into consumption is not through the want of food, but chiefly because they are separated from their wives and families, and their hearts are broken. Their position is far worse than that of negroes, who are sturdy and accustomed to hard work. These Islanders, unlike the latter, are a soft race, unaccustomed to manual labour, and live in a primitive state on the fruit of the earth. Hard work kills them, and the traffic with Queensland was formerly the traffic of a slaughterhouse; it produced a far more rapid extinction of human beings than the slave trade of old. Some Members of the House may have seen a remarkable letter which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette yesterday. It was written by Mr. Hume Nisbet, from whom I have already quoted, and who thoroughly understands this matter, having himself visited the islands in a labour vessel. He also travelled through Queensland a few years ago,
  1968
  and has thus had opportunity of ascertaining the facts. I believe he is perfectly correct when he says—
  "The past year's crammed hospitals, equally crammed graveyards, and human wrecks which are packed back to the islands to die after their three years of slavery are over, are conclusive enough proofs to anyone who has seen the plantations of Queensland that the Kanaka is as little suited to the work as the white man."
  Now mark the following words:—
  "I never yet saw a healthy South Sea Islander after his three years were up, although they mostly come to Queensland strong and healthy enough."
  I say this is a terrible indictment, and the nation should be despised that allows such wrongs to go on without making a protest. I ask whether the people of Queensland are to be trusted with the absolute control of this helpless race? Has their past history shown them fitted? Is it not notorious, and does not the House know, that the aborigines used to be shot down like dogs, and were rooted out with ruthless ferocity, and that but few survive? Thousands have been murdered in cold blood, and who has heard of a white man being punished for the murder of a black man?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: May I interrupt the hon. Member, and ask for the name of his informant?
  *MR. S. SMITH: Mr. Hume Nisbet gave me many of these particulars, and published a book of his travels.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: What date?
  *MR. S. SMITH: He travelled in Queensland in 1886, and I believe the same facts have been stated in Rusden's History of Australia. I happen myself to have a friend who tried to employ a few of the aborigines, but the white labourers refused to work unless he dismissed them. That shows the feeling. We have been told that the sugar plantations cannot be cultivated for want of Polynesian labour; but, as I have said, coolies can be got from India and China. The Indian coolies would, however, have to be treated very differently, and the Chinese coolies know how to take care of themselves. These, however, require higher wages, and, therefore, they are not engaged. Unless we can stop this traffic of South Sea labour we shall see those

  1969
  islands completely depopulated; indeed, many of them are already half depopulated. Just as the population of the West Indies faded away under the Spanish conquerors, so, too, will be the case of the Pacific Islanders unless some strong hand is put out to protect them. It lies especially on this country to engage in the sacred mission of protection. It is quite true we cannot interfere with self-governing Queensland; but we do exercise a protectorate over a great part of the Pacific, and surely we have a right to say that the Union Jack shall not be employed in the carrying out of a disguised form of slavery. Here we have just signed the Brussels Act against the slave trade, and yet we are going to allow our flag to float over a kind of slavery in the South Seas. I am told that interference with a self-governing colony is a difficult matter. I feel the force of that statement, and I think the Government have felt its force so overwhelmingly that their eyes are closed to everything else. But I see some considerations on the other side. We have been told that if we interfered with Queensland we should have all the Australian Colonies in revolt; but I am glad to read in the Times of to-day news from Melbourne that the Victorian Parliament has without a single dissentient passed a resolution condemning this traffic out and out, and calling upon the Government to put an end to it. I think we should have the approval of the great bulk of the Australian people in an endeavour to defeat this wretched policy. I am informed that in Brisbane and elsewhere many meetings have been held to protest against the revival of this Pacific labour traffic. In Brisbane I believe that public opinion is strongly opposed to it, and that all the Churches of Australia will aid us in putting it down if necessary. It is one of those cases in which we ought to grasp the nettle, for those interested in the traffic are only a mere handful—a few Queensland planters. I doubt if one per cent. of the Australian population have any direct interest in it. I say it is impossible for this nation to stand supinely by and allow the revival of a species of slavery. And here it is
  1970
  worthy of remark that, after nearly quarreling with some European Powers on the question of slavery, we are going to allow in our own Colonies a veiled form of slavery. I believe the Government have dealt with this matter in a very feeble manner. I have read through the Blue Book, and I only find a single protest—a letter from Lord Knutsford. On the 3rd May he wrote—
  "I observe that it is stated in the Press that the Act permitting the resumption of Polynesian immigration has been passed by both Houses of the Queensland Parliament, and has received your assent, and I trust that it contains complete provision for the protection of the natives, both during their conveyance to and from the colony, and when at work on the plantations, so as to prevent the recurrence of those regrettable abuses which were on some occasions perpetrated before the labour traffic was prohibited."
  These are proper words, but they are feeble words. They amount to almost nothing, and no Colonial Government would be influenced by them. Surely you might have taken up a stronger stand against a traffic which a few years ago was execrated by all civilised Powers. I do not believe that the action of the Government is in harmony either with the wishes of this country or of Australia, and I hope this House will put a little backbone into the Ministry. If the Turks had been guilty of atrocities such as marked this traffic a few years ago the country would have rung with denunciation from one end to the other. I urge the Committee to show that the old hatred of oppression has not died out of England, and that we are worthy descendants of those who in former days struck the chains from the slaves. I beg, Sir, to move a reduction of £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £7,000, for the Colonial Office, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I am sure that all hon. Members who have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) will feel that he spoke from the bottom of his heart in condemning those atrocities which we, with him,

  1971
  deplore. He was, however, not dealing with the present but with the past, and I venture to say that if such were not the case we should not this evening have to discuss this Bill passed by the Queensland Legislature. I claim for our brothers in the Colonies an equal amount of human feeling, an equal amount of civilisation, and equal detestation of wrong and oppression as we ourselves possess. I am sure that if one tithe of the atrocities recited by the hon. Member to-night had been or could be practised in Queensland at the present moment, the Queensland Legislature would not under any conditions whatever have sanctioned a resumption of the traffic. I interrupted the hon. Member and asked him who was his authority for the statement that a permit had once been granted by the Queensland Government for the killing of blacks, and, further, for the name of his informant with regard to the massacre, which he said had taken place, of ten thousand Kanakas.
  MR. S. SMITH: Not Kanakas; aborigines of Queensland.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: He gave me the name of Mr. Hume Nisbet, but I did not gather that Mr. Hume Nisbet gave to the hon. Gentleman the name of his informant. At all events, if he did, the hon. Gentleman did not communicate it to the House. These charges are too grave, too terrible, to be submitted to the House of Commons without the fullest proof that they are based on credible evidence. Considering the nature of them, we are entitled to ask for the fullest, most complete, and absolute evidence of the truth of the statements alleged. Without in the least degree desiring to disparage the hon. Gentleman, I must say that such evidence has not been given to us. Passing from that for a moment, I turn to another point the hon. Gentleman raised—namely, that the answers given by me with regard to this question were unsatisfactory. If that is so, I regret the circumstance very much, but at all events I gave to the House all the information at my command, and I gave the facts as supplied me by those who had the best opportunity of knowing them. If that information was insufficient I cannot but regret it. I cannot, however, agree
  1972
  that the Blue Book presented to the House also contains but a meagre statement. Every document in our possession relating to the case as it now stands is embodied in this Blue Book. Neither do I understand how the hon. Member can say that we do not express ourselves sufficiently strongly to the Queensland Government in face of the despatch, a portion of which I will read to the Committee, written by the Secretary of State to Sir Henry Norman. On the 3rd May, Lord Knutsford said—
  "I observe that it is stated in the Press that the Act permitting the resumption of Polynesian immigration has been passed by both Houses of the Queensland Parliament, and has received your assent, and I trust that it contains complete provision for the protection of the natives both during their conveyance to and from the colony and when at work on the plantations, so as to prevent the recurrence of those regrettable abuses which were on some occasions perpetrated before the labour traffic was prohibited."
  I want to know how the Secretary of State could say more in addressing a representation to the Ministry of a great self-governing Colony? He expresses his hope that these regulations would be ample, and I am bound to say, in view of the fact that since 1885 there have been but very few, if any, abuses—and later I will show this by facts and figures—that there was reason to be satisfied that, with the already stringent regulations now made still more stringent, these few abuses would cease altogether. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Victorian Parliament had passed a Resolution against the introduction of Kanakas into Queensland. I dealt with this subject in answer to a question put by him to-day, and I regret that he should have thought it necessary to again recur to it after that explanation. The Resolution of the Victorian Parliament was not directed specially against the importation of Kanakas into Queensland. It was a general Resolution against the importation of alien labour of whatever nature; and as I pointed out then, however important that Resolution might be, and whatever respect it was entitled to, it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government in dealing with a question so grave as the disallowance

  1973
  of an Act passed by the Queensland Legislature to taken into consideration a Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, not directed against native employment on humanitarian grounds, but against all foreign labour, coolie or native.
  MR. S. SMITH: In place of being a totally different subject, it contains direct reference to the action of the Queensland Parliament in sanctioning the resumption of the importation of Kanaka labour.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I explained that the Resolution was directed against the general importation of alien labour. The Committee will, I hope, consider that I am not trespassing on their time and patience if, in dealing with this grave question, I first call their attention to the history of the traffic. The first batch of Islanders was brought to Brisbane in 1863. At first there were no Government regulations applied to the recruiting vessels, and as the trade, generally speaking, was in disreputable hands, great abuses occurred. A strong agitation sprang up in Queensland on the report of these abuses, and general indignation meetings were called. The result was that in 1868 an Act was passed by the Colonial Legislature which made provisions for the supply of food and medicine during the voyage, and for the appointment of Inspectors of the Polynesian labourers. Two inquiries were held into the working of the Act, the first in 1869 and the second in 1876; and the general conclusions were that the labourers were properly obtained and that they were willing to come to the Colony. In 1880 the Act of 1868 was repealed and another was substituted, which contained much more elaborate provision for the protection of the labourers, with power to the Governor in Council to make regulations for the due execution of the objects of the Act. In the same year, 1880, an inquiry was again made into the treatment of Polynesian labourers on the plantations, and the Government recognised the importance of hospital treatment. In 1884 an important set of regulations was framed amplifying and augmenting those contained in the Act. In 1885 an inquiry into the "Hopeful" and
  1974
  other cases was held, which disclosed eight instances in which the vessels had committed gross abuses and violations of the Imperial Kidnapping Acts of 1872–5. These cases occurred just about the time of the enactment of a Queensland Statute, which enabled Polynesians to give evidence without taking the oath, as they did not understand the nature of such an obligation. In the same year, 1885, after the issue of the "Hopeful" Report, an Act was passed that no licences to introduce Polynesian labourers should be issued after the end of 1890. I have thought it right to give to the Committee this brief history of the labour question, because it goes far to show that the Government of Queensland, from the very beginning of the importation of Kanaka labour into Queensland in 1863, up to the terrible events of the "Hopeful" in 1884 and the subsequent inquiry, have endeavoured by every means in their power to so regulate the traffic as to prevent the possibility of atrocities which we are all united in condemning. Since 1885 there have been no cases of atrocities whatever.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: It depends upon what you call atrocities.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: More than that, the alteration of the law, that is to say, the rescinding of these licences, which came into force in 1890, was not caused in the main by the fact that atrocities had been committed, but for perfectly different reasons. I am prepared to show by the debates which took place in the Colonial Parliament on this Act of 1885, that there is little reference made to the "Hopeful" case, not because the speakers in any way palliated these atrocities, but simply because they found that the regulations then in force were sufficiently stringent. The principal arguments for this Act were based upon general objections to the introduction of any coloured labour into the Colony—an objection similar to the present Resolution of the Victorian Parliament—and the belief that the change would lead to the splitting up of large sugar estates into small estates, on which white labour could be employed. That view was shared by Sir Samuel Griffith. Sir Samuel Griffith is a man who has

  1975
  earned a reputation as a statesman, and he thoroughly deserves it; and having come to the conclusion that Kanaka labour could again be introduced into Queensland, I think he must, first of all, have thoroughly convinced himself that the safeguards by which he intended to surround the new Act were adequate to prevent the recurrence of those terrible abuses. Now, the reasons given by Sir Samuel Griffith for passing the Act of 1885 were hardly based on the atrocities at all, but were these—first, because he considered that the system then in existence tended to encourage the creation of large landed estates, owned for the most part by absentees and worked by gang labour, and so to discourage actual settlement by small farmers working for themselves; secondly, because it led to field labour in tropical agriculture being looked down upon as degrading and unworthy of white races; and, thirdly, because the permanent existence of a large servile population, not admitted to the franchise, was not compatible with the freedom of political institutions in the colony. To these reasons was added, so far as Polynesian labour was concerned, the discredit that had been brought upon Queensland by the abuses that for some years prevailed in the South Sea Island trade. These were the reasons which led to the Act of 1885 and the abolition of licences to recruit after the expiration of 1890. But between 1885 and 1890 several causes arose which led to the introduction of the present Act, and I think it only right to give to the Committee a general statement of what those reasons were. In 1889 a Royal Commission in Queensland inquired into the causes of the depression of the sugar industry, and in the course of that inquiry included some questions relating to the importation of Polynesians. It was stated that the capital invested in that industry in the colony was £5,000,000; that in Mauritius sugar was grown by coolies whose wages were one shilling a day without rations; that in Java the cost of labour was sixpence a day, and in China probably less; and that in Fiji the coolies were paid one shilling per working day. Now, the hon. Gentleman stated that the
  1976
  wages of the Polynesian labourers were only from £6 to £7 a year. He will, therefore, be surprised to hear that in Queensland the cost of a Polynesian labourer is sixteen shillings or seventeen shillings a week.
  MR. S. SMITH: That includes his food.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The amount I have stated is the actual cost of the labourer.
  MR. S. SMITH: Is it not the fact that £6 a year is all the amount paid in money?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: That may be so. The Royal Commission recommended that Polynesian labour should be permitted, as otherwise the capital invested in the sugar industry would be wiped out of existence, and the whole population now dependent upon that industry for a livelihood would for a time be thrown out of employment. Annexed to the Report was a Return respecting the vessels engaged in the recruiting trade during the period 1886–1888, from which it appears that seventy-nine voyages were made in that time, and that only in one case had any irregularity occurred which was attributable to the crew. That was the case of the "Forest King," which was brought back at the request of the Government Agent owing to the insobriety of the crew and the want of control over them by the master. The inquiry, however, disclosed no outrage on the islanders. When, therefore, I stated that the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) appeared to have brought before the House certain cases which he had not proved by the ordinary rules of evidence, I think I have shown that I was justified in that statement. The hon. Member at the outset of his remarks said that the traffic during the last three years exhibited the very worst form of slavery.
  MR. S. SMITH: No, not quite so. What I said was that the traffic of the last few years still retained many of the vices that belonged to former periods—not the more extreme and violent ones.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: At all events, as far as the last three years are concerned, the hon. Gentleman cannot furnish the Committee with

  1977
  one single authentic case of cruelty in reference to this importation of Polynesians, and as far as the preceding years are concerned, I have shown the hon. Member from official statistics that in seventy-nine voyages there was not a single case of cruelty reported. Sir Samuel Griffith has been accused of changing his policy in supporting the present Bill, and as having done so simply in the interests of the sugar planters. I think it is only fair to Sir Samuel Griffith that I should remind the Committee of what that gentleman's own reasons are, as given by himself, with regard to the present Bill. He said—
  "Amongst the working population, whose interests I had perhaps too exclusively in view, there has arisen a body of men, claiming to be leaders of thought, who have by their speech and action rendered it impossible that the experiment of the employment of white labour in tropical agriculture should be fairly tried. There are not at present in Queensland a sufficient number of Europeans able and willing to do the necessary work and to take the place of the Polynesians who are gradually leaving the colony, and of whom no more can be introduced under the existing laws. Yet every opposition has been offered to the introduction of any additional labour, the opinion has been promulgated that field labour in tropical agriculture is degrading, and the employment of white labour in that industry has been denounced except at rates of wages which the industry cannot pay. In short, these men will neither engage in the work themselves nor, so far as they can prevail, allow anyone else to do so."
  Under these circumstances the Prime Minister of Queensland felt that something must be done, and what did he do? He made more stringent regulations than those which had been sufficient to prevent any outrage from 1885 to the present time, and he felt that with these safeguards he could again import Polynesian labour; and having introduced it, he would be able once more to revive the sugar trade of the country, which was rapidly dying out. I say that with these safeguards, and presuming them to be sufficient, he was perfectly justified in the course he took. The hon. Member says it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government not to allow this Bill until they see whether or not the safeguards are sufficient. But does the hon. Gentleman know that the disallowance of this Bill would not prevent the traffic? Even if Her
  1978
  Majesty's Government were prepared to take that extreme step—which they are not—the traffic would continue just as it does now.
  An hon. MEMBER: No.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Gentleman says "No"; but I will explain the position in a few words. It is expressly stated in the Pacific Islanders' Protection Acts, 1872, Section 8, and 1875 that compliance with the requirements of the Queensland Statutes as regards the obtaining of licences to carry labourers from an island to a colony shall be sufficient. The issue of licences to "carry" in this sense has never been prohibited; and if no such licences were granted in Queensland they could, under the Imperial Acts, be applied for in any other Australasian colony. What the Act of 1885 did prospectively prohibit was the issue of licences to "introduce" Polynesians, and it will be seen from a perusal of the Act that a licence to "introduce" is not the licence granted to a master of a vessel to "carry," but a licence to a planter to engage and bring from the vessel into the colony. This is, however, a matter of local concern. If Her Majesty's cruisers have no power to stop recruiting by Queensland vessels—and no such power would result from the disallowance of the Act—Her Majesty's Government could not, by taking such a step, prevent Polynesians from being taken into and employed in Queensland. There would, it is true, be an Act on the Colonial Statute Book prohibiting such employment, but Her Majesty's Government could not secure its enforcement; and if the Colonial Government were driven to an attitude of defiance the only result might be that Polynesians would be employed without any restrictions on the planters. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that, even if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt the extreme measure suggested, they would not be able thereby to stop the introduction of Polynesian labour into Queensland; so that nothing would be gained except that they would have done something which, so far as I know, never has been done with respect to a large self-governing colony. I will now deal with one other question before I leave

  1979
  this branch of the subject. The hon. Member has pictured what he alleges to be the terrible condition of the Kanakas; but I think I shall be able to show, on the best possible authority, that the informants of the hon. Gentleman have misled him. I do not say that they have done so wilfully; they may have considered that they were justified in making such statements, but I hope to satisfy the Committee that those statements are not based on facts. There have been cases of irregularities in the Western Pacific brought to light since 1885; but either, as in the case of Edmunds, who was recently charged with murder and kidnapping in the Solomon Islands, they have occurred on a vessel which was not licensed by or connected with Queensland; or, as in the cases of the Queensland labour vessels "Hector" and "Forest King," they were cases of drunkenness and insubordination amongst the crew. That such cases have been discovered and reported upon shows that Her Majesty's cruisers and the colonial authorities, including the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, now watch carefully and efficiently the manner in which the traffic is conducted, and therefore strengthens the presumption that grave cases of violence have not occurred. Seven years have now elapsed since the Report on the "Hopeful" and other cases was issued; and during that time, up to and including part of 1891, the introduction of Polynesian labourers was vigorously prosecuted, there being a rapid increase after that date in the numbers imported. Thus in 1886, 1,505 were introduced; in 1887, 1,988; in 1888, 2,291; and in 1890, 2,459. These figures indicate the continual and growing demand for such labour and the impracticability of the idea which underlay the Act of 1885 that the sugar plantations can and will be worked by white labour. Now while there has been a steady increase in the number reported, there has been a sustained decrease in the number of deaths reported. Thus the deaths for the five years ending 1890 were given as follows:—1886, 573; 1887, 520; 1888, 482; 1889, 481; 1890, 417.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers
  1980
  amongst whom these deaths occurred so as to show the proportion?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Of course, there were a great many Kanakas in the colony at the time, but I cannot for the moment give the proportions.
  DR. CLARK: The figures are given in the Reports, and the proportions are about sixty to the thousand.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I especially want to meet the allegation that these people are dying by thousands. Between 1869 and 1889 23,700 Kanakas were returned to their homes on completion of their engagements. These would naturally explain to their neighbours the conditions of their life in Queensland. There is no general allegation that the islanders have been ill-used on the plantations. Public opinion would make itself promptly felt if cases of cruelty occurred, and there is always an influential party in the Colonial Parliament which is ready to inquire into and denounce any such cases. Large numbers of islanders return to Queensland and some have settled down there. Thus in North Rockhampton there is a colony of them, some of whom have married white women, have carts of their own, and compete with Europeans. At Bundaberg there are at least 300 who have engaged themselves for short periods. It is said that these people receive a miserable pittance for wages. In the Government Savings Bank there was a sum of £17,659 on 31st December, 1890, to the credit of 3,060 islanders. Considering that it is alleged that these people receive no more than £6 a year each, they must have been extraordinarily thrifty to have been able in so short a period to accumulate so large a sum. I think these facts and figures dispose of the principal allegations of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith). Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member quoted the views of a missionary, doubtless a very excellent man—Mr. Paton, and I think I shall only be doing my duty by showing that many of the statements of this gentleman are absolutely misleading and incorrect. The charges of Mr. Paton are so many in number, that I cannot deal with them all; but I will select one or two. In 1889 Mr.

  1981
  Cowley, the Member of the Queensland Legislature for Herbert, and at present the Minister for Lands, made the following speech in his place in the Assembly:—
  "In December, 1881, Mr. Paton published a long letter in the Melbourne Argus, which contained charges so grave that Captain Bridge, of Her Majesty's ship "Espiègle," was instructed by Sir Arthur Gordon to investigate them. Two of the principal charges, together with the official Report on them, are printed in the Argus."
  This was one of Mr. Paton's charges—
  "A labour vessel decoyed a Christian native teacher on board. Word was then sent to the young men and boys of the school that their teacher wanted to see them. So soon as one hundred were collected the vessel sailed away."
  This was the official Report—
  "A native teacher left by a native vessel, but he went voluntarily. He was not decoyed. Word was not sent to collect the scholars. None were entrapped. There was no such kidnapping incident."
  Another of Mr. Paton's charges was—
  "That two tribes that were fighting placed their women and children on a reef; that a labour vessel stole in, got the women and children into the boats, and sailed away, despite the firing of the men and the pleading of the women."
  This was alleged to have occurred at Tanna. The official Report was as follows:—
  "The Rev. Messrs. Watt and Neilson have been long on Tanna, and both say they never heard of any such thing occurring on that island."
  Mr. Cowley, on the same occasion, further said—
  "What do the people in our country say—the ministers of all denominations in our midst? I would refer to one man who has lived amongst the people of North Queensland, the Bishop of North Queensland. He has travelled through the whole North, not excepting the plantations. He has been among the islanders for days at a time, inspected their houses and food, and seen how they were treated. I know that his opinion is that those people are well looked after, and are benefited by being brought to this country. There is no doubt that there has not been any complaint from any minister of the Gospel of any denomination whatever, who has made it his duty to go among the islanders and see the way in which they are treated."
  Again, the Annual Report of the Department of Pacific Island Immigration for 1889, in speaking of the mortality, stated—
  1982
  "This has been of a normal character, and there has been no epidemic among the islanders."
  The Report for 1890, the latest forwarded to this country, said—
  "The death reports, I am pleased to state, show a decrease in the number of deaths year by year. The deaths for the past year have been of the usual character, there having been no disease of a special nature amongst the islanders."
  To show that the Islanders are not averse to labouring on the plantations in Queensland, the following figures from the same Report for 1890 may be referred to:—New introductions, 2,577; re-agreements, 2,760. And it is added—
  "This must, it is thought, convince impartial persons that there can be no 'slavery' in this form of service; otherwise the labourers would insist on their right to be returned to their islands instead of re-engaging for a further term."
  The Right Rev. W. Saumarez Smith, Bishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia, has declared himself as not opposed to Kanaka labour under rigid supervision; and the Rev. Alexander C. Smith, the Convener of the Queensland Presbyterian Heathen Mission Committee, in a letter which appeared in the Brisbane Courier of 26th March, 1892, after speaking in warm terms of the condition of the Kanakas he had met with in his tours in the colony, continued—
  "In conclusion, let me say I deeply regret, I deplore, that that protest (Mr. Paton's) has been made at all, and especially in the terms in which it has been couched. It is, as a whole, hasty, and, through defective knowledge, in many respects without foundation. It is calculated to wound and offend all right-thinking people, and grieve the hearts of most, if not all, Christian men and women in the colony. It is fitted to give a wrong impression of our whole colony as a Christian country throughout the world."
  I think this testimony, coming from men of such eminence, is at least equal in weight and authority to that which the hon. Member has adduced. I do not like to weary the Committee, but I feel I have an important duty to perform, which is to vindicate not only the action of Her Majesty's Government, but also the honour of the Colony of Queensland, and I hope the Committee will bear with me while I read a quotation from

  1983
  a letter written by Commander Heath, of the Royal Navy. This gentleman was Chairman of the Marine Board of Queensland, and being at the same time the officer in charge of the harbours and lighthouses, he annually visited the ports and rivers of the colony throughout its long seaboard; and the inspection of vessels licensed to carry Islanders is performed by officers attached to his Department, and acting under his orders. He says—
  "Admiral Erskine seems to have forgotten the fact that when some doubts were felt as to whether the New Guinea natives who have been brought to Queensland in 1884 properly understood the length of time for which they had been engaged, Sir Samuel Griffith chartered a steamer, collected the whole of the remaining natives, and sent them home at the public expense, carefully landing each native at his own village. The Admiral seems, moreover, to be unaware that no natives from New Guinea have since been brought or proposed to be brought into Queensland. Since the year 1884, to which he refers, the whole system has been changed, and no person could have done more to put an end to all possible abuses previously connected with the importation of South Sea Islanders than Sir Samuel Griffith. The master or mate of any vessel against whom the slightest charge of drunkenness or other misconduct can be substantiated is prohibited from being again employed in the Service. The cubic space allowed to each passenger is the same as under the Imperial Passenger Acts. The dieting scale is ample, while the length of the voyage is only a few weeks—sometimes they are on board only a few days — while a representative of the Government is on board to see the regulations carried out, and that the natives understand their agreements. From the constant passage of Islanders to and fro they now know at which ports they are best treated, and at which plantations they are most comfortable, and they have also their favourite vessels by which they prefer to take their passage to Queensland. When on the plantations their hours of work and rates of pay are fixed by Act of Parliament or regulation, while their wages are paid through the Polynesian Inspector of the district, who is a Magistrate of standing, and who periodically visits the plantations to ascertain if the men have any complaints to make."
  This is the condition of slavery alluded to by the hon. Member, and this is the foundation of the terrible charge levelled against the Government of one of our Colonies, on the evidence of persons who are unable to give the names, dates, or position of their informant. It is on such flimsy evidence that Her Majesty's Government
  1984
  are asked to disallow a Bill passed by a great self-governing colony. If the hon. Member had wished to find evidence the other way, a little research would have yielded some facts in favour of those he has so bitterly attacked. The hon. Member has quoted the evidence of ministers of religion. I do the same, and of men with better opportunities of judging than those to whom he has referred. I have shown from official sources that the statements made by the hon. Member are not founded on fact, and that they are disbelieved by those who have the best opportunity of judging whether they are true. I will only make one further quotation from a letter of a man whom everyone reveres, and who has spent his life in teaching and in doing good amongst the most barbarous races in the world—I refer to Bishop Selwyn, late Bishop of Melanesia. This man, who has passed his life in a great and good cause, has expressed in a letter, with much power and eloquence, his view that these statements are not founded on fact, and ought never to have been made. We cannot neglect the evidence of such a man.
  An hon. MEMBER: Read his words.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I will read his words, and those words I should certainly say are not only those of experience, but of truth; and I trust that when we take into consideration the great facilities he has had for knowing, and his sacred mission, which certainly teaches him, as it teaches all men, to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them, you will agree that we cannot accuse him of being likely to excuse or conceal slavery in any form. We must take his evidence, perhaps, as the most weighty of any I have been able to give, and as proving that this whole system, bad as it was, terrible as it was years ago, has ceased to be bad and terrible now, and that the Queensland Government are justified in importing, under the safeguards which now exist, Kanaka labour for the purpose of promoting colonial industry. If we were to follow the argument of the hon. Member we should be debarred from employing negroes, because in the old days before Wilberforce they were slaves. But slaves were freed by

  1985
  the voice of this House; and in the case of Queensland, the humane and wise dispositions of the Colonial Legislature have freed the Kanaka traffic from the curse of slavery. I think, therefore, they have a right to import, under these safeguards, that labour which they consider necessary. I maintain that the hon. Member has in no way made out his case, and he has proved no infringement of the Rules and Regulations which the humane sympathies of the Queensland Government have passed for the protection of the Kanaka labourers. With these words of Bishop Selwyn I will conclude my remarks. He says—
  "I cannot help feeling that the indiscriminate condemnation of the traffic that has been expressed is likely to do more harm than good. It was true of the traffic in its beginning; it is not true of the traffic as it is now conducted."
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: What is the date of that letter?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The letter is published in the Blue Book just issued. It was written by Bishop Selwyn about a fortnight ago. He continues—
  "These restrictions if faithfully enforced would go far to remedy the abuses now existing, and with them I think the traffic might be worked to the benefit of the Islands and of Queensland."
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a most interesting résumé of the history of this matter, but I venture to say that the effect produced by his speech on the minds of many of those who listened to him must have been the same as it made on mine. Why should the Government of Queensland have found it necessary from time to time to make these regulations, to amend them and revise them? Because the regulations have proved insufficient to remedy the abuses they were framed to meet. I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misconceives the position of the whole matter. The presumption is against the recommencement of this traffic. The Blue Book I hold in my hand was the outcome of the Commission appointed in 1885, and was the result of a very careful inspection by a member of the Queensland land Legislature, a barrister at law and
  1986
  a police magistrate in that country. The Blue Book teems with evidence as to the atrocities under the regulations that are in existence at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that what is stated in this Blue Book with reference to what took place in these five vessels happened under the existing regulations. Therefore it is for the Government to show why they did not disallow and prevent the renewal of this traffic; the onus probandi lies with those who wish to revive the traffic. It is not sufficient for them to call on us who object to this revival to show that cases of the kind we allege have occurred. I admit that the evidence that there have been atrocities and enormities since 1885 is meagre, but I think we are entitled to complain very strongly of the action of Her Majesty's Government in not placing us in possession of information. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted very largely from a Blue Book which was issued to Members this morning, but we only got that Blue Book in consequence of a question which was addressed to the Government from this side of the House. We ought to have had earlier information laid before us. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question this afternoon, gave me some figures with respect to the deaths among the Kanakas, but they were by no means complete, and it was very pertinently pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) that we not only want to know the number of deaths, but the number of people amongst whom those deaths arose, and on that subject the Blue Book contains no information. During the three years 1888, 1889, and 1890 the number of Islanders imported into Queensland was 6,782, and the number who returned to the islands was 3,849. The deaths reported were 1,380, but it is admitted that there were a large number of deaths which were unreported, and that there are places where there is no Inspector, and where the deaths which occurred are not entered in these figures of 1,380. It is admitted on the other hand that 6,782 represents more than the number of persons to whom the number of deaths applies, and I think

  1987
  anyone going through the figures carefully will find that the death rate in in the three years is something between seventy and a hundred per thousand. I venture to submit that that admitted fact, drawn from official sources, is a matter which requires further inquiry. I say, further, that if the right hon. Gentleman contends that no case of atrocity has occurred in recent times he cannot have studied the Blue Book. Page 39 of the Blue Book will reveal to him that there were many instances of firing from boats, and firing no doubt takes place on both sides. One outrage gives rise to another, and there is no doubt whatever that there is still going on a great deal that one must deplore. The right hon. Gentleman has read to us a number of letters from persons in Queensland; but I think they would have carried more weight if they had been from independent persons, instead of from persons who were to a certain extent implicated in the allegations that have been made. The letter from Bishop Selwyn is honoured with a place in the Blue Book. I will read a few lines from a letter from another Bishop, who has been in Australasia some years. Many of us knew him by reputation before he went out, and he is the son of that distinguished architect who erected this pile of buildings. I refer to Bishop Barry, a man of the highest honour and experience. The letter appeared in the Guardian newspaper of the 4th May, and is very pertinent to this matter. He says—
  "It is with reluctance and pain that I find myself forced to make these quotations."
  These are quotations from the Commission which was appointed in 1885.
  "Let it be clearly understood that I have no doubt that the Queensland Parliament and Queensland Government fully intended to provide, and thought that they had provided, adequate safeguards against all cruelties in the labour traffic and all injustice and oppression on the plantations. But to make good laws is one thing; to enforce them under all the circumstances is altogether another. Certainly the history of the past shows the difference only too clearly. Accordingly I deeply regret the revival — I see by Sir S. Griffith's letter the reluctant revival on his part—of a traffic which I believe to be injurious in itself, and which is evidently so liable to abuse and atrocity. I have the
  1988
  privilege of knowing Sir S. Griffith, and I have full confidence that, warned by this past experience—of which no one has spoken more indignantly than he himself—he will do his best now to mitigate or remove all abuses. But even if this can be done, I must repeat that I believe the whole traffic to be bad in its effect, and that I have grave fears as to the provison against abase in the future. Therefore I have said that all must be done, here and in the Pacific itself, to see that the cause of humanity be sternly defended, and the hands of those who fight for it strengthened in every way."
  I have only read one or two sentences from Bishop Barry's letter, but he is a man of the highest authority in everything that appertains to Australasia.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Bishop Barry lived in the Polynesian Islands.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: But he had to do with the Continent as well, and this is the direct testimony of a man who never allowed anything that affected Australasia to escape his notice while he was out there as Bishop. I set that authority to a certain extent against the other. The right hon. Gentleman passed very lightly over the remarkable testimony quoted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) from Admiral Erskine and Admiral Scott. What authority at the present moment could be higher than that of Admiral Scott? Admiral Scott, writing with all the authority of his position, says—
  "Before making any remarks on recruiting labour from the Pacific Islands, I would venture to observe that I regret it is proposed to introduce labour from countries that have no form of government to look after the interests of those who are recruited."
  Again he says—
  "Proper supervision of recruiting in the Islands appears to be a very difficult matter," and "It is a difficult matter to find men for such service."
  The letter from a commander in the Royal Navy which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman must give way in point of authority and in point of responsibility to such a letter as that from Admiral Scott. Therefore, the case has been established to this extent. The onus probandi lies on those who seek to revive this traffic. Then we are confronted with regulations, and told that they are amply sufficient; but the Agent General for Queensland, in a letter to the Times, has admitted that all the evils have taken place under

  1989
  the regulations which are now in force. Why the Act of 1880, under which they are framed, occupies pages of the Blue Book just presented. They contain five parts, eleven Schedules and provisions without number, but they will be useless unless you have men who are determined to carry them out. In the letter of Bishop Selwyn quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, it is pointed out that further regulations are needed, and suggestions are made which really amount to another Revised Code. The Agent General for Queensland was so impressed by this letter in the Guardian of the 4th May that he at once sent it to the Government of Queensland and expressed the hope that they would adopt the suggested regulations if the traffic was to go on. Therefore, the Agent General admitted that the regulations might be improved to the extent the Bishop suggested, thereby admitting that even the revised regulations, of which we have heard so much, are inadequate. What is the reason given for re-opening this traffic? We find it put in a letter from Sir Henry Norman. The last lines in the opening letter in the Blue Book are—
  "This, as your Lordship is aware, is a reversal of the policy adopted a few years ago, and will, I have no doubt, greatly help to revive the declining sugar industry of this Colony."
  I venture to say that it is the old story. I doubt if this country or Queensland has any moral right to go to these islands in the manner proposed in order to develop any industry. There is too much trade about the matter, and I think we have a right to demand that the policy of the Government shall have less regard for the development of trade and more regard for the principles and dictates of humanity. I endorse the complaint of my hon. Friend as to the action of the Colonial Office in this matter. They show a great want of knowledge. Even the right hon. Gentleman seemed quite unaware of the Resolution passed by the Victorian Parliament, and suggested, when reminded of it, that it was on an entirely different matter.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The information I have came from official sources.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman give the words?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I gave it in the form of an answer. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from a newspaper; I am giving official information.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the precise words of the Resolution? He has not read them to the Committee—he only gave the effect of them. I take it they are given correctly in the Times, and they relate specifically to this question. There has been great and unaccountable delay on the part of the Colonial Office in this matter. The letter from Sir H. Norman was received on 29th March, but the date of Lord Knutsford's despatch is 13th May, so that five weeks were allowed to elapse before he made any observations to the Queensland Government on the matter. That does not show very great anxiety, or any great sense on the part of the Colonial Office that the question is a vital and pressing one. When questions were asked in the House telegrams were sent out the next day. Why could they not have been sent out when the Government of Queensland pointed out that the whole policy was going to be reversed? The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government have no power in this matter. I will only call his attention to Lord Knutsford's suggestion in a telegram of 9th May, and Lord Knutsford said—
  "I trust your Government will not object to a short delay before issuing licences under the new Act until I can receive and consider the measure and the safeguards with which it is doubtless surrounded."
  Did Lord Knutsford receive any reply to that telegram? Have the Queensland Government complied with the suggestion contained in it? Because if the Colonial Office could do nothing it was hardly worth while to make the suggestion that the issue of licences should be suspended unless it had something behind it. This is not a matter for the Colony of Queensland alone—I will say nothing disrespectful about that great Colony—but, in the words of Admiral Erskine's letter—
  "The honour of this country is concerned in seeing that these poor unhappy people receive the protection of this great Empire."

  1991
  Our policy in the past is about to be reversed; the traffic is going to spring up again, under regulations which everybody says are insufficient.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The traffic never stopped.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Well, the issue of licences was stopped in 1890.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The figures show that the traffic has not ceased.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Licences were stopped and no new ones were issued. If not, what does Sir Henry Norman mean by the words—
  "Your lordship is aware there is a reversal of the policy adopted a few years ago."
  The old licences are going to be re-issued, and Lord Knutsford asked that they should not be issued till he had further information. I am not in a position to say that Lord Knutsford ought to have disallowed the Act, but we have a right to demand that ample information shall be placed at the disposal of Lord Knutsford, and through him before Parliament, before the issue of new licences is permitted to proceed.
  MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: Everybody must give the hon. Gentleman full credit for his stand against the continuation of this traffic, and while I find myself compelled to differ from him and from the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), I must ask to be believed when I say that I have no sympathy with any form of slavery, and detest as much as anyone the atrocities and abuses which took place in Queensland years ago. Undoubtedly up to 1885 there were abuses which were revealed by the Commission. It was conclusively shown that sufficient care had not been taken in the selection of agents on board the recruiting vessels, and that proper care in many cases had not been taken to explain to the Islanders the conditions under which they were to work, and the term for which they were engaged. The system of inspection was also very lax. But I say the rules themselves were good rules, and that there was nothing disgraceful in the traffic itself, provided you got the good rules carried out, and nothing which ought to prevent the Colony of Queensland engaging in it.
  1992
  Even Lord Charles Scott is of that opinion, for in the last clause of his letter, on page 5 of the Blue Book, he says—
  "The regulations approved by His Excellency the Governor of Queensland in Government Gazette of 18th April, 1884, appear to me to be such that if strictly carried out and enforced by Government agents on board labour vessels, they should insure the labour traffic being properly conducted."
  I might also commend to the attention of the Government another paragraph, No. 6, in Lord C. Scott's letter, the paragraph in which he suggests that it might be possible for the Queensland Government to establish a permanent station on those islands where recruiting is carried on, so that there might be an officer living on the spot who could explain to the Islanders the terms of their engagements. Sir S. Griffith feared that the French Government would intervene if we established a post of that kind, but it would be worth while for the Foreign Office to communicate with the French Government on the subject. The difficulties of control in this matter are immense, but I am not prepared to say that it is impossible that effective control should be established. I do not say that I like the traffic, or that it is one which, unless most carefully watched, is not likely to be greatly abused. But I would point out this, that the Government of Queensland is conducted by Sir S. Griffith, who at one time came to the conclusion that the regulations were not and could not be carried out; but Sir S. Griffith, with all the details before him, has changed his mind, and believes he could frame regulations under which it could be safely conducted, and that he could ensure effective supervision of the traffic. Sir S. Griffith is the last man in the world to make wild statements which he cannot substantiate. You have the Prime Minister of Queensland, who says he could control the traffic, the majority of the Queensland Parliament who approve of it, and the Government of Queensland also believes effective regulations can be framed. You have all these authorities in that great self-governing Colony, who believe that this traffic can

  1993
  be carried on in a creditable manner. Are we in England, with none of their experience, going to say to the Ministry and Governor of Queensland, "We do not believe one word of anything you tell us. We are going to have our own way, and we do not care a straw what you think." All I can say is that if we are prepared to take that stand, I think it would be a very unfortunate day in the history of our relations with our great Southern self-governing Colonies. Surely, if we are to attach any importance at all to the opinion of public men in Queensland we are bound to take their word as the solemn assertion of their belief. Every single executive and popular authority in the Colony give their word that they can carry on this traffic without the disgraceful circumstances that accompanied it in times gone by. Do we, I say, refuse then, point blank, to take them at their word? Do we refuse our consent that this experiment should be made? If the anticipation of the public and responsible authorities in Queensland should not be realised, surely we can interfere at any time we choose. If we are able to bully Queensland, or any other Colony that passes legislation which we do not like, surely we can interfere next year as well as this year; and I say it is a very doubtful policy to stop this experiment on the very threshold. I absolutely agree that this traffic will want watching. I will myself call the attention of the Aborigines' Protection Society and other bodies to it; and I hope the Admiralty will also call the attention of the captains of our men-of-war vessels upon the Australian station to it, so that as far as they can they may ensure that this traffic will be properly carried on. I do not like the traffic at all itself; but neither do I like legislation directed against the popular authorities in the Colony of Queensland, especially legislation which would seem to be passed in what is very like a state of panic. Queensland is not a Crown colony. This is a colony which has a free Constitution; it is not bound to us by any very strong constitutional ties; and it is a serious thing, therefore, to reject and absolutely to refuse to assent to legislation which is practically unanimously
  1994
  asked for by this great self-governing Colony. I do press upon Her Majesty's Government to represent to Queensland in the strongest possible manner the alarm that exists both in the House and in the country in consequence of what happened some years ago, and to urge upon them the necessity for the most strenuous control of this traffic. I do implore of this House of Commons, at all events at this juncture, not to put to shame their own professions with regard to the rights of self-governing Colonies by refusing what has been unanimously asked for by the people of Queensland. When we have got the assurance of the Prime Minister, of the Governor, and of every Public Body in Queensland, surely it is a hard thing to say to all these authorities that we do not believe a word they say; that we are opposed to giving them the chance of making this experiment, and that we set up our own experience against theirs.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Flintshire for having introduced this question; but I think that, after having heard the speeches which have been made by other hon. Members, we may fairly say that this philanthropic bubble, if I may so term it, has largely been pricked. I have myself been long interested in this question, and have had some acquaintance with it through relations engaged in this nefarious slave-owning in Queensland. Having heard from the mouth of the hon. Member for Flintshire of the atrocities that have been committed, I thought I really ought to say something on behalf of those who are absent from this House. We have heard some very extraordinary statements this afternoon. The hon. Member for Nottingham complained that the evidence of recent atrocities was very meagre, and said he thought because the evidence was very meagre we should obtain some evidence anyhow and perhaps at any cost. I hold in my hand a paper—and I have only had it a few hours—signed by "W. Kinnaird Rose," dated 18th May, in which that gentleman says—

  1995
  "I have drafted the Report of the Royal Commission of 1886, and I am bound to admit that not a word can be truly urged against the labour traffic of Queensland from 1886 to the present day."
  This gentleman confesses that he drafted the very Report the hon. Member for Flintshire quoted from, and he affirms from his own knowledge that there is not that evidence which the hon. Member for Nottingham complains is so very meagre, and which at any cost ought to be obtained. The hon. Member for Flintshire and the hon. Member for Nottingham seem to have mistaken the motive of the Melbourne Legislative Assembly in passing the Resolution to which reference has been made. Everybody knows that the labour question is a burning question in the Colony, and the Melbourne Resolution is only a protest against any labour whatever of dark skins being imported into the Colony. When you read the Blue Book you will see that the Kanakas, after having served their time in apprenticeship, were so content with the country that they stayed there, and percolated into the adjoining Colony; and no doubt this Resolution was passed owing to the belief that this percolation was calculated ultimately to reach Melbourne. The hon. Member for Nottingham has adduced the authority of Bishop Barry, but is Bishop Barry to be put in the same category with Bishop Selwyn? As to the condition of these so-called slaves, the editor of a leading journal in Queensland states that ample evidence can be brought forward to show that they are in a fairly good state of health, and that a good many of them like their work so well that they remain in the country after their term is finished. He quotes the evidence of Mr. Lindt, F.R.G.S., on the subject. The Rev. Alexander Smith, the Convener of the Presbyterian Heathen Mission, declares that he found the hours of labour of the Kanakas very fair, and that he examined their food and found it plentiful. As to the alleged increased mortality amongst them, it is quite conceivable that it might be attributable to the fact that they eat too much meat, these islanders not being accustomed to animal food. Bishop
  1996
  Selwyn's statement points to this conclusion. It is well known also that when the black man comes in contact with liquor he usually suffers considerably for it. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. John Ellis) said that neither Queensland nor any other Colony should be allowed to introduce these people from the outside, that neither Queensland nor this country had any moral right to do so; but is he prepared to say that the rich fields of Queensland are to lie desolate merely because this moral right is denied to that Colony? Can the Government do anything to uphold their alleged moral right to prevent the Queenslanders doing what all really self-governing Colonies have a perfect right to do? When you consider that a vast area of this Queensland district can only be opened up by the help of this alien labour, it is for them to say whether they are willing that that alien labour should come within their borders, and, if they do so, to take care that there shall be no injustice in bringing them over. There is ample evidence that they come willingly; and I venture to think as years go on, and as immigrants return to their country with a knowledge of what is to be made in Queensland, assuredly there will be a greater influx every year of the islanders, because they will see the enormous benefits to be got there, and the wealth that is to be made there and carried home. For these reasons I think the House will do well to maintain the position which the Government have taken up. It is altogether preposterous that we should interfere with a Colony like Queensland; for once we venture to interfere with the local concerns of a great self-governing colony, so assuredly shall we create great ill-feeling and dissatisfaction.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not wish to detain the Committee at any length, but I am rather anxious to call its attention to two questions raised by the Debate on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith). The first of those two questions is the view that we ourselves take of the traffic, and the other question is whether we are to

  1997
  comply with his suggestion and expect the Colonial Office to disallow this Act. It appears to me that my hon. Friend would make a very serious demand indeed, and I will go so far as to say a dangerous demand, if he were to ask the Colonial Office to disallow an Act of this character. We all know that for a great many years past the practice has been to hold the power of the Imperial Parliament to disallow an Act in reserve as a power only to be used in cases of very grave, urgent necessity. Can any hon. Friend, upon the information we now possess, which is admitted to be incomplete, say that any such case of grave, urgent necessity has arisen? I believe that we should give great offence not only to that important Colony of Queensland itself, but also to all the Australian Colonies, if we were to disallow an Act of this kind to pass through their Legislature. I do not believe that the Resolution of the Victorian Legislature was intended to suggest any such act on our part. Whether it was dictated by philanthropic motives, or whether the desire to prevent the pauper labour traffic from coming to them had something to do with it, I do not pretend to say. In any case we must be perfectly certain that had anyone risen in the Victorian Legislature, and said, "Would you like this to be stopped by the Act of the Imperial Government?" the Victorian Legislature would have unequivocally answered in the negative. I venture, therefore, to think that having regard to all the circumstances, and especially to the undesirability of interfering, except in extreme cases, we ought not to suggest the disallowance of this Act. But it is quite a different matter, as the Under Secretary for the Colonies has done, to endeavour to justify this matter through and through. I confess I think that the trouble that has arisen in this matter has very largely arisen, in the first place, from the somewhat airy and easy way in which the Colonial Office appear to treat the question; and, secondly, from the habit the Under Secretary has formed of rather overstating his case, and endeavouring to justify everything that is done. One would think, to listen to him, that this traffic was absolutely unexceptionable
  1998
  and rather pleasant than otherwise. The most we can say, I think, is that it is a traffic for which there is something to be said, and which may possibly, under very stringent regulations, be prevented from doing harm. We have only to look at Queensland itself to see how much danger there is. Admiral Scott and Captain Davies evidently think that even the best regulations require the most watchful and constant care to prevent an abuse of the traffic. That is also the opinion of Bishop Selwyn, because, he says, very moderately, that these regulations, if they are enforced, will be sufficient, implying, I must say, that what powers there are are not very properly enforced. It is very clear, therefore, that we are justified in having a debate here, and pressing this matter on the Colonial Office, and perfectly justified in having these new Regulations laid before us, and having an opportunity of discussing them. I will add one word more. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary referred to the Act of 1872. That was an Imperial Act, and, of course, all this traffic, so far as it is carried on outside the boundaries of Queensland—that is to say, so far as it is carried on in the islands and on the high seas—is carried on under the protection of the British flag. It is not a matter within the competence or jurisdiction of Queensland at all. There are two conclusions to be drawn from that observation. The first is that we have ample power, whenever we choose, to make any additional regulations; or, perhaps, what is more important, to take additional precautions, for the enforcement of the regulation which may be necessary. I hope that that fact which has now been brought before the House will be carefully considered by the Colonial Office, and that, if they see reason to believe that the resumption of the traffic is likely to lead to the revival of the old abuses, they will take care that the powers of the Act of 1872 are put very fully into force, and that all the Navy can do to watch over them shall be done. The other remark I make is this: We have also a responsibility. It is under the protection of the British flag that the trade is carried on, and it is therefore

  1999
  no part of our duty to throw this matter entirely back upon Queensland. We are jointly responsible with Queensland. Queensland is responsible for what goes on within her territory; we are responsible for what goes on upon the high seas and in the islands; and we are therefore amply justified in raising this Debate, and in asking that the renewal of the licences should be subjected to the very severest scrutiny. At the same time, seeing that many of us feel the great difficulty of interfering with the powers of a colony, I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) will feel that his object has been sufficiently served by the Debate which has taken place, and will not think it necessary to proceed to a Division.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): While I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I think he has done less than justice to my right hon. Friend (Baron H. de Worms), who, I am sure, takes quite as serious a view of this serious question as the hon. Gentleman himself or any Member of this House. It is a question of very great importance, and I think the hon. Gentleman opposite has done well to point out that it divides into the two branches which he has specified—namely, the question of how far we can or ought to interfere with an independent colony; and, secondly, how far this trade is or is not good in itself. We must all be agreed that interference with an independent colony is absolutely impossible. With regard to the traffic I agree, and so does my right hon. Friend, in asserting that, in so far as our direct responsibility is concerned—the responsibility which extends over the whole of the high seas, in distinction from the territorial waters—that is a very grave responsibility; and it is the duty of of the Colonial Office to watch very carefully that the interests of the native population are in no way injured. For the rest, my own impression is that this importation of labour is probably very important to the interests of the Colonies, but that it is a practice capable of very great abuse. Yet, at the same time, it is a practice which, by sufficiently
  2000
  guarded safeguards, and by rigid rules, rigidly enforced, may be carried on to the benefit of the islanders themselves. Under these circumstances, I can assure the House that the Government are fully alive to all the responsibility which this trade lays upon them; and I venture to think that the burning question of the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies may well be avoided on the present occasion. I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to longer continue this Debate; and if we obtain this Vote tonight, I can assure the Committee that it will greatly facilitate Public Business.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Yes, I am going to press it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 169.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after "(D)," to insert the words "except as under." I am sorry to inflict this Amendment upon the House at this late hour. I hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been able to bring this subject on at an earlier hour. The point which I wish to raise is the old story of whether the Income Tax should be charged on industrial incomes at the same rate as on those incomes which are

  2001
  derived from capital. It will be unnecessary for me to dwell at any length on the important difference there is between these two great classes of income. The Income Tax derived from the absolute labour and industry of individuals, and which die with those individuals, is altogether on a different basis from that derived from spontaneous sources—namely, the results of capital. But at the present time the two classes of income have to pay Income Tax at exactly the same rate. Let us look for a moment at the position of the two classes. A person with an income of, say, £200 a year, derived from spontaneous sources—from investments or shares—can spend every penny of that income without infringing the rules of proper order or care, or thrift, on the necessities of life, and need not put by anything for the future. But a man who has £200 a year dependent upon his own exertions—whether in a shop, a factory, or a profession—should not spend all that income. He must set apart something for life insurance and provide for possible sickness and loss of work, and to do this at least £30 must be taken from his precarious income. Therefore, we come to this result: That a man who earns £200 a year by his own industry must pay away about 15 per cent. of it to meet possible contingencies. It is manifestly unfair, then, to tax industrial incomes at precisely the same rate as those derived from capital. It, of course, may be said that a man may run the risk, and not insure his life, or provide for sickness; but it has been the great object of the Legislature in recent years to do everything possible to impress upon the people the importance of providing for such contingencies. It adds, however, very much to the difficulties of securing this whilst the tax is the same on these two classes of incomes. The proposal to make a differential rate in the Income Tax between industrial and spontaneous income is not a new one, and, indeed, I have been blamed on that ground. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel introduced the new Income Tax, Lord Brougham moved a Resolution in the House of Lords to the effect that it was expedient to made a reduction or difference
  2002
  between incomes arising from capital and incomes arising from labour, with the object of levying a smaller proportion on the latter. It was debated at great length by Lord Brougham in an able speech, and no argument was used against it. It was also debated at great length in this House, when Mr. Crawford moved to omit from Schedule D, professions and trades, employment, or avocation. This was supported by Lord John Russell and Mr. Hume. Thus I am merely carrying out the wishes and intentions of the great financiers of that day in the Resolution which I propose. I think the only reason why the principle was not adopted at that time was because it was always felt that this Income Tax was a temporary tax, and that, as it would not last very long, it was not worth while to make the alteration. There was also this reason—that the great bulk of securities were in Consols, the present enormous holdings of other stocks not then having developed. It was felt that if a reduction was made from the incomes of the industrial classes, it would be thrown largely upon the land, and as land was greatly interested, the alteration was not made upon that ground. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that there is a great deal of difference between these two sources of income, and he must acknowledge that, in the interests of strict fairness, some change should be made. The objections he will raise, however, are, I think, threefold. He will say, if we reduce the taxation on industrial incomes, that there are a great number of very rich men who receive incomes of that nature. But the Amendment I submit will not embrace those rich men, and therefore he will still have the gratification of taxing the rich men who draw industrial incomes. The Amendment simply deals with those having incomes of £400 per year and under. The second objection will be that it would be hard to tax the widows and persons of small means, who derive their incomes from spontaneous sources, while not taxing industry. But from the remarks which I have already made, I think it is clear that the widow with a small spontaneous income is

  2003
  really better off than a married man with the same amount of industrial income for this reason—that her income is permanent while in the other case it fluctuates, and being derived entirely from industry is precarious, and would of course be lost to his family in case of death. Probably the real objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he will say, will be the difficulty involved in the change. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) once said that a reform of the Income Tax would involve a century of labour; and I believe the degree of trouble involved is the reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not go into the subject. I have been in a public office myself, and I know that the permanent officials do not like a revolutionary change in their Department; but if the change I propose is just and fair and reasonable, the difficulty of carrying it out should not be an insuperable objection. I feel certain that the difficulty has been exaggerated. We must remember that we have already five Schedules in the Income Tax Bill—Schedules A to E; and it is a remarkable thing that the differential doctrine is already recognised in the Schedules. Schedule B is charged differently to all the other Schedules, and what I propose is that Schedule D should also be charged at a different rate. The difference I have already pointed out is not, however, all, for Schedule B is not only charged in a different way from the other Schedules, but different charges are under that Schedule levied in different parts of the United Kingdom. England is charged 3d., Ireland and Scotland 2¾d., while all the other Schedules are at the rate of 6d. Therefore it is shown that the system has been introduced and can be carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may also say that part of the income in Schedule D is derived from capital. No doubt that is so; but the difficulty is one which can be got over either by each person stating and proving what amount of capital is in his business, or, as I think better, to allow the capital employed in industry in this country which is charged under Schedule D to
  2004
  receive a lower rate of charge, in the way I have described. The last point I wish to bring before the House is the effect that this change would have on the present Budget. I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus is not large; but I will show exactly what my proposal would do. The proposal is that under Schedule D all industrial incomes under £400 per year, instead of paying 6d., should only pay 3d., bearing the same rebate as before. What are the effects? There are 436,000 persons in the United Kingdom who pay under Schedule D, and 215,000 out of that number pay on incomes of less than £200 per annum, and 150,000 pay on incomes between £200 and £400. That is to say, that out of the whole number of persons, 436,000, who pay Income Tax upon this Schedule, more than three-quarters, 366,000, pay upon less than £400 per year. The whole amount they pay comes to £800,000 per year. Therefore, if my Amendment were carried it would mean a reduction in the Revenue of £400,000. I have no hesitation in saying that reduction should, without doubt, be added to the large spontaneous incomes, for these are the incomes that pay relatively and absolutely the smallest amount of taxation. I will acknowledge frankly that my ultimate view is to get rid of Schedule D altogether, because the removal of that Schedule would do away with a great deal of injustice and unpleasantness, dispense with those inquisitive forms we receive, and dispel the frauds perpetrated in connection with it by the public and the extortions that come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Talking about Schedule D, I only had the honour of receiving one of its papers a short time ago. It is a most formidable document, arranged as closely as it can be on four large foolscap pages, and I defy any human being to fill these forms up without probably incurring some serious penalty. It is such a form as only the best counsel in England could decipher and understand. My view is to get rid of this Schedule D altogether, because I believe the French system of simply levying Income Tax upon spontaneous income and securities

  2005
  is better. I have not proposed to go so far, as I thought it advisable to have a small beginning in the direction of what I believe to be the right and ultimate solution of this difficulty. When we look at the circumstances of taxation, I say the bottom of the middle class is the most severely taxed portion of the community, although they are often not so well off as many of the artizan class. They are the people who are the backbone of our trade and commerce, and I think it would be right to make the incidence of taxation fairer and easier in their respect. All experience shows that is the direction in which amendment of the Income Tax should take; and I hope the Government will tell us definitely that they contemplate some change. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after "(D)," to insert the words "except as under."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am sure that everyone will agree with the concluding portion of my hon. Friend's speech, in which he stated that the lower middle class, the poorer middle class, is that section of the community particularly deserving of the attention of this House. That is a view which I have held, and some of my own recommendations have been in the direction of somewhat relieving the heavy burden of that class. Let us see precisely how we stand. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would only benefit those having incomes of £400 or under. A person with such an income would have the usual rebate on £120 and a rebate of three pence on the remainder, while those immediately above that amount would pay the whole tax without any rebate. To use a phrase occasionally employed in this connection, the jump would be very great. If my hon. Friend contends that this might be remedied, I must remind him that we are not now dealing with an abstract Resolution. My hon. Friend has moved a particular Amendment in a particular Bill. I must ask the Committee to examine the nature of that
  2006
  Amendment, and I think I can conclusively prove that it will be extremely difficult for hon. Members who wish to see justice done in taxation to vote for it. My hon. Friend has spoken as if all the income of those who earn less than £400, and are assessed under Schedule D, is derived from their own exertions. That is not the case. A portion of it must come from capital employed. Let me point out that my hon. Friend in his specific Amendment deals only with Schedule D, and not with Schedule E. He proposes that a clerk who pays under Schedule D is to be relieved, but the one who pays under Schedule E is not to be relieved. Now, those who pay under Schedule E are persons in the service of the State or of a municipal body, or of any body corporate of any kind, such as a Joint Stock Bank, and if my hon. Friend's Amendment were passed, these persons would continue to pay sixpence, while clerks in the service of a private bank or tradesmen who might have £3,000 or £4,000 in their business would pay only threepence. I would ask the Committee, Can you possibly assent to such a proposal as that? Again, while the clergy belonging to any ecclesiastical body, such as the Wesleyans or the Church of England, would continue to pay sixpence, those who receive their stipends from congregations would only pay threepence. I think I have pointed out to the Committee most serious reasons why we cannot accept this Amendment. But, says my hon. Friend, will you extend the proposal to Schedule E? In that case his estimate of loss would have to be increased very largely indeed. Again, under the Amendment, shareholders in railways would pay only threepence, while holders of Consols or of foreign Government stocks would continue to pay sixpence. Is that contemplated by my hon. Friend? His Amendment would tax the whole railway property of the United Kingdom, when held by persons with incomes under £400, at 3d. instead of at 6d. If it were passed a man who put, say, £4,000 in North Western Railway Stock or debentures would pay only threepence, whereas if he invested the money in Consols he would be obliged to pay as much again. The Committee will accordingly

  2007
  see the dilemma in which my hon. Friend is placed. And, again, he fell into a grave error as to the number of people affected. He puts his estimate of the separate assessments under Schedule D at 436,000 persons, but this does not include the vast number of shareholders in companies, who are assessed under that Schedule, and therefore the hon. Member must add to his estimate of the loss which would accrue the difference which his proposal would make in the sum paid by many of the shareholders in the various companies. I cannot conceive that he has thought this matter out. My hon. Friend went very far when he said he thought all capital engaged in the industry of the country should be relieved of payment altogether. There is a great deal of spontaneous income derived from capital employed in commerce under Schedule D, and I think you would exempt the very persons it is desired to to tax. How can you separate in a tradesman's business what represents income from his capital and what represents the efforts of his own industry? The effect of the Amendment would be, that the tradesman with £3,000 or £4,000 capital, which he could leave to his family, would pay threepence on the earnings of that capital, while the half-pay officer or the telegraph clerk would pay sixpence on his precarious income. The hon. Member has said that the alteration proposed in his Amendment would involve a loss of £400,000, but the estimate of the Inland Revenue officials is that the loss would be nearer a million. Am I to be asked at this stage of the Session and at this stage of Parliament to find an additional million and to re-construct the whole of the Income Tax?—because I think I have said enough to show the Committee that you could not effect only the one alteration my hon. Friend suggests. I would not be responsible for the working of an Act which would relieve a person assessed under Schedule D, and at the same time leave so many persons exactly in the same position without relief.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think—if there is to be a Division taken on this subject—that we shall have to determine the
  2008
  question whether or not there shall be further abatement on the Income Tax in the lower scale. That is a subject which has to be considered. Everyone must feel that the Income Tax is one of the main pillars of the revenue of the country, and that you cannot make alterations in it without very careful consideration of all matters of detail. It is quite plain that at a quarter to one in the morning, at this period of the Session, the House is quite incapable of entering upon such a discussion as it should do before deciding upon any alteration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown how complicated the question is, and how many difficulties surround it in every form. One argument used by the right hon. Gentleman is, to my mind, conclusive, namely—Is it right and fair at this stage of the Session, and at this period of the Parliament, to create a deficit of one million and to impose upon the Government the duty of bringing in practically a new Budget, because if you are going to get rid of a million by this Amendment you must find the money elsewhere. It seems to me that the proposal is one which it is quite impossible to adopt under the present circumstances, and therefore I shall certainly support the Government in opposing this Amendment.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I desire to express my sympathy with the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley), but I quite see from the facts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it is practically impossible to carry it into effect at this stage of the Session. I trust, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the next Parliament will see his way to deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner, because it is just, and I believe there is a general feeling throughout the country in its favour. I will only say this—that I think there are imperfections which might at once be corrected without those vast complications arising to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. For instance, it is well worthy of consideration whether it is necessary to call upon these small incomes to pay this enormous tax, for so it is, in one lump sum. I do not see

  2009
  why the amount might not be divided and paid quarterly. This would give some relief, and would not, I think, cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer much difficulty. I entirely assent to the views expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley), and I trust that in the next Parliament the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to deal with this question in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.
  MR. BARTLEY: For one moment I may be allowed a word of explanation. I have brought this matter forward on many occasions, both in Committee and in the form of a Resolution, and I have been told that it was not a convenient opportunity, and that it would take a hundred years to bring about the change I proposed. Now, when I have brought the subject forward in this form, again I am told it is inconvenient, and this has been the manner in which the subject has been treated for the past fifty years. I am told my figures are wrong, but all I can say is that they are taken from Returns furnished by the Treasury and from the edition of 1890, and the Treasury is responsible for the inaccuracy, not I.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member will surely see that my explanation was to show not that the figures were wrong, but that the hon. Member had not taken into account the distinction between the assessment of a company and the assessment of individual shareholders.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I quite understand; but when I take another form of Income Tax the right hon. Gentleman says the incomes derived from Railway Companies come under Schedule D. If so, the fact is concealed in an extraordinary way. I do not see how such incomes can be included. All that the right hon. Gentleman has said goes to prove the immense difficulty of the subject, and the importance of having a Committee to examine it, as I have urged and moved for year after year. The matter should be carefully gone into. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the clergy, and clerks in the post offices and other classes. I purposely left them out for the present, and confined my Amendment to one Schedule, that the Chancellor of the
  2010
  Exchequer might not accuse me of mixing up the Schedules. He has met me again with the old argument about complications. The discussion has shown the importance of the subject, and if I am lucky enough to get anybody to tell with me I shall go to a Division.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to waste the time of the House. It was terrible to see the state into which the hon. Gentleman worked himself to-night. It is true, he addressed himself to the interest of that class to whom he is about to make an appeal for re-election; but I trust his zeal will not lead him to abate in the least degree his well-known loyalty to the Government. Is there no one to warn him in familiar tones of the danger to the integrity of the Empire? I hope he will not put the House to the trouble of a Division. Very painful is it also to see him assisted in his revolt by that staunch supporter of the Government, the hon. Member for Bow (Sir John Colomb). Really it is a most painful thing, at this period of the Session, to see a loyal Conservative Gentleman about to go to his constituents in a few weeks' time for the purpose of telling them that he has done his best for them, keeping up Ministers to this hour. Surely there are other subjects that hon. Gentlemen might go to their constituents upon? That noble subject, the "unity of the Empire," ought to be sufficient for the purpose.
  DR. CLARK: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bartley) upon the movement he has made in this matter, and I must say that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the ex-Chancellor has at all touched the principle of the proposal. This is a question which excites a good deal of feeling in the country, which may have an effect on the General Election. I trust the hon. Member will go to a Division. The suggestion of the hon. Member for a differential Income Tax on earned and unearned incomes is a good one, only I think he does not go far enough. It should be a shilling in the pound on all incomes above £5,000. I do not know whether the right hon.

  2011
  Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham intends to support the hon. Member, but I remember that at one time he was a supporter of the principle. There are, I have no doubt, a great number of people whose votes depend on the manner in which this subject is treated. The subject has not been seriously treated to-night; neither the Chancellor nor the ex-Chancellor has said anything against the principle. I hope the hon. Member will take a Division, and will get such support as will compel recognition of the importance of the subject.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The decision to be taken will not in any way have reference to the principle of differential taxation, or whether the Income Tax should be heavier on incomes from capital than from industry. The proposal of the hon. Member does not involve that principle.
  MR. BARTLEY: Yes, it does.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It simply proposes one small alteration in the incidence of Income Tax, and upon that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown the present position will not be improved, and that, indeed, the inequality will probably be increased. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself, in his interjected remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed that he has not quite grasped the position, for when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of incomes under £400 which the hon. Member had not taken into account, the hon. Member said, "Very well, make it £500." And, again, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned Schedule E, he said, "Well, let us extend it to Schedule E." What we want is a Committee to examine carefully the whole question of the incidence of the Income Tax. If hon. Gentlemen would support such a proposal, then we might arrive at some proper conclusion upon a scheme of differential taxation on permanent and precarious incomes.
  Question put.
  (1.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 110.—(Div. List, No. 148.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: The Amendment I have to propose has not so sweeping an effect as the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) would have had, and it would not, if accepted, very seriously disarrange the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. At this hour I do not intend to inflict upon the House anything in the nature of a speech. I will merely say a few words in explanation of my Amendment. The House is aware that, while the rates are levied on the net income from property, and while Income Tax generally derived from earnings and personalty is levied on actual net income, yet for the purpose of Income Tax on land and houses the gross rental of property is assessed. This may, of course, be defended to a certain extent, and may not be so very objectionable on large and valuable property, but it presses very heavily indeed on smaller property throughout the country. We have been passing Acts for the purpose of encouraging the building of dwellings for the working classes; we are to advance money at a cheap rate of interest for the purpose of encouraging the provision of small holdings for the labouring population; and there are Acts of Parliament that by sanctioning the system of compounding—that is to say, of arrangement between the Local Authorities and the landlords to fix a certain rate of assessment for small properties—encourage the maintenance of this class of dwellings. The principle of the Income Tax, I apprehend, is to charge the actual product, the actual income, or the actual profits derived; but that principle is altogether violated by the way in which Income Tax is charged on the gross and not on the net clear income from property. I am quite aware this opens up questions of a larger character, and I know that it will be said that while landed and house property enjoys certain immunities from taxation, it is inflicted with a heavier tax in another direction; but I do not see there is any justification for inflicting a practical injustice upon certain people in connection with the taxation they have

  2013
  to pay. It is no satisfaction to a man who pays more than he ought to know that there are others who pay less in respect to other property. The proposition I make is not a large one. It will not affect very large interests, but I believe I have—I hope I have—the sympathy of Members on both sides of the House in the desire to see all taxation levied on actual income, not on supposed income, and I make this suggestion with reference to this particular grievance in the confident hope that it will receive considerable encouragement. This is an actual grievance. I can tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of cases in which the income derived from small house property is but half what it is assessed at for purposes of the Income Tax. I could give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a case in which a number of large old timber cottages, which are very comfortable and convenient for the people who live in them, but very expensive to keep up, are rated at less than half what they are assessed at for the purposes of the Income Tax, and the rating fairly represents what they actually produce to the owner. I do not refer to exceptional cases; you may find them all over the country in rural districts, and very largely in Scotland and Ireland, where the property is assessed for Income Tax in many cases at double what it is for rating purposes. There is no reason or justification for this. This is a grievance generally admitted, but probably it is felt most keenly in agricultural districts. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is not prepared to accept my Amendment, will, at all events, give us some expression of opinion that may lead to the belief that at no very distant time the substantial injustice to which I am calling attention will be removed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 28, at end, insert—"Except as to any property of less annual value than twenty pounds, or which is compounded for by the owner for the payment of rates, and in every such case the sum charged as the rateable value shall be taken as the annual value for Income Tax assessment."—(Mr. Thomas H. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The proposal of the hon. Member is to charge a lower rate of Income Tax on cottage property; that it shall be charged upon the rateable value instead of on the gross. It is a very large question, and I am quite certain that if the proposal had been made from this side it would have been denounced as one of the crimes committed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relief of owners of property. It is a proposal to relieve owners of property from a portion of the taxation they now pay. The hon. Member says there is an anomaly in charging the tax upon more than the actual receipts, and I have always acknowledged there is force in the argument that the tax ought to be levied on the actual receipts, and that the time may come when it will be possible to lay this taxation on the net and not on the gross receipts, and that as regards all property, not cottage property only. But it has always been held that such a measure would have to be considered side by side with other measures affecting real property. The point raised by the hon. Member is one well worthy of consideration, but I am not prepared to deal with it in a piecemeal manner. The hon. Member is fully entitled to call attention to the matter, but I hope he will not now consider it necessary to press it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If I am right in my appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, they come to this: That he does not dispute the general position taken up by the hon. Member, but he rather regrets that he himself did not make the proposal. He said that if he had made it he would have met with much criticism and opposition from this side of the House; but he admits the general force of the argument urged against the injustice of assessing a man on a nominal amount while he receives in reality a much smaller amount. The force of the argument will be clear to everybody, but I am inclined to think that we who sit in this part of the House are specially concerned with the present Amendment from the point of view of some Irish farmers assessed under Schedule B. It seems to me that the

  2015
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has not considered the matter from that point of view, and while admitting the force of the general argument, has declined to discuss it. But I submit if the proposal does contain some grain of truth or reason, the Government ought to enter into the discussion with the object of doing justice to all classes of taxpayers. Unquestionably injustice is done to many small owners in the rural districts of the country; and, no doubt, this proposed Amendment will attract within the next few days a considerable amount of attention. The right hon. Gentleman has not urged one single solid argument against the hon. Member; but we are not so much concerned from his point of view—we are concerned for the Irish farmers to whom I have alluded, in so far as they are affected by this proposal; and we have good ground for asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to maintain his untenable position, or to make some concession which may appear insignificant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but which, to many ratepayers, is a substantial matter, and in regard to which many of us will be interrogated before many days have passed.
  *MR. BARTLEY: It is four years since I brought forward a very similar Amendment to this, argued it in the same way as a grievance, and received on that occasion exactly the same answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say it does seem to me hard that a grievance admitted to exist amongst a large class should be postponed, and should not be considered until some grand system of reform for everybody comes into play. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian that it would take a hundred years to carry out complete reform, but I think the time has come when the House should press the Government to take this matter in hand, and it is a matter too important to be taken at a late hour like this, when Members are impatient.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: The doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be quite out of harmony with the doctrine of the First Lord of the Treasury. The doctrine of the latter is that it is the landlord who pays the
  2016
  rates and taxes ultimately, wherever there is a revision of rent, and that is the doctrine of the Local Government Bill. What then is the use of talking of the relief of the occupier?
  Question put.
  (1.20.) The Committee divided;—Ayes 24; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
  MR. HEALY: I have a request to make on behalf of a small but deserving class of Her Majesty's subjects—namely, Members of Parliament, and I would ask, seeing that they have to spend a considerable portion of their time here in London, whether it would not be fair that they should be allowed to deduct from the Schedule, or whatever it is called, the amount of expenses incurred—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This has nothing to do with Clause 4.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to raise the question seriously. We have been endeavouring to deal with large questions all the evening, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that a ground of objection. This is a small question as it may seem to Her Majesty's Government, but it is not unimportant to some of us who consume a great deal of time and take considerable trouble in the discharge of our duties as Members of this House; and I ask would it not be fair that our expenses on this account should be deducted from the amount of our small incomes upon which this tax is levied? The Attorney General laughs, and with £8,000 a year he can do so; but I really do not see why, if we have to leave our homes and attend here in London at the expense of £200 or £300 a year, we should not be allowed to deduct the expenses thus incurred. It may be that there are some Members who would be too proud to avail themselves of such a provision. I am not one of those. We have been engaged in altruistic propositions in favour of other people, and it is right we should look after ourselves. I therefore move this as a new clause.
  New Clause—(Deductions by Members of Parliament)—brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I am unable to gather from the title what the proposal is—
  MR. HEALY: I should have explained that the clause proposes that in the assessment of incomes of Members of Parliament a deduction of £300 a year shall be allowed in respect of expenses in connection with attendance on the House.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It is a matter of some importance, and I do not wish to treat it lightly. We ought to have had it with due notice by having the proposal clearly laid before us. So far as I am concerned, the proposal is a new one, and I think it really forms part of the question of payment to Members, and should be considered in relation to that subject. There are various matters that present themselves in relation to the position and privileges of Members of this House. I know that in some parts of the world free passes on railways are one of the privileges of the position. But I hope the hon. Member will not press his proposal at this time, for none of us has had the opportunity of considering it.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the privileges of Members and of free railway passes. It is all very well for Members resident in London who can take a hansom cab to Portland Place to dismiss the question of expenses lightly, but it costs some of us a five pound note every time we return home. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in his sneer at free passes—
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I really meant to treat the matter seriously; I intended no sneer. I merely alluded to the privileges attaching to the position of Members. I assure the hon. Gentleman I wish to treat his proposal with all respect.
  MR. HEALY: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, though in the light of the explanation the remark as to railway passes is wholly unintelligible. I allow that it is a fair objection that I have not put notice of my Amendment on the Paper; it was my intention to do so. I do not esteem it a privilege to spend £200 or £300 a year in London. There may be Members who regard the position from quite another point of view, but remember we have to attend here not for our own convenience at considerable expense. We should be satisfied if we could transact our Parliamentary business in Dublin. I will not now put the House to further trouble in regard to to the proposal, but I shall certainly raise it on another occasion. It is not concerned with the payment of Members.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  NATIONAL DEBT [CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purpose of the conversion of the securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of advances made by them under the provisions of the 'National Debt Redemption Act, 1889,' it is expedient to authorise (a) the creation of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund in favour of the National Debt Commissioners for a sum of £13,000,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 2¾ per centum per annum, such charge to be reduced at any time by the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund to the National Debt Commissioners of any portion of the sum of £13,000,000; (b) the cancelling of all Exchequer Bonds and Securities issued in respect of the advances made by the National Debt Commissioners."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  DR. TANNER: I beg to move that Progress be reported.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: This is but a formal stage. There will be opportunity of considering the Report of the Resolution,

  2019
  and subsequently Members will have the Bill in their hands.
  DR. TANNER: Yes, but this is not the time for serious business; and the proceedings, if merely formal, can be easily gone through to-morrow.
  Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) [SALARIES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the increase of the present Salaries of the Commissioners appointed under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and the payment thereof out of the Consolidated Fund (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: We are, of course, all in favour of this proposal; but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is intended? Is it intended to equalise the salaries?
  SIR JOHN GORST: This is but the formal Resolution upon which to found the Bill.
  MR. HEALY: Yes, I am aware of that; but is it intended to equalise the salaries?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If there is any meaning in the stage at all, at least the House should be enabled to understand the proposition before it. The right hon. Gentleman has not enlightened us, and we must object to the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Motion is agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 300.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL. (No. 301.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 315.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 319.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 335.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  POST OFFICE ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 364.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  ELECTORS' QUALIFICATION AND REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 38.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates nominated of,—Mr. H. Anstruther, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Causton, Earl Compton, Mr. Dalziel, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Morton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and Mr. Willox.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 15) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Richmond (Surrey), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 374.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 10) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," relating to the drainage of the city
  2022
  of Dublin, and to enable the Corporation of Dublin to borrow in excess of their statutory powers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 375.]

  POLICE RETURNS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to alter the period for which certain Police Returns are required to be made, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 376.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.