Commons Sitting of 20 March 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL (by Order)

    SECOND READING.
    MR. KIMBER: It is proposed to postpone this Bill, and I desire to ask you, Sir, a question upon it on a point of Order. I wish to know in the first place whether, if I make an observation on the question of postponement, I shall lose my right to speak on the Second Reading when it comes on? Secondly, as it is questionable whether the Bill complies with the Standing Orders and can be brought on at all as a Private Bill, I wish to know if a Member will be precluded from taking objection on this ground through having assented to the postponement of the Second Reading to-day?
    MR. SPEAKER: The question of locus standi could not be raised now; and as to the hon. Member's second point, he may speak on the question of postponement, but not as to the merits of the Bill.
    MR. KIMBER: Then, on the question of postponement, a great number of Members take an interest in the Bill. They do not object to the postponement, as they wish to suit the convenience of a right hon. Gentleman whose convenience everyone would wish to suit—namely, the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock). It is proposed to postpone the Second Reading to the 14th April, which is a Friday, and if the Prime Minister makes the same Motion with regard to business after Easter as that in force now the sitting will commence at 2 o'clock, which will be an exceedingly inconvenient hour for many Members who take an interest in the Bill, and who are prepared to speak on it. When I was informed by the agents of the London County Council of the intended Motion for postponement, I was told further that if we found it inconvenient to take the discussion at the commencement of a Morning Sitting the promoters of the Bill would assent to a further adjournment to a day that would be convenient. On that understanding I, for one, assent to the postponement.
    MR. M'LAGAN: That is agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday, 14th April,

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION GRANTS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the fact that the maximum grant awarded by the Education Department to evening schools for successful students in French or German is 3s. per head, while the subsidy paid through the Science and Art Department to evening classes for successful students in science, such as geology or biology, is at the rate of £2 for a pass in the elementary stage, he is prepared to recom-
  484
  mend such grants from Imperial sources as will encourage teachers and students to give equal prominence to the study of foreign languages as to the various subjects of the science and art syllabus, and thus, at the same time, afford an example to the organisers of classes under the Technical Instruction and Local Taxation Act?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The grants paid from Imperial sources to evening schools under the Education Department are on a quite different scale and footing from those paid to science schools under the Science and Art Department. I am not prepared to recommend an addition to Imperial taxation by an increase in the scale of grants from the Education Department. The Vote for the Science and Art Department is restricted to certain definite purposes, among which instruction in modern languages is not included. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the funds under control of Local Authorities under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act may be applied to such instruction, and I am glad to say that many Local Authorities are applying them. It may be hoped that where there are considerable grants for science from the Central Authority the Local Authority will specially consider the case of modern languages.

  IMPERIAL SCHOLARSHIPS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will consider the advisability of instituting scholarships from Imperial sources, whereby a limited number of teachers could, by residence abroad, become competent teachers of foreign languages in our Normal Colleges and Technical Institutes; and whether he is aware that such travelling scholarships have existed for some years in France and Germany, so that French and German students reside in England in order to become competent Professors of English, and are then engaged in French and German schools?
  MR. ACLAND: I am aware that travelling scholarships of the kind mentioned exist in France and Germany with great advantage to the teaching of English in these countries. In this

  485
  country, the only class of teachers under Government supervision are those employed in, or being trained for employment in, public elementary schools. A provision was arranged some months ago, and has been inserted in the New Code, by which students in training colleges may, after two years' training in the college, receive a third year's training which may be taken abroad, and for which their training college may receive an Imperial grant. Such additional training will be recognised by a special entry on their certificates.

  CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTION.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether several Civil Service writers over 50 years of age, who had no previous Naval or Military service, have been recently promoted to the class of abstractors; and, if so, whether the same privilege can be accorded to other writers over 50 years and of long service, especially to those who, in addition, have rendered good service as temporary clerks, and have been recommended to such promotion by Heads of Departments?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I cannot find that more than three copyists, with no previous Naval or Military service, have been appointed abstractors after the age of 50. One of these copyists was not over 50 when the Treasury approved his presentation to the Civil Service Commissioners for a certificate, and the other two were passed by inadvertence. In these circumstances, there is no ground for altering what is, in my judgment, a sound rule.

  THE CLERICAL STAFF AT THE ADMIRALTY.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 46 and 118 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, what reduction has taken place in the First Division of the Admiralty since 1886, and how many staff appointments, such as accountantships, registrarships, and higher supervision posts, have been given under the above recommendations
  486
  to the Second Division in the Admiralty (excluding the new Naval Ordnance Store Department and Dockyards); and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held on the clerical staff of the Admiralty with a view to determining where these posts can now be created, and of formulating the normal establishment as recommended to be done by the Royal Commission?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): Twenty-four Higher Division Clerkships have been reduced since 1886. Twenty staff appointments have been given to Second Division Clerks in the Admiralty Departments (excluding the Naval Ordnance Department). It is not proposed to hold any inquiry or to formulate a normal establishment until the Higher Division Staff is still further curtailed and the new Admiralty buildings are in a more advanced condition.

  THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when the Crofters' Commission expects to visit Glencoe to fix fair rents, for which application was made six years ago?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Glencoe is in the parish of Appin, and the cases there will be disposed of during this spring or early summer, along with the other cases in that parish and district.

  CARLISLE PRISON.
  MR. GULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether three male wards, the female ward, and the reception wards at Carlisle Prison are in charge of assistant warders, and only one ward is in charge of an officer of the rank of warder; whether the senior assistant warder has been 19 years, and the junior assistant warder 10 years, in the service, and each of them in charge of a ward during the whole period of their service; when was the last promotion at Carlisle from the rank of assistant warder to that of warder; and can he hold out any hope of a speedy improvement in the position and prospects of assistant warders?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): There are only two ordinary wards at Carlisle Prison, one for males and one for females. The male ward is in charge of a principal warder, assisted by one warder and three assistant warders, who, for the purposes of supervision, are each assigned the charge of a section of prisoners. The female prisoners are in the charge of one female officer of the rank of warder, assisted by two of the rank of assistant warder. It is a fact that the senior assistant has been 19 years and the junior assistant 10 years in the service, but, as I have already stated, there is only one ward for male prisoners, consequently they can only have been in charge of a section. The last promotion was in November, 1881. I am informed that the Prison Commissioners are unable to hold out any hope of speedy promotion. The pay and allowances of assistant warders were, however, very considerably improved in 1891 on the recommendation of Lord De Ramsey's Committee.

  EGYPTIAN FINANCE.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir E. Palmer, the financial adviser of the Egyptian Government, had full power to convert the 5 per cent. Domains Loan for £8,500,000 into a 4¼ per cent. loan; how many financial houses were asked to tender for the same; and whether he is aware that the 3 per cent. Egyptian Loan for £9,424,500 is quoted at 102?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I am informed that Sir E. Palmer has full powers to arrange for the conversion of the Domains Loan, the amount of which outstanding is £4,800,000, into a 4¼ per cent. loan on contain conditions. It is understood that tenders have not been called for, but that he is authorized, if he cannot obtain the requisite conditions from one financial house, to apply to another. The high price of the 3 per cent. loan is no doubt due to the fact that it is guaranteed by the six Great Powers.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Is Sir E. Palmer to be allowed to conclude the loan without submitting the offer to the Government?
  SIR E. GREY: I should say it was a question for the Egyptian Government, but if the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper I will give a definite reply.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR COAL.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the communication addressed to him by the London and South Western Railway Company, that they had reverted to their former rates, there has been an increase on the carriage of coal of from 2d. to 4d. per ton; and that so far from reverting to their former rates, as promised, they have ceased to carry 21 cwt. to the ton and charged as for 20 cwt. only, from 1st March; and whether he will make further representations to the Company?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am not aware to what communication the hon. Member refers. Since the letter addressed to the Board of Trade by the Chairman of the London and South Western Railway Company, on the 3rd of March, I am informed that no increases whatever on coal or any other rates have been made, neither has there been any alteration in the computation of the weight of coal.

  THE BOARD OF TRADE AND THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION.
  SIR JAMES WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the approximate number of complaints which have reached the Board of Trade since the 1st January in regard to treatment of traders and to the charges made by the Railway Companies under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Up to, and including, March 17 (irrespective of deputations and verbal complaints) 835 complaints of increases of rates have been communicated by the Board of Trade to the Railway Association; of this number 211 are resolutions in general terms; many of the complaints are made on

  489
  behalf of a number of complainants. It is impossible to say to how many of these complaints the provisions of the section referred to by the hon. Member can be ultimately held to apply.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: May I ask If that number is in excess of previous years?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly, it is an unprecedented number.

  STATIONERY TENDERS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Return which he promised of the prices of paper and the firms from whom it is bought; whether he can now state the names of the firms who, as mentioned in the Stationery Office Report for 1890, sent in 29,845 reams of paper which were absolutely rejected, and 12,370 reams which were only accepted at reduced prices, as being in various respects of inferior quality; and will he state the amount of orders given by the Stationery Department to each of such firms since they attempted to supply such inferior articles?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Controller of the Stationery Office is now preparing a Memorandum in further explanation of the statements made by me to the House on the Supplementary Estimate. I am not without hope that this Memorandum, which will be ready in a day or two, will give my hon. Friend substantially the information for which he asks.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information asked for in the last two paragraphs?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will inquire.

  PETITIONS AGAINST HOME RULE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Mr. Thomas Barry, Poor Law Guardian, at Killavullen, on Sunday 12th March, in which Mr. Barry is reported, in The Cork Herald of 14th March, to have said that he had been told on most reliable authority that two Catholic tenant farmers and high ratepayers in that district had signed the Petitions against Home Rule; that it
  490
  was not his intention to mention the names of those parties there in connection with the matter, which was as yet sub judice, until they could find out who they were; and he assured those present that there are men in the House of Commons who will search every Petition sent in from the County Cork, and find out the names of all those parties who signed the Anti-Home Rule Petition; whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Barry is well-known in the district as an active boy-cotter and a promoter of the Plan of Campaign; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain if intimidation is being employed in parts of Ireland to prevent persons who are not supporters of Her Majesty's Government signing Petitions against the Government of Ireland Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen a report of the speech referred to, and I believe there is only one Mr. Thomas Barry known in the district. It is the duty of the Constabulary, which I have no doubt they will perform, to report to headquarters any cases of unlawful intimidation arising out of this or any other matter. This is the only means of inquiry I possess.
  MR. SEXTON: Was not the speech referred to in the hon. Member's question delivered at a meeting held in view of a local election, in which certain persons were posing as Nationalists? Was not the object to expose their pretensions? Is there in any part of the speech any suggestion that these men should be boycotted or in any way injured?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The account my hon. Friend has given of the speech is correct so far as I can gather.
  MR. BARTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "unlawful intimidation." Will he tell the House what he means by "lawful intimidation"?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the meeting at which this speech was made was a public meeting held under the auspices of the Irish National Federation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not understand the point of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understood the question of the hon. Member for North Kerry to be, whether the speech

  491
  was not delivered at a meeting held in view of a local election. I am asking whether it was not a political meeting held for the promotion of the purposes of the Irish National Federation.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I really fail to see the point of the hon. Member's question. So far as I can gather it was a meeting held, among other objects, in view of a coming election.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman says he believes the statement of the hon. Member for North Kerry as to the objects of the meeting is correct. Will he say why he thinks so. Was not the real object of the meeting to strengthen the local branch of the Federation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I still fail to see how that affects the question. I supposed that the meeting at which the speech was delivered was a meeting which, like many others, had various objects in view, and among them an electioneering object.
  MR. CARSON: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is answering upon absolute facts, or only upon what he calls reasonable grounds?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I, as a point of Order, ask whether the description in the question on the paper of Mr. Barry as "an active boy-cotter" is not a description of a libellous character? Is there any precedent for allowing such statements to be made in the form of a question; and is it not now the practice at the Table to allow questions which certainly would have been disallowed a few Sessions ago?
  MR. SPEAKER: The practice is now the same as it has always been. There has been no change. I think the expression "active boycotter" is to be deprecated.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask whether the meeting at which Mr. Barry spoke was not a meeting held for the purpose of discussing the claims of certain local persons in connection with an election; and whether all that Mr. Barry said was to endeavour to show that two persons, in signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill, had not acted in a manner incompatible with their professions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is so.

  MILK RATES ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the Great Western Railway, under the rates which came into effect on 1st March last, there has been on full churns of 17 gallons of milk an increase of ⅛d. per gallon as compared with the old scale, including the charge for returned empties; whether he is aware that this charge, amounting to 1s. 7⅛d. per full churn, is also ⅝d. in excess of the rate issued on 1st January on all distances between 50 and 75 miles; that the charge to the farmer under the old rate was 1s. 5d. per full churn, and under the present rate 1s. 7⅝d. per full churn; and whether, in view of the fact that, owing to existing contracts, the whole of these increased charges are borne by the farmer, he will make further representations to the Railway Company on the subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a statement from the General Manager of the Great Western Railway (which I shall be happy to show the hon. Member), from which it appears that while in the particular instance referred to there is an increase of one-eighth of a penny upon a 17 gallon churn for a distance of between 50 and 75 miles, in every other case there is either a reduction or the rate does not exceed the rate in operation prior to the 1st of January last, and that in the total result the Company will incur a substantial loss of revenue in the receipts for their milk traffic.

  SHEFFIELD BARRACKS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for repairs at the Sheffield Barracks has recently been given to a firm not carrying on business in Sheffield, and whether such contract provides for the payment under it of such wages as are generally accepted as current in the trade at Sheffield for competent workmen; and, if so, whether the contract is being complied with in that respect?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The repairs at Sheffield are executed under the triennial contract entered into in April, 1891, by the late

  493
  Government with Messrs. Wilson and Co., of Hulme, Manchester. The contractors undertook to pay the current rate of wages of the district, and we have no reason to suppose that they are failing to do so.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE RETURNS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the periodical Returns, which must be laid before Parliament in each year, under Section 33, Sub-sections (b) and (c), of "The Fur-chase of Laud (Ireland) Act, 1891," have been duly presented; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when may their presentation be looked for?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to reply to this question. The Treasury Rules, dated 26 February, 1892, prescribe that the Returns to be presented to Parliament pursuant to the section of the Act quoted shall be prepared as soon as practicable after the 1st April in each year, and shall be made up to the last day of the preceding mouth. The Land Commissioners inform me that during the period to 31st March, 1892, there were no transactions of the nature indicated by the sub-sections mentioned.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.
  MR. JOHNSTON: In the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for East Antrim (Captain M'Calmont), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what provision it is intended to take regarding the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund in the Bill for the future Government of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already explained, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for West Kerry, that the Constabulary Force Fund consists of two branches—the reward branch and the benefit branch. Into the reward branch are paid portions of fines awarded by magistrates, or which are otherwise payable to the Constabulary, and from this branch rewards to members of the Force are paid. The disposal of such fines will no doubt in the circumstances mentioned be a matter for the Irish Government. Respecting, however, the benefit branch of the fund, it has been decided that it
  494
  shall not be wound up, but shall continue to exist until all its obligations to the families of present members of the fund (whether serving on pay or on pension) shall be, fulfilled; and to that end the funds of the benefit branch (including the sum of £150,000 voted by Parliament in 1890–91) and its actuarial concerns have been placed under the management of the National Debt Commissioners.
  MR. SEXTON: I presume that in the event of the disbandment of the Force the balance of the fund would be distributed.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Whatever may happen, the benefit branch of the fund will continue to exist on the present conditions until all obligations in connection with it shall have been fulfilled.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will there be any Imperial guarantee for its security?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It will remain exactly as it stands now.

  THE BALTIMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the official head of the Fishery Board, at a mooting preceding-the construction of the Baltimore Railway, promised that a pier, in connection therewith, should be provided; whether the railway has passed the final inspection, and at what definite date will the line be opened; and whether it is intended by the Congested Districts Board to send down a competent Inspector to report on the condition of matters generally?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspectors of Fisheries report that no such promise as that referred to was made by them. The railway has not yet passed the final inspection owing to Board of Works requirements for a foot-bridge at Skibbereen which was not contemplated by either the working company or the promoters of the railway. I understand, however, that the promoting company are taking steps to compel the Working company to provide the footbridge. The line could be worked without the bridge and opened within one month.

  YEOMANRY TROOP SERGEANT MAJORS.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider

  495
  the advisability of granting season tickets or railway passes to Troop Sergeant Majors of Yeomanry who, under the new Regulations, will have charge of two troops, in order that they may be enabled to perform their necessary duties without extra expense, in those cases whore the two troops of a squadron are at some distance apart?
  MR. WOODALL: It is recognized that some increased expenditure for travelling Trill be involved in the change from troop to squadron organisation of the Yeomanry; but the arrangements to be made are still under consideration.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the hardship that has arisen in some cases to Troop Sergeant Majors of Yeomanry who have qualified for pension, by being compelled under the new Regulations to give up their appointments at short notice, he will recommend Commanding Officers of Yeomanry to give such Sergeant Majors at least three months' notice before they are retired, in order that they may have an opportunity of obtaining civil employment?
  MR. WOODALL: Those sergeants on the permanent staff of Yeomanry regiments who had completed service for pension at the full rate were given three months' notice, all but a few days. Those who, by a few months' more service, would complete another year for pension and so earn a higher rate were specially retained for the few months.

  ABLE V. COMPETENT SEAMEN.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on the steamship Waldensian, which sailed from Glasgow in February last upon a voyage on which she is now engaged, 12 men were signed on her articles as able seamen, not one of whom were able to prove that they were competent seamen under the Act of 1880, and the articles of agreement were marked to that effect; is he also aware of the fact that on the steamship Peruvian only five out of 14 were able to prove their competency, and on the steamship Sarmatian two out of 16, and on the steamship Assyrian one out of 15; whether these boats are all the property of the Allan Line, and have passengers certificates
  496
  from the Board of Trade; whether under the Emigration Laws, the Board of Trade officer must satisfy himself that the crews are competent before granting a certificate of clearance; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to why the Emigration Officer gave certificates of clearance on each of those vessels, seeing that the able seamen engaged were not able to prove their servitude under the Act of 1890?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The four vessels named belong to the Allan Line. The Peruvian and Sarmatian hold passenger certificates granted by the Board of Trade, but the Assyrian and Waldensian do not. The Peruvian was the only vessel cleared under the Passenger Acts. The Emigration Officer of the Board of Trade had no power to interfere with the crews in the case of the other three ships. As regards the rating of A.B. under the Act of 1880, that Act does not provide for the rejection of seamen who have not fulfilled the conditions specified in it, and officers of the Board of Trade have no power to reject such men unless they know them to be incompetent. The absence of a certificate does not prove either that they are incompetent or that they have not the necessary length of service. As regards the Peruvian, the Office copy of the Agreement for that vessel confirms the statement of the hon. Member so far as the numbers of A. B. s are concerned, but it does not follow that the men who do not hold certificates could not otherwise prove the requisite amount of service to entitle them to hold certificates. The officer reports that the crew were mustered in the usual manner, and he saw nothing in their appearance that would justify him in refusing to clear the vessel. The Board of Trade, however, is of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for inquiry into the question of under-manning, and I am considering the form the inquiry should take.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: If it is a fact that these steamers had crews on board which were not competent, why did not the Board of Trade officer detain the vessel? I should like also to ask if seamen are to be judged by their appearance?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Act does not give power to the Board of Trade officer to refuse to allow men to serve

  497
  because they do not hold certificates. He has only to satisfy himself that they are otherwise competent. I am, however, not at all satisfied with the present state of the law and will inquire further into the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When the right hon. Gentleman says the crew do not hold certificates as A.B., does he mean they were O.S.?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I mean A.B. But men may be engaged who do not hold a certificate, and the Board of Trade officer cannot refuse to allow them to serve.

  FORCED SERVICE IN THE YEOMANRY.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has seen in the Northwich Chronicle a report of an interview with Colonel Warburton, in which it is alleged he said he would require in future that any new tenant coining to his estate must be a churchman, and that he must also join his Yeomanry; considering that Her Majesty's Forces are recruited by volunteer enlistment, is it competent to Colonel Warburton so to press men into his troops; and will he inquire further into this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): I answered a similar question a few days ago. I have no power to interfere with the terms of a lease given by a landlord to his tenant, but this condition as to serving in the Yeomanry is certainly not well advised in the interests of that Force.

  THE PROPOSED EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  SIR EDWARD HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed Employers' Liability Bill will apply to the workmen in the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards, and to the seamen, engineers, and marines of the Royal Navy?
  MR. ASQUITH: No. The Bill does not extend to persons in the employment of the Crown.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Do the Government intend to make it apply?
  MR. ASQUITH: The proposal to make the Bill apply to the workmen in the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards is under consideration, but at present I cannot hold out any hope that the proposal will be embodied in the Bill.
  SIR J. GORST: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the Bill will apply to workmen in the Dockyards and Arsenals?
  MR. ASQUITH: My present view is that the Bill will not be extended in the direction indicated.

  SCOTCH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is true, as reported, that he is about to rescind the rule laid down by his predecessor, that County Medical Officers of Health in Scotland are debarred from engaging in private practice; and whether, as the present rule is believed to have improved the conditions of sanitary administration in Scotland, he will not interrupt its working until he has satisfied himself, by full inquiry, that the step which he proposes to take is not a retrograde one?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Clause 52 of the Local Government Act for Scotland enacts that the Council of every county shall appoint and pay a medical officer—
  "Who shall not hold any other appointment or engage in private practice without express written assent of the Council."
  Parliament thus lays down in the clearest terms that it is for the County Council to determine whether or not their medical officer is to be debarred from private practice. Parliament by the Probate Act appropriated £15,000 a year to be distributed among the counties of Scotland in aid of their medical expenditure. In distributing that grant the Scotch Office made it a condition that none of this grant should go to any county where the medical officer took private practice. In my opinion, it is not expedient for the Central Office to use the grant for the purpose of regulating a matter which Parliament clearly intended to be left to the discretion of the Local Body; and I have accordingly, in the distribution of the grant, ceased to exact any condition with regard to a medical officer taking private practice.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I will take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of this House to the matter.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sanitary authorities are agreed it is undesirable that a public Medical Officer of Health should undertake private practice, for the reason that he is apt to be influenced by private considerations in the discharge of his public duties?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, I agree with that view; but, as I have explained, I consider that the decision of the County Council on the point should be authoritative.

  NAVIGATION LIGHTS ON THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE COASTS.
  MR. CAYZER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Returns given to this House showing the large loss of life and property on the coast of Spain and Portugal, and the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that he is advised that an improved system of lighting would conduce to the greater safety of ships, and that his Department have made repeated representations to the Foreign Office on this subject for communication to Foreign Governments, whether the Foreign Office have brought the subject to the notice of the Foreign Governments; if so, whether he will state the names, dates, and subjects of the communications his Department have made to the Foreign Governments, and lay the Correspondence upon the Table?
  SIR E. GREY: Numerous representations have been made to the Spanish Government since 1877. The difficulty of distinguishing the lights at the entrance to Bilbao Harbour, the uncertain appearance of the light on Cape Finisterre, and the need for a first-class light on Capo Villano and a smaller one on Cape Torriano, have formed the subject of our representations. July, 1888, February, 1889, April, 1889, August, 1890, December, 1890, November, 1891, April, 1892, February, 1893, have been the dates of the more recent communications. Early in this month Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid was instructed to repeat his last representation, and to supplement it by handing to the Spanish Government a list of British steamers
  500
  lost on or near this coast in 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893. The Spanish Government have promised to improve the lights in question, but state that the works on Capos Villano and Torriano have met with unforeseen delay. A representation as to the danger of mistaking the lights on Fort Bergis and Cape Rosa was made to Portugal in September, 1884, and during the present month a request has been made to have the light on Burling's Island made quick-flashing.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Metropolitan Police Courts, and, in particular, to its recommendation that two additional Magistrates should be appointed at once; and whether he will direct that this Report shall be presented to the House of Commons?
  MR. ASQUITH: The recommendations and Report are at present under consideration. I have given directions for the presentation of the Report to the House.

  WOMEN RATEPAYERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the Return just issued regarding the First and Second Schedules of the Government of Ireland Bill the 162,007 ratings valued over £20 includes ratings in the names of women occupiers; and, if so, whether the word "man" in Section 6, Sub-section 3, of the Bill is subject to the General Interpretation Act, which provides that words importing the masculine gender shall include females; whether he can state how many of the 162,007 ratepayers over £20 are women; and whether the total rateable value of £14,033,596, mentioned in the same Return, also includes the rateable value of women occupiers; and, if so, whether he can state what the rateable value of the women occupiers is?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Return just issued regarding the First and Second Schedules of the Government of Ireland Bill includes all ratings

  501
  and rateable values in Ireland over £20, and therefore does include female occupiers. The word "man," in Section 6 of the Bill, is not subject to the General Interpretation Act and does not include females. The Commissioner of Valuation has not any available information which supplies the number and rateable value of women occupiers; but he is taking steps to collect it, and I hope to have it before we reach Committee.

  THE SCOTCH EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will, as far as he can, make arrangements that their share of the Equivalent Grant shall, in future years at any rate, be paid to the Parochial Boards before the 14th of May, so that the grant for 1892–3 (if unpaid before the 14th of May next; and the grant for 1893–4 will both be paid to the Boards within the 12 months ending the 14th of May, 1894?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Equivalent Grant to Parochial Boards for the year 1892–3 will be paid during the summer, but not before 14th May. The Grant for 1893–4 will be paid before 14th May, 1894, and there is every reason to believe that it will in future years be regularly paid before that date.

  FIELD VOLES.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Report of the Committee on Field Voles (Scotland) will be published, and whether it will be made a Parliamentary Paper?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The Report of the Departmental Committee on the plague of Field Voles was laid on the Table on the 13th instant, and will be published in the course of a few days. I shall be glad to do what I can to expedite its delivery.

  THE MACARTNEY ESTATE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the applications under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act of 13 tenants on the
  502
  Macartney Estate, near Belfast, whether he is aware that at the hearing before the Land Commission Court on the 24th February last it appeared that the valuation of the Court Valuer, Mr. Babington, was almost the same as that of the valuer for the tenants; whether, after Mr. Babington had sent in his Report, Mr. Adamson, another Court Valuer, was then sent down to make a valuation; whether his valuation was much the same as that of the valuer for the landlord, and practically double of the amount fixed by Mr. Babington; and whether he will state at whose instigation the second Court Valuer was employed; and if it is usual in such cases to have the valuation of one Court Valuer reviewed by another?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commissioners inform me that there were 10 applications under the Act mentioned on the estate of Mr. Ellison Macartney, which, under the General Rules, were referred to the late Mr. Commissioner MacCarthy, by whom, in May and June of last year, the two Assistant Commissioners named were directed to make independent Reports to him upon the holdings. In consequence of Mr. MacCarthy's death the cases were set down for hearing before another Commissioner, and are still sub judice. The Commissioners state it is not unusual to obtain separate Reports in such cases.

  THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES) BILL.
  MR. BONSOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place on the Notice Paper the Amendments the Government have undertaken to move to the Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Wales) Bill, the Committee of which is fixed for 21st March?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): No, Sir. I do not think the time for doing that has yet arrived.
  MR. BONSOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that the Bill will not be proceeded with until the Government Amendments have been put down?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot state anything on the subject; but if the hon. Member looks at the Paper he will see that the Bill stands as the fifth Order of the Day.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the report that recently appeared in the Press is true wherein it is stated that last year, owing to mistakes made by medical men in notifying supposed cases of infectious diseases, 462 persons were removed to fever and small-pox hospitals who were suffering neither from fever nor small-pox, and that 102 of these lost their lives through removal to these centres of infection; and, if this report be true, what do the Government intend to do to protect the poor from this danger; and whether it is a fact that the fees, amounting to £57 15s., for notification in these cases, have been paid to the medical men who sent in these false certificates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The 462 cases referred to represent the total number of patients who, during the year 1891, were admitted into hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, although those patients were not suffering from any disease for which those hospitals are intended. In 450 of those cases admission was granted upon certificates which were afterwards found to have been incorrect. The Report of the Managers for the year 1891, pages 85 to 90, shows the diseases from which the patients were really suffering as ascertained by diagnosis after admission. Out of the 450 patients admitted upon incorrect certificates, 97 subsequently died. But in every case the patient died from the disease from which he was suffering at the time of admission, and it is altogether incorrect to allege that the deaths were due to the removal of the patients to the asylums. There is little doubt that fees were paid to the medical officers who gave the certificates referred to, but a laborious search would be necessary in order to ascertain the facts.

  CHARLBURY GEAMMAR SCHOOL.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, whether it is a fact that a scheme has been promulgated by the Charity Commissioners, disendowing and
  504
  abolishing the Grammar School at Charlbury, in Oxfordshire, which has existed for over 200 years; if he can state by whom the Commissioners have been moved in the matter, and whether it was by the Charlbury School Board and Brasenose College; and whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Charlbury are most strongly opposed to the abolition of the school?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): A Draft Scheme has been published under the Endowed Schools Acts for converting the small endowment for a grammar school at Charlbury into the fund for exhibitions for Charlbury children. The Commissioners act under the Endowed Schools Acts, after inquiry, on their own initiative. As there appears to be a division of opinion on the question whether a grammar school can or cannot be maintained in Charlbury, the Draft Scheme has been referred to an Assistant Commissioner for a public inquiry there.

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the intention of the Government to exclude from the operation of the Suspensory Bill for Wales those parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales?
  MR. ASQUITH: This is a matter of detail which is under consideration, and as to which I shall be prepared to state the intentions of the Government when the Bill comes on for Second Reading.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was a rule of the War Office that Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans who had served 10 years and had been discharged with good characters should be entitled to pensions; and, if so, why Corporal William Calver had been refused a pension, although he had served 17 years and 339 days with the 58th Foot from 1858 to 1868, and with the 54th Foot from 1870 to 1878, and in the interval in the Army Reserve, taking part in the Indian Mutiny in 1858, and being discharged for disability with a good character in 1878?
  MR. WOODALL: No man of only 10 years' service can claim a pension, but a limited number of compassionate pensions have been awarded to men who, having served not less than 10 years in the Army, had a medal for a campaign before 1860 and wore in distressed circumstances. William Calver, whose case the hon. Member has mentioned, had not a modal, and his Army service had only been from 1858 to 1861 in the 58th Foot, and from 1861 to 1868 in the 54th Foot. His case consequently does not fulfil the conditions for the grant of a pension for life. On his discharge from the Reserve, in 1878, he was granted a temporary pension of 11d. a day for 51 months.

  POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the appointment for filling up the rural post offices in North Huntingdonshire has been given to Mr. Grist, a tailor, living in another Parliamentary Division; and, if so, whether he can see his way to appointing some person who knows the postal requirements of North Huntingdonshire?
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The nominations to post offices under £120 a year in England and under £100 a year in Scotland are made by mo on my own responsibility, subject to the veto of the Postmaster General when the persons so nominated or the premises they occupy are considered to be unsuitable. The question of the advice I seek, or whether I take any advice in the exercise of this patronage, is a matter which concerns myself alone.

  NAVY-TARGET PRACTICE SEAWARDS.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty propose to take in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Target Practice Seawards; and whether it is their intention to prohibit all firing by gunboats over the coast fishing grounds in the neighbourhood of Plymouth, in accordance with the views expressed in the Report?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: The Report has only just been published. It will be thoroughly
  506
  considered. Meanwhile, arrangements have been, or will be, made at Plymouth and Sheerness respectively, both to enable the firing to take place further out at sea and to secure a better lookout being kept. The Commander-in-Chief at Plymouth will be directed to give the orders he considers necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Committee with reference to the coast fishing grounds.

  ARMY—TARGET PRACTICE SEAWARDS.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he intends to take to carry out the recommendations embodied in the Report on Target Practice Seawards?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Report was only received a day or two ago. It will be duly considered. I have not yet seen it, and cannot, therefore, say what steps will be taken on it.
  MR. MILDMAY: Will the recommendations of Sir E. Birkbeck, which are of importance and value, have special attention given them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no doubt they are valuable, but I repeat I have not yet seen the Report.

  THE ARCHBISHOP OF MARASH AND ZEITOUM.
  SIR GEORGE SITWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoum are still in prison without trial; and whether any steps have been taken with the object of procuring their release?
  SIR E. GREY: The Archbishops were tried and sentenced, and are still in prison; but Her Majesty's Ambassador has from time to time made unofficial representations at the Porte as to the irregularities at the trial. It is to be hoped that the Sultan will see fit either to pardon the prisoners or to order a strict inquiry on the spot into the mode in which the trial was conducted.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask if the individuals named in the question are not subjects of the Sultan, and upon what ground interference is made by-England on their behalf?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: May I ask, at the same time, whether the continued imprisonment of the two Archbishops is not a violation of

  507
  the 61st and 62nd Articles of the Berlin Treaty?
  SIR E. GREY: I hope both hon. Members will give notice of the questions.

  NIGHT SEIZURES IN IRELAND.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the 66 cases out of the 712 in which he alleges police protection was given by the late Government to Sheriffs in Ireland while executing civil bill decrees between sunset and sunrise, he is able to say cattle or goods were actually taken and carried away so as to render the action of the Sheriff illegal; whether in some of the 66 cases the defendants had no goods or cattle and a return to that effect was made on the decree; whether he is aware that all the Sheriffs of the counties mentioned by him deny that any such illegal seizures took place; and whether, under the circumstances, he will furnish to the said Sheriffs a list of the cases in which they are alleged to have acted illegally, so as to enable them to inquire into, and, if possible, refute the charges made by him against them in this House?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Some of the 66 cases were attempted seizures only, and in such cases there would be no removal. These are probably the cases referred to in the second part of the question. In the other cases the reports, affirming the execution of the decrees, justifies the conclusion that both the taking and the carrying away were effected without regard to the statutory hours. As regards the third paragraph, I accept the statement in the question that the Sheriffs deny that seizures took place within the prohibited hours. I do not as to the fourth paragraph understand that they admitted seizure, and only deny removal. To follow the course indicated in the last part of the question would involve an inquiry, and this inquiry would in turn involve the production of confidential Official Reports, as the inquiry could lead to be just or satisfactory results unless these Reports and evidence in support of them were produced. Such use could not legitimately be made of Reports of this character. The Constabulary allege certain acts; the Sheriffs deny them. The situation will remain the same under any circumstances short of a judicial
  508
  inquiry, such as I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state in how many cases the goods have actually been removed and taken away. Did he ascertain that before he accused the Sheriffs of being guilty of the misdemeanour?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does not the fact of the Sheriff and his party encamping on the ground during the night, in order to effect the seizure at daybreak, render the proceedings just as illegal as if the seizures were actually made?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not like to pronounce a definite opinion on such a point of law, but I understand that it would be illegal for the Sheriff to encamp for the purpose of executing Civil Bill Decrees on the land during prohibited hours; it would be illegal, I suppose, as trespass. I cannot say off-hand in how many of those cases the goods were actually removed. I cannot, as at present advised, commit myself to the assumption that removal is essential to illegality under the Statute.
  MR. CARSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words of the Act are not "shall take and carry away"?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And I will ask whether it has not been decided in England that it is illegal for the Sheriff to remain on the ground one moment longer than is necessary to effect the seizure?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The House will perceive that a nice point of legal construction has now arisen. I have been advised by those in whom I have every confidence that it would be rash to commit oneself to the doctrine that removal is essential to constitute illegality under the Act.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he took advice as to the meaning of the words "shall take and carry away," before making the statement that police protection was given in the 712 seizures which he alleges have taken place?
  [No answer was given.]

  ALIEN PAUPER IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been

  509
  called to the fact of numerous alien immigrants, who have been refused admission into the United States, having been landed at Glasgow, and having become chargeable upon the rates; whether, in particular, an imbecile named Alter Ravenholm, a passenger from Bremen to Philadelphia, viâ Glasgow, who was prevented from landing by the United States authorities, has been brought to Glasgow by the Allan Steamship Company, and is now being maintained at the cost of the ratepayers; and whether he has received any communication from the Local Authorities upon this subject, and what steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to take with a view to preventing the recurrence of such scandals?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have had a Memorial from the Govan Parochial Board on this occurrence. The Board of Trade, to which I referred this case as soon as it appeared in the public Press, state that it is the first distinct case which has been officially brought to the notice of their Department in which an emigrant returned from the United States has become a charge upon the rates of this country. However, it is a very serious matter; and if such cases recur, the Board of Trade suggest that proposals for legislation might be necessary. The matter shall be watched carefully in Scotland and in England.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do the Government intend to introduce legislation dealing with the subject?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have had the honour of introducing a non-contentious Bill which has the support of the Front Bench opposite. It has, however, been blocked by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Is it not the fact that under the laws of the German Empire persons who like those named in the question are unable to maintain themselves are returned to their homes, and has not that power been exercised against British citizens?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I must say I think our laws ought to prevent such an occurrence as this.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I shall ask the Prime Minister a question on the subject.

  THE FRENCH FLEET IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government are aware that from the early part of next month the French reserve squadron in the Mediterranean is to be fully manned, it having already been sufficiently manned to be frequently at sea for evolutions and gun practice?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty are aware of the intentions of the French Naval Authorities, which are in accordance with their system of drilling their Reserves.

  GINGER WINE ESSENCE.
  MR. ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue require chemists who prepare and sell ginger wine essence to hold a compounder's and a spirit licence, when the essence is prepared from tinctures that can be sold separately as medicinal preparations, and when the essence only contains 10 per cent. spirit, and is unfit for drinking until diluted with one gallon of water, and then the percentage of spirit is less than ¼ per cent.; if he will consider whether the Board of Inland Revenue might allow the manufacture and sale of this article while containing 10 per cent. spirit, and the essence to be made and sold without a licence if it does not contain more than 3 per cent. spirit; and in case the Board of Inland Revenue is not prepared to grant either of these exemptions, is it intended to place equal restrictions on all flavouring essences which are wholly composed of pure spirit?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Potable essences containing so much as 10 per cent. of spirit cannot, with a due regard to the safety of the Revenue, be allowed to be prepared and sold free of licence duty. But when they contain not more than 3 per cent. they will not be interfered with. It is not thought necessary to interfere with the manufacture and sale of essences used for flavouring purposes only.

  THE CASE OF MR. GINLEY.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  511
  of Ireland whether his attention has boon directed to the case of Mr. Ginley, of Carrowreagh in the County Mayo, who has been severely boycotted for taking a farm from which the previous tenant was evicted; whether he is aware that several meetings to promote the boycotting of this man has been held in the neighbourhood of his farm, and that a meeting was held on Sunday, the 12th March, at which very violent language was used towards Ginley; whether any persons have been prosecuted for the boycotting or intimidation of Ginley; and whether this case has appeared, or will appear, in any official records of crime in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is true that Ginley is boycotted for the reason stated, and I am aware of the facts mentioned in the second paragraph of the question. A prosecution was directed some days ago against two of the speakers at the meeting held on the 12th inst., on the charge of conspiracy to injure Ginley and of soliciting others to join the conspiracy. With regard to the last paragraph, I have to observe that the mere advocacy of boycotting at public meetings is not recorded by the constabulary in the Return of outrages unless the offence be so serious as to demand the return of the accused persons for trial, in which event the case is entered in the Outrage Return as one of "intimidation." Should the persons now being proceeded against be sent for trial, the case of Ginley will be so recorded. This is in accordance with the established practice, from which no departure has been made.

  THE INDIAN JURY COMMISSION.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, as telegraphed by the Secretary of the Indian Association at Calcutta, the Government of India is conducting the Jury Commission contrary to a declaration made in this House, that the inquiry is held with closed doors and is of limited scope, and that no evidence is being taken; and whether he can assure the House that the inquiry will be held in accordance with the declaration made by the Government in this country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State is not aware to what declaration my hon. Friend refers. The substance of the instructions to the Government of India was communicated to the House on the 24th February, in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh. The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that those instructions will not be observed; nor does he think it desirable to interfere with the discretion of the Commission as to the mode of conducting the inquiry.
  MR. PAUL: When is this Report likely to be presented, to whom will it be addressed, and will it be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: I take it that it will be addressed to the Secretary of State. I presume it will be laid.

  THE CLOUGHJORDAN DEFENCE UNION.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some five or six police pensioners attend as members at the meetings of an Association under the title of "The Cloughjordan County Tipperary Defence Union," which is a society of a few Orangemen in the district in opposition to "Home Rule;" and that, on a recent occasion, the sergeant of police attended their meeting in the discharge of his duty and was ordered to leave; and, if so, will the police pensioners in question be cautioned against being connected with any Association for political objects?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is reported to be a fact that six constabulary pensioners attended as members of the Defence Union at Cloughjordan, and that two of the local police who attended in the ordinary discharge of their duty were ordered to leave their meeting on December 5 last. The Inspector General has no control over the action of police pensioners in matters of this kind.

  POLICE COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES.
  MR. MINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of an application made to the Grand Jury of the County Kildare, at Naas Assizes, on Tuesday last, on behalf of Sergeant Griffin, Royal Irish Con-

  513
  stabulary, of Athy, for compensation for injury caused him by a tramp from another county whom he had arrested in Athy; whether he will state the amount of compensation awarded by the Grand Jury; and whether there is any means of protecting ratepayers in an Irish county from being obliged to pay compensation for injuries inflicted by strangers from other counties, under such circumstances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that a sum of £900 was awarded as compensation by the Grand. Jury of the County Kildare under the circumstances stated in the first paragraph of the Question, the amount to be levied off the county at large. Under the Grand Jury Act, 1836, the compensation is payable by the county within which the offence has been committed, though it was open to the ratepayers to protect themselves by traversing the presentment.

  COLWYN BAY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Privy Council will withhold its assent to the Order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners creating a new benefice in Colwyn Bay, Denbighshire, until the Correspondence and Minute of Proceeding relating thereto have been laid before this House?
  MR. ACLAND: As was stated in the House on the 16th February last by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the only question considered by the Privy Council before ratifying a scheme drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is whether the scheme contains nothing contrary to law, and whether it is within the legal powers of the Commissioners. If both these questions are answered in the affirmative the scheme is passed. This appears to have been the uniform practice of the Privy Council.

  ELECTORAL DISQIULIFICATON.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state from any Returns, or from an approximate estimate, the number of electors who will be added to the constituencies if the payment of rates as a condition precedent to being placed on the register be abolished?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I find that, according to the last Census the total number of inhabited houses in England and Wales was, in round figures, 5,500,000. The number of occupation voters on the Register for 1892 may be roughly estimated at 4,130,000, being 1,370,000 less than the number of inhabited houses. From this 1,370,000 must be deducted the houses occupied by women, and, according to a Return in 1890, the number of women entitled to vote for County Councils and for Town Councils in county boroughs was between 600,000 and 700,000. This deduction leaves the number of houses in access of the number of occupation voters by between 700,000 and 800,000. As, however, there may be occupations of parts of a house conferring the right to the franchise, and the occupation voters include voters in respect of lands without dwelling houses, there must be some deduction from the total number of occupation voters when that number is compared with the number of inhabited houses. The figures which I have given show that, assuming that all who would be entitled to be registered were duly registered, there would not be less than from 700,000 to 800,000 additional voters placed on the register, in respect of occupation of dwelling houses, were it not for the conditions of the franchise as to the period of residence and rating and payment of rates, and the omissions to claim, and the large numbers who are disqualified through removals. We have no means of estimating the number who are disqualified by reason of non-payment of rates, but I should not expect to find that it was very considerable. I may, however, say by way of illustration that since my right hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper I have received a communication from an officer of one of the largest parishes in England, containing upwards of 40,000 ratepayers, and he estimates that the additional number of electors who will be added to the register in consequence of the abolition of the rate-paving clauses will be exceedingly small.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Has there been any deduction made from the number of inhabited houses in consequence of "voids?"
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is another element to be taken into consideration. I have taken the actual

  515
  number of houses according to the Census.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not true that in London specially there are large numbers of houses which contain four or five voters, and would that not largely increase the total?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I believe that it is so in London, but the system does not prevail to any large extent outside the Metropolis.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND TRADES UNION WAGES.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for hair brooms was recently given to Mr. A. Smith of Stratford, Essex; whether, in accordance with the Resolution adopted by the last Parliament, such contract was entered into upon the condition that the trade union rate of wages should be paid by the contractor; whether Mr. Smith is fulfilling such conditions and paying the rate of wages agreed to by the employers and employed in the brush-making trade in 1872; and whether the sanitary conditions of the premises in which Mr. Smith's employés are engaged are approved by the Factory Inspector of the district?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Smith's contract contains the usual clause binding him to pay the rate of wages current for such work in the locality. The War Office is not at present aware how far Mr. Smith is fulfilling these conditions, but a complaint was received on the 18th instant from the Brushmakers' Union to the effect that he is not paying proper wages. Inquiry on the point will be made. The Inspection of Factories is under the Home Office.
  MR. CREMER: Has the attention of the Home Office been called to the sanitary condition of this factory?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  IRISH POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, has issued instructions to suburban post offices in Dublin embodying the reply to be given to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks who might apply for information as to the future security for
  516
  their deposits, or who might demand withdrawal forms; if these instructions have been issued since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill; and if he will state the terms of the reply referred to in the instructions?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): No instructions have been issued such as those referred to in this question. The position of depositors in the Savings Bank in Ireland is unaltered until the Irish Government Bill passes into law, and by the provisions of the Bill six months' notice is given to depositors, during which period they can, if they so desire, have the full amount of their deposits paid to them or transferred to the Post Office Savings Bank in Great Britain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can ascertain how these cock-and-bull stories get into the minds of certain hon. Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a Member of Parliament who, directly or indirectly himself, or by anyone in trust for him, undertakes any contract with a Government Department, is incapable of sitting or voting during the time he shall hold such contract, or any share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I have no authority to give an account of the state of the law, but what I understand to be the case is that any Member in such a position as is described in the question would find that his seat was made void, and that he himself was subject to penalties for sitting and voting.

  THE VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the Vote on Account embracing all branches of the Civil Service, he will put it down for some day earlier than Monday, 27th March?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say that, in consequence of the failure of the Government to bring to a close last week the business of Supply then in hand, they are not in a condition to name the exact day when they can propose the Vote on Account; but it cannot be proposed during the present week.

  IRISH WAR CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will kindly state the numbers of the clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill which contain the provisions by which, in case of great emergency, such as foreign war, the Government expect to get fair and full contributions from Irish sources to Imperial exigencies?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The answer is a very simple one. I believe that the only portions of the Bill directly referring to the subject-matter of my right hon. Friend's question are two sub-sections in Clause 10—namely, Subsections 2 and 5—and the explanations of these we shall enter into upon the Second Reading of the Bill.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that it is admitted by the Secretary of State for War that the Naval and Military Authorities responsible for the defence of the country had not modified their views, and were still decidedly adverse to the proposed Channel Tunnel on strategic and national grounds, and had not advised the Board of Trade to withdraw its opposition to that measure and support it, and having regard to the resolution of the Commission of 1883, which was reported to the House of Commons, and which stated that the majority were of opinion that Parliamentary sanction should not be given to a submarine communication between England and France, he will, following the same course he adopted in 1885, instruct the Board of Trade to move the rejection of the Channel Tunnel Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has most ingeniously imported a long argument into his question,
  518
  which I do not subscribe to, and which I will venture to pass by. I will merely say that we do not take part as a Government in this discussion, which we think is one that we ought to leave to the free judgment of hon. Gentlemen in this House; and I may observe, that when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham did object to the progress of the Bill in a former year, it was on special grounds which he explained at the time, and not on the merits of the particular scheme.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: May I ask whether it is not the case that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, When President of the Board of Trade, opposed the Bill on behalf of the Prime Minister and every Member of the Government? In proof of that I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to Hansard.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not contested that at all. Undoubtedly it was on the part of the Government, but it was done on special grounds, and not on the merits of the scheme.
  MR. BARTLEY: Can the Prime Minister lay on the Table any correspondence between the Government and the hon. Member for Hythe giving the reasons why the Government have changed their views?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that we have changed our views.. The views of the Government at the time were explained with perfect clearness and correctness by my right hon. Friend behind me.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the promoters of the Bill, so that hon. Members may have due notice of the time when the Bill will come on?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That has already been answered twice.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That will be provided for by the Rules of the House, I have no doubt.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State for War stated, in answer to a question last Thursday, that the War Office and the Admiralty had not changed their adverse views?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It does not appear to me a convenient practice to call upon one Minister to say whether or

  519
  not it is a fact that another Minister answered so and so. The documents and records of Parliament give ample information upon the point.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, and I would not have pressed him but for the statement of the Secretary for War that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Papers he will see that is so.

  THE POLICE AND UNIONIST MEETINGS.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was by the orders or with the knowledge of the County Inspector or the Executive that some members of the constabulary attended the Unionist meeting at Seaforde, County Down, last week, and the Unionist meeting at Dunmore, in the same county, on 13th March?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General reports that the local constabulary did attend the meetings referred to in the ordinary course of their duty when on patrol. It was not by the orders or with the knowledge of the County Inspector or the Executive that they did so.

  STATE CHURCH ENDOWMENTS.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he will assent to a Return showing what sums of money or their equivalent have been given by the State or derived from Imperial sources for the purpose of endowing in any way, directly or indirectly, the Established Church in Great Britain, distinguishing the particular sources from whence such sums of money or their equivalent have been derived, and whether they have been given to the Established Church in England, in Scotland, or in Wales? I ask the question because a Return granted on February 23 last approaches to, but does not cover, the ground of my Motion.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am bound to say that if I interpret aright the words of the Motion it appears to me to be very difficult to say whether that would cover
  520
  the whole ground. It is so wide that it would involve an inquiry which is more likely to occupy years than months, for the whole of the learning on the extremely dark and complex history of the original endowments of the Church in this country and Scotland would have to be investigated. I remember when I was younger, and had more time for attacking tough problems than I have now, that I spent a good many weeks in reading Selden on the subject, and the hon. Gentleman will find that Selden only supplies a portion of the matter. Putting it into its simplest form, it is still an extremely complex and difficult matter on which the opinions of learned persons have always been divided. If a Return can be prepared, I have not the slightest objection to its being presented to the House, and the more clearly the better, but the words of the hon. Member do not seem to be suitable.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask whether, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman expressly stated in a letter to a correspondent last December that the Church of England received no assistance——[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must see that notice should be given of a question of that kind.

  TROOPS FOR ULSTER.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice. I would like to know for what reason the military authorities in Belfast have been in negotiation with the owners of mills and other buildings in Belfast, and throughout Ulster, with a view to the accommodation of additional troops, and whether it is true that 2,000 more troops have been sent to Belfast?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will give the hon. Gentleman the reason for the alleged negotiations when I am made aware that their existence is a fact. I have no knowledge of them. The other statement I am empowered by the Commander of the Forces in Ireland to entirely and wholly deny.

  THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it will be convenient to the House if the Prime Minister will tell us

  521
  what Business it is proposed to take during the remainder of this week.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not able at the present moment to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question with perfect accuracy, but I will endeavour to put the House in early possession of the information asked for.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is to be taken to-morrow?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Tomorrow, at the Morning Sitting, which is alone under the control of the Government, the Business will be the introduction of what is called the Parish Councils Bill.
  MR. BARTLEY: With reference to the Order Paper, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that among the Notices of Motion there are Notices of Bills for the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church, the introduction of the principle of One Man One Vote, Anti-Vaccination, and Shorter Parliaments, and for dealing with Justices; whether he is aware that these Bills have been on the Paper for some time past; whether he really means to name a day for their introduction, or whether they are to be regarded as stillborn, and whether putting them on the Paper is simply an obituary notice?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unwilling, of course, to press the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot give me an explicit answer now; but it would be for the convenience of the House if he could tell us what would be the first Business on Thursday.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We certainly mean to go forward with the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill unless we are fortunate enough to get it to-night.
  MR. BARTLEY: Might I press for an answer to my question?
  [No answer was given.]

OFFICE OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I must crave indulgence from the House— indulgence which, I am happy to say, is always given—for a personal explanation
  522
  with regard to a speech made in this House on Friday last by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman). The speech seems to have been a very amusing one, and to have caused great laughter; but the words used have conveyed an impression which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey. I find it has been reproduced in the local papers as an attack on myself, to which importance may be attributed. The reason why this wrong impression is prevalent is that certain omissions and one mis-statement were made by the right hon. Gentleman —no doubt unwittingly. I have taken an extract of the words I object to from The Times newspaper, and will read them to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether they are correctly reported—

  "The late Judge Advocate General was sometimes paid after one fashion and sometimes after another; but he was now only concerned with the last year for which the right hon. Gentleman held office—the year commencing April 1 last. The arrangement made with the Treasury was that the office should be endowed with a fixed salary of £500, and that the officer should be allowed fees for business actually transacted to the amount of another £500. But the late Judge Advocate General claimed that his £500 should be paid over to him on April 1 as a retaining fee for the coming year. The greater part of the salary for the year was thus absorbed. The right hon. Gentleman was paid £500 on April 1, and he proceeded with unusual, but praiseworthy, activity to transact as much business as possible, so that when the change of Government took place in the beginning of August there was only £150 available for the distinguished public servant who should be then appointed to discharge the duties of the office."
  That statement created much laughter. Well, I must first call attention to the omissions made by the right hon. Gentleman. He omitted to state that for a long time the late Judge Advocate General was paid nothing at all.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did state it.
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: Well, he was not so reported.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My words were to this effect: "And sometimes the right hon. Gentleman was paid and sometimes he was not paid, and that sometimes he was paid after one fashion and sometimes paid after another fashion."
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: Well, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. But he was not so reported in The Times. I wish, however, to

  523
  mention a fact which should have been mentioned at the time. The impression that would be made on the mind of people who read this report is that the late Judge Advocate General was rather an acute gentleman, and that he had made more money out of his office than his predecessors. Now, the facts are entirely the opposite to that. [Ministerial, cries of"Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen will listen with patience, they will see that this is so. The causa causans of the whole of this imbroglio was the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In 1887 the hon. Member for Northampton was consumed with a great fit of economic zeal, and he attacked nearly all the salaries of the hon. Gentlemen who then sat on the Government Bench. I am only astonished to find that that zeal has cooled down since the hon. Member's revered Leaders have taken the places of the Members of the late Government.
  DR. CAMERON: Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to continue the Debate, or do more than mention the facts he regards as necessary for his personal explanation?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in doing more than alluding to the mere facts, and I hope he will not go into any extraneous matter.
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your direction; but I think that I am bound, Sir, to go back to the root of the difficulty. In December, 1887, I was informed that certain changes were contemplated in regard to the office of Judge Advocate General, which I then occupied. That was told me by the then Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). At that time I only did what every gentleman in that House in the same position would have done, whatever side he belonged to. I said, "If you are going to make any change I shall not stand in the way, and I am perfectly content to resign the office." An arrangement was made by which I was to resign, and the resignation was to take effect from April 1, 1888. But when that time came round the new scheme which the War Office contemplated was not hatched, and I was asked to carry on for some months. I agreed, and as a matter of fact the arrangement went
  524
  through 1888–89 and 1889–90 without my getting any pay. During that time any other Judge Advocate General would have received £4,000 for the work, but I did not receive a single farthing. In the year following the then Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought that that state of things should not continue. The right hon. Gentleman suggested some salary, or payment by fees. I was not anxious about it, and said that I was still willing to resign, though the work, I may say, had been done without any complaint from this House or elsewhere, and if there had been any complaint to make it would certainly have been made. When Mr. Smith pressed the matter upon me I said that if I was not required always to be in the House on Government nights, but could have the freedom of a private Member, I would have no objection to be paid by fees. Here, then, is the omission which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) made. He omitted to say that in those two years I received nothing. And then the right hon. Gentleman said that it was agreed that there should be a fixed salary of £500, and that the officer should be allowed fees to the amount of another £500. He said that I claimed that this £500 should be paid to me at the beginning of the financial year as a retaining fee for the coming year. It was nothing of the kind. This is shown by a letter I received from Sir R. Welby, of the Treasury, who wrote—
  "The Lords Commissioners having had before them the explanations and assurances given by Mr. Secretary Stanhope on your letter with regard to the remuneration of the Judge Advocate General, I am directed to inform you that they sanction the proposed payment of £l,000 for the year 1890–91."
  There was no question of a claim. They agreed to this retaining fee, and, I may say, agreed against my advice, for I pointed out to the Under Secretary of State for War what would happen. I pointed out that the retaining fee must be paid at the beginning of the year. [Nationalist laughter.] Yes; but when else could a retaining fee be paid? A retaining fee is always paid at the beginning of the year. I am charged with having got a good deal of money out of the office. But the House will see that the practical effect of the circumstances which I have described is

  525
  that in the time I was connected with the office, including the time when I got no salary at all, and the time when I was on the new arrangement, I got £6,000 less than the previous Judge Advocate General would have got. Then I come to another point. I found out in August last that there was some difficulty in regard to the work of this office. There have always been two opinions regarding the office — one that it is a political office, and the other that it is a judicial office. I take the latter view, the chief duty being to judge of the validity of Court, Martinis, on which there should be no political feeling whatever. Finding that the Government were in a difficulty, I wrote to say that I was willing to carry on the work to the end of the financial year. It was not for the sake of pay that I made that offer, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have mentioned the circumstances.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman would have better come on on Report of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him into the whole of the history of the office of Judge Advocate General. I stated the other night that the right hon. Gentleman was sometimes paid and sometimes not. But I confined my particular observations to the current financial year, and the right hon. Gentleman has really confirmed everything I said—namely, that in the year when there was an immediate prospect of a General Election, and, therefore, a risk as to the endurance of the Government, he received as a retaining fee half of the money due for the whole year and during the time which elapsed between the beginning of the financial year and the General Election, which ended in the late Government leaving Office. He transacted more business than was usually done in that period——
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: I must deny that emphatically. Absolutely no more work was done than usual.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At all events, he did transact a large amount of business, and the result was that there was a small modicum of salary left for any unfortunate individual who might come after. I did not say whose were the arrangements which
  526
  made this state of things possible. I am really very sorry if I have hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman by the recapitulation of these facts, but they are facts and cannot be departed from.

MOTIONS.
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Ordered, "That the proceedings on Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 167.)

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move that Mr. Gerald Balfour be a Member of the Select Committee on Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it not be convenient to the Government to postpone this until after Supply this evening? There is an objection, because three gentlemen from one city are proposed to be put on the Committee.
  MR. CREMER: I think it would be convenient to postpone it until to-morrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that it cannot be postponed to the end of the Sitting. If it be postponed at all, it must be postponed to another day.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: "I will postpone it till to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not have the same precedence to-morrow.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: No, we will take it at 10 minutes to 7.
  Nomination of Committee postponed accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1892–3.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1892–3.

    CLASS V.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,

    527
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Missions Abroad, and Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."

    THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESrose to move a reduction of which he had given notice.
    MR. LABOUCHERErising to a point of Order, asked whether he would not be debarred from moving a reduction of which he had given notice if the hon. Member moved his first?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,): No, I think the hon. Member will not he prejudiced.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had to move that, in Class V., Vote 1, the item should be reduced by £4,000 on account of the Behring Sea Arbitration. He desired to do so on account of the grave importance of the question involved, and because he believed its gravity had escaped the attention alike of the late and the present Government. The matters involved were no less than the freedom of the high seas, the livelihood of a most important British colony, and the question whether that colony was or was not to be coerced by the Mother Country. He would, as briefly as possible, lay out the ground on which the question arose, and state the question itself. At the northern corner of the Pacific Ocean lay the Behring Sea between Asia and America at the point where those two continents approached each other, and where Siberia, as it were, stretched forth a hand to Alaska. The sea was 3,00C miles long and 2,700 miles broad. It ran at its northern end into the Behring Straits, and at its southern extremity there stretched for two-thirds across it a chain of islands, the Aleutian Islands, whereof he was particularly concerned with one group, consisting of the Islands of Priby-loff, St. Paul, and St. George. They were barren islands, surrounded all the year round by fogs, and producing nothing but moss and grass, but they were the home of the fur seal—or rather the honeymoon and nursing-ground of that seal, for it was only during certain months of the year—namely, from May till August, that the fur seal resorted to
    528
    them. When the seal arrived there it met a very serious enemy. He would quote from a statement of Professor Elliott, an eminent American, and a member of the Smithsonian Institute, who, writing in 1890, said that the fur seal moved more easily on land than all other seals, but it was an unusual and laborious effort even when voluntary. Professor Elliott added that, when thousands of young seals were suddenly roused to their utmost power of land locomotion, over rough land, rocks, and other impediments, they exerted themselves most violently, and crowded one upon the other, so that many were actually smothered by the rest. He went on to show that the seals were treated most cruelly, and that when they had been driven many miles inland they were clubbed and killed. The seals had other enemies besides those on land, as they were met on their way to and from the islands by numbers of sealing vessels. Those on board these vessels did not treat them with the cruelty exercised on the islands, as they merely shot the seals through the head as they were lying on the surface of the water. Almost the first notice taken in history of the Behring Sea was to be found in a Russian Ukase issued in 1821. That Ukase ran as follows:—
    "Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and of all other industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of America, beginning from Behring's Strait to 151° of northern latitude; also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands from Behring's Strait to the South Cape of the Island of Urup—namely, to 45° 50' northern latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian subjects.
    Section 2. It is, therefore, prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within less than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is subject to confiscation along with the whole cargo."
    This was a claim to regard the Behring Sea as a mare clausum, instead of which he maintained it had always been a mare liberum. When the American Government remonstrated with the Russian Government, as they did at once, they were told that the sea had all the qualities of a close sea. It was unnecessary to tell the House that a claim to so vast an amount of water as this was one entirely new to every publicist,

    529
    and was opposed to the teaching and doctrine of every publicist of eminence. The protest of the United States was conveyed in a letter from Mr. Adams, in which he said—
    "This pretension is to be considered not only with reference to the question of territorial right, but also to the prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including those of the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. From the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation their vessels have freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate them is a part of that independence."
    England protested at the same time, and the result was that the claim, which he could not but look upon as a fraudulent claim and an imposture, to regard this sea as a closed sea, was entirely withdrawn by Conventions entered into by Russia with the United States and England in 1824 and 1825. These Conventions stipulated that the subjects of the United States and of England could have free rights of navigation in the Behring Sea. Thus ended the first act of this drama. The second act began with the acquisition by the United States of the territory of Alaska. This took place in 1867, and amounted to a purchase by the United States of Alaska from the Russian Government for 7,000,000 dollars. The Treaty which ceded Alaska to the United States used the words "the territory of Alaska and the adjacent islands." No mention was made of the sea itself, except that an imaginary line was drawn over the sea about two-thirds across, this line being supposed to separate the territories of America and Russia. Throe years later the American Government entered into a contract with a company then known as the Alaska Commercial Company. The contract was renewed in 1886 virtually to the same company, and ceded to them the right of sealing and taking seals in the Pribyloff and other islands. In the same year Congress passed an Act prohibiting sealing by anybody except the agents of the company on these islands and in the waters adjacent thereto. One would have imagined that the waters adjacent thereto meant, as it usually did mean, the three miles limit. The purpose, however, of the Act was to give the company not merely a monopoly of the sealing upon the land, but to hand over to them every
    530
    seal in every part of the Behring Sea, where the United States Government had no lawful jurisdiction at all. The only claim which the United States could have to the sea must rest, and did rest, on a renewal of the Russian claim to regard the Behring Sea as a closed sea. He contended that this Act of Congress was a usurpation not in the interests of the whole of the inhabitants of the United States, but in the interests of a close monopoly, and the first denunciations of the measure came from the United States itself. Messrs. Handy and Co., of San Francisco, in 1887, said of the company—
    "It has taken possession of, and assumed sovereign power over, the moat valuable fisheries of the whole United States—namely, the Alaska fisheries in Behring's Sea, and without shadow of right or authority, except a lease from the United States, dated the 3rd August, 1870, permitting it to kill 100,000 seals annually upon two small islands in Behring's Sea at a rent of 55,000 dollars per annum, &c.; has taken possession and control not only of the territory, but also of a vast sea, 3,000 miles long by 2,700 miles wide; has made itself the suzerain of the Government, and impressed into its service the officers and agents of the Government to maintain its possession and control of this immense territory and sea."
    That protest was taken up and re-echoed by the citizens of the Dominion of Canada, for they had been accustomed to, and were still proposing to, lit out scaling schooners in order to earn their livelihood by fishing in the high seas. The third act of the drama began with the first systematic seizures which took place in 1886 of American and British vessels in the Behring Sea. A Correspondence ensued. He was bound to say that reading through the thousands of pages of the Blue Book that had thence arisen he was struck with the great superiority of the American Correspondence to that which had issued from this side of the water. He attributed it to the fact that the American Minister was a Minister who was not diverted from his Ministerial duties by having to go about the country and make speeches in defence of his Party and in depreciation of the other Party. The Americans began very mildly indeed. The first vessels seized in 1886 were released, although not until they had pretty nearly fallen to pieces. As the matter went on, however, the Americans got stronger and we weaker. At last, in February, 1888, Mr. Blaine

    531
    proposed to Lord Salisbury that a close time should be fixed for seals. Lord Salisbury with great readiness seemed to have agreed to that proposal, which he forwarded to the Canadian Government, the proposition being that there should be a close time for seals in all the seas north of the 47th degree of latitude from the 15th April to the 1st November. The House would see that such a close time would have amounted to a complete prohibition of all pelagic sealing. The Canadians rejected the proposition with scorn, and expressed surprise that such a proposal should ever have been made or entertained by anyone. Of course, more Correspondence ensued, and the Correspondence was brought to an end and summed up on the American side by Mr. Blaine's Despatch on the 13th June, 1880, and on the English side by what he must call the most forcible, admirable, and conclusive Despatch of Lord Salisbury on August 2, 1890. Our right was as clear as any right a nation could have. It had existed unquestioned for many years. The attempt to interfere with it was denounced not merely by us, but by American subjects themselves, and to his great pleasure and surprise he found that the proper attitude for England to take up—an attitude so firm that even if we went to the verge of war we should have protected the freedom of the high seas— was advocated by no less a Body than the International Arbitration and Peace Association. Writing on the 6th of December, 1889, they say—
    "The proceedings of the United States cruisers in seizing and sequestrating—and, in some cases, confiscating—the vessels and cargoes of British subjects engaged in fisheries on the open sea, have caused—as, no doubt, your Lordship is too well aware—excessive and prolonged irritation amongst our fellow-citizens of the Canadian Dominion, as it would appear that those in command of Her Majesty's vessels on the Pacific coast feel themselves for some reason unable to check the high-handed proceedings of the United States cruisers; while those measures of redress long since demanded by Her Majesty's Government and ostensibly conceded by the United States Government do not appear to have ever been carried out or compensation made to the victims of admittedly lawless seizures."
    Then the Committee of the Association tried to encourage Lord Salisbury and to stiffen his attitude on the question. He believed this was the first time this Association had intervened in such a way, and suggested strong action to a British or
    532
    to any other Government. Yet our right was not admitted or maintained. In July, 1891, a modus vivendi was accepted, by which we prohibited the sealers from sealing in the Behring Sea on condition that the Alaska Company should be prohibited from killing more than 7,500 seals—a number which it was said it was necessary to kill in order to provide the natives with food. Lord Salisbury for a long time held out for a power of supervision over this arrangement, and it was subsequently found that whilst the British sealers were prevented from killing any seals, the American Company killed not 7,500, but over 12,000. The Treaty of Arbitration was signed in February, 1892, and a remarkable Treaty it was. It provided that six points were to be submitted to the arbitrators. The first was—What exclusive jurisdiction in the Behring Sea, and what exclusive rights in the fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior to the acquisition of Alaska by the United States? The one question between the two countries was whether the Behring Sea was a free and open sea or a closed sea, and the 1st Article did not touch that question at all? The second point was—How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain? That also did not touch the real question in dispute. The third point was—Whether the Behring's Sea was included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain by that Treaty? That question again, he submitted, in no way touched the real point in dispute. The 4th Article asked—
    "Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States and Russia, of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that Treaty?"
    Well, of course they did—such rights as Russia had. This 4th Article, again, did not raise the real and only question — namely, whether the Behring's Sea was not open to all mankind? The 5th Article asked whether the United States had any right to the protection of and property in the fur seals in the Behring's Sea, and, if so,

    533
    how such rights arose? Nowhere could he find raised the one true question involved in this matter—namely, whether the sea was or was not an open sea. The 7th Article of the Treaty declared—
    "If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring Sea, the arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary."
    That was a proposal to put the Behring Sea under a Council of Nations, and Great Britain was to take part in it, he supposed, to exclude all other people from the sea. There was another question to which he wished to direct attention. If the United States had the right to exclude our vessels from the sea, then, undoubtedly, what they had done was in the exercise of their right; but if they had no right, then compensation was due to the seal fishers. The principle of compensation had been fully admitted by our Government, for we had already ourselves paid the compensation to the sealers. That principle seemed to him as the necessary corollary to the one, the only true, question to be decided—whether this was or was not an open sea? But that was expressly excluded by Article 8, which ran—
    "The high contracting parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission or determination of the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the arbitrators any question of fact involved in such claims, and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation."
    Therefore, the main question was not put before the arbitrators at all. It might be alluded to as a corollary question, but was not to be decided by the arbitrators, but was to be the subject of further negotiation. Arbitration was bad for us. He would go further, and say was always bad for us. There were three methods of settling this or any other serious question that
    534
    arose between nations. They might compromise the matter. They might wrangle and chaffer for a time, and then come to some agreement. There were great advantages in that manner of settlement. They might get something to which they were entitled, and feel, at the same time, that contentment had been fostered between the two nations. They might, in the second place, surrender the whole matter—in this case the freedom of the Behring Sea. There were advantages in that mode of settlement. At any rate, they would be entitled to the gratitude of the nation to whom they had surrendered, and they would, in all probability, foster in the nation that sort of feeling which was engendered between private individuals, when one was able to say, "He acted like a gentleman," which meant that the gentleman had given up something to which he was entitled. There was a third mode—the resistance of any infraction of rights by war. There were great advantages in that mode of settlement—advantages such as an increase of trade. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, trade had increased when war was waged with all the strength of England, and he was sure that that was an argument that would go to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. But there were other advantages in war. War led to a final settlement of the question in dispute, an I left behind it sentiments of mutual respect for the bravery shown in conflict. But he saw no advantage at all to this country in a settlement by arbitration. He would tell the Committee why: because we had not a single friend on the Continent of Europe. We had many advantages, but we had also the signal advantage of being envied and hated by every people and nation on the Continent of Europe. There was not a nation in Europe that would not take the opportunity of giving a decision against this country, and, therefore, we could have no confidence in any Court of Arbitration. Take the facts. There was the Alabama case. He admitted we were wrong in that case. But that was owing to the action of the Government of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches, who allowed the Alabama to escape while they were making up their

    535
    minds whether they ought to stop her. Then there was the Delagoa Bay dispute. That was settled against us though we had justice on our side. Then there was the San Juan dispute. We had justice on our side in that case also, but the arbitration wont against us. In fact, in 99 cases out of 100 cases of arbitration, the award would be always given against England, whatever the merits of the case might be. The primary question involved was the right of our Canadian fellow-subjects to this fishery. The right of England, and the other nations of the earth to the high seas was also involved. But what specially affected us was whether we were or were not entering upon a new system of coercion of the British Colonies. On one side of the American Continent we were preparing for the coercion of the Newfoundlanders to allow fishing off their coasts—fishing to which, he maintained, the other party concerned had no right or title; and on the other side of the American Continent we were trying to coerce the Canadians from fishing the high seas. Had we forgotten the lesson taught us 100 years ago by those who were then our fellow-citizens in the Northern States of America? To enter into any system of coercion against Canada would be most unfortunate and should be deprecated. He thought it his duty to put the actual facts of this matter before the country, and to point out that through this arbitration we might be forced into the discreditable policy of using coercion to drive Canada into a course of conduct we had no title to drive her into. If we were not able to protect the freedom of the high seas in times of peace, if we were not able to maintain control over them in time of war; if we submitted to arbitration, the question whether or not we were to be allowed to traverse the high seas, and if we were induced to use coercion towards Canada, then all the bleating Despatches written in the Foreign Office would not hide the fact that the greatness of England was gone. The hon. Member concluded by moving to reduce Item M by £4,000, on account of the Behring Sea Arbitration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item M, of £21,600 for Special Missions and Services, be reduced by £4,000 in respect of the Behring Sea Arbitration."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.")
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The hon. Gentleman has ended his speech, moving this reduction, by stating his grave apprehension that this Arbitration would lead to the coercion of Canada. That apprehension of his is founded upon two promises: first, that the verdict of the Arbitration will be given entirely against our side of the ease (which, I think, is a contention that cannot be founded on any argument or on any knowledge in our possession); and, secondly, it is founded on another premise, that if the verdict of the Arbitration is adverse to us Canada will refuse to recognise that verdict. Now, Canada is represented on the Arbitration Board, and bears part of the expenses of the Arbitration, and I think it is a reflection on the loyalty of that bolony when the hon. Member presupposes that if, in the result, the verdict should not be in accordance with her wishes she will not be prepared to abide by it loyally. As regards the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I think that it is most singularly inopportune. I will give a small instance of its inopportuneness first. The hon. Member dealt with the habits of the fur seal in an interesting statement. Indeed, he spoke with a knowledge that seemed to be carefully acquired; but this House has not yet full access to the sources of knowledge which they will presently have as to the habits of the animals. The Joint Commissioners sent out by this country and the United States have investigated this question carefully on the spot; they have presented Reports, which will he laid before the Court of Arbitration, and the Government is willing to publish these Reports as soon as consent is obtained from the United States and the Court of Arbitration. It would, therefore, have been more opportune had the hon. Member waited for these Reports before inviting us to discuss the habits of the seal. But the inopportuneness of the speech was of a far more serious character than that. The hon. Member stated clearly that he does not wish to have any arbitration at all. If the hon. Member does not wish for arbitration he ought to have provided a satisfactory alternative for it. He suggested three courses as alternatives.

    537
    The first was wrangling and chaffing.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I said "chaffering."
    SIR E. GREY: It makes no difference to my point. The hon. Member suggested wrangling and chaffering between this Government and the Government with whom we have the difficulty. That may be a proceeding more or less interesting or more or less prolonged; but I do not see how it could lead to any definite conclusion of the differences which exist between the parties. Next, the hon. Member suggested surrender, but this the Government are not prepared to do. The hon. Member also said the Government might go to war, but this step also we certainly are not prepared to take. If there were any party of Members in this House who wished now at the eleventh hour—in fact, it is long past that hour so far as arbitration is concerned—who wished to dismiss arbitration and go for some other alternative, it is too late to adopt such a course consonant with the honour of the country, considering how far arbitration is gone. But there is no such party in the House. There is no such party on the other side of the House, where sit the Members of the Government who signed the Treaty of Arbitration, and on this side of the House there is nothing but a feeling of satisfaction and relief that this matter has been referred for settlement to arbitration. I say that even to enter into a discussion of the arbitration leaves us open to a suspicion that we are dissatisfied with the arbitrators or that we are not prepared to abide by their decision; or that we have discovered some point of weakness in our case. I do not think we wish to lay ourselves open to any of these suspicions. I do not believe that the House of Commons feel any want of confidence in the arbitrators, who will begin their labours this week, or that we have any idea of giving to the United States the impression that we do not intend to be loyally bound by the result. On these grounds I ask the Committee not to enter into a discussion, but to allow the Vote to pass, and so sanction an arrangement entered into by the late Government, carried on by the present Government and which we hope will end in a satisfactory solution.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I only rise for the purpose of adding a few words to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said with a view of impressing on my hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis the undesirability of continuing this discussion. After listening to the very exhaustive and full, and, so far as I was able to judge, the accurate, statement which the hon. Gentleman gave of the whole history of the Behring Sea question, I am sure the House will regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman during the whole of the last Parliament from the Councils of this House. But I fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said. This question, so far as this House is concerned, is practically a concluded question. We are on the point, within a day or two, of entering into arbitration upon these very matters. The Treaty of Arbitration has now been signed, and I cannot help thinking—though my hon. Friend behind me may have doubts upon it—that the whole of the points at issue between ourselves and the United States Government are fairly and fully contained in the five points of the 6th Article of the Treaty of Arbitration. My hon. Friend laid special stress on one point. He said that nowhere in the Treaty was the question raised as to whether the Behring Sea was or was not an open sea. I contend that in the fifth paragraph of the 6th Article that question is fully raised. It is to this effect—
    "Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of the property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States of the Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit."
    That raises the whole point. That is the vital point of the arbitration, and upon that point the arbitrators will be able to come to a decision. But as I rose to impress on my hon. Friend the advisability of not continuing the Debate, I do not wish to continue it myself. We have full confidence that the arbitrators will hear our case most carefully and considerately; and whilst having full confidence in the justice of the case, which we shall plead before the Court of Arbitration, we have equal confidence that administrators will do their best to administer justice and settle for all time the unhappy difficulty that has arisen in

    539
    this question between ourselves and the United States, who have dealt with us in a very amicable manner in this dispute.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he was surprised that the speech of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis should have been begun, as we were on the eve of entering into arbitration; but, having been begun, he was extremely surprised that it ever should have come to an end. The hon. Gentleman occupied an hour in his speech, but with the material at his disposal in the Blue Books, the Committee should be thankful for having been let off so lightly, for the hon. Member might have gone on for six hours. The point of the speech of the hon. Member seemed to be this: Lord Salisbury, in the management of the Behring Sea difficulty, has been scandalously weak. He agreed with the hon. Member. But what was the use of raking up questions of that sort? Lord Salisbury was always scandalously weak in dealing with a stronger Power; but he made up for it by being scandalously strong in dealing with a weak one.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: After the representations which have been made to me I wish to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.

    UGANDA.
    MR. LABOUCHERE, who rose to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, being the cost of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission to Uganda, said, he took occasion on the Address to call attention to the possession of Uganda. He was obliged at the time, he was sorry to say, to speak at considerable length on the subject, because there had been many misstatements with regard to the place, which probably deceived a great many people, while numbers of others had not really turned their attention to the matter at all, and hardly knew whether Uganda was a country or a town. But now, thanks to articles which had appeared in the magazines from his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) and others, the facts of the case were pretty well-known. In Uganda at the present time there was absolutely no Imperial responsibility of any sort or kind. Uganda was situated on an area known as "a British sphere
    540
    of influence." That meant that in that area the Germans had promised not to set up any Protectorate, but that did not give us any rights or involve us in any responsibilities in Uganda. Some gentlemen had obtained a concession of some miles along the coast line from the Sultan of Zanzibar. These gentlemen formed themselves into a company to ask for a Royal Charter. They were given a Royal Charter, by which they were allowed the beneficial use of this concession, and at the same time they were permitted by one of the provisions of the Charter to make Treaties with tribes and chieftains in the Hinterland beyond their line of coast, but these Treaties were only to become valid if they obtained the approval of the Foreign Office. The company set up in Uganda a King of their own in the person of the Chief of one of the factions in the country, and they made two Treaties. The first Treaty, as had been admitted, was obtained by fraud and violence, but in any case it was only for two years, and that time had now expired. The second Treaty had never been confirmed by the Foreign Office, and consequently at the present moment the company, qua company, had no right to remain or to exercise any responsibility in Uganda. After a short time in the country the company began to perceive that Uganda was a bad speculation, and they therefore determined to leave it, and they informed Lord Salisbury of their intention. But Lord Salisbury made no sign. Lord Salisbury simply said it was no business of the Government whether the company remained in the country or went away— that it was a matter entirely for the company and the people of Uganda. The Church Missionary Society then interfered, and stated that if the company remained in Uganda for a longer period they would provide portion of the funds necessary. Again Lord Salisbury was informed of that fact—that the period would last till the 31st December, 1892, and that then the company would retire. Again Lord Salisbury made no sign. But, after all this had been made public, there was inaugurated a platform campaign in this country in order to induce us to take over Uganda, and the speakers in that campaign were really about as florid in their statements in regard to this country as an auctioneer's advertise-

    541
    ment when he wanted to sell an estate. It was said to be a Canaan overflowing with milk and honey; that it would absorb our manufactures; that by taking over the country we would deal a deathblow at slavery; that the people of Uganda were a most affectionate and intelligent body, who were pining to become Christians. But Despatches between the company and the officials of the Government were published, and anybody who read those Despatches would find that all those glowing descriptions of the country were untrue. It was plain from the Despatches that Uganda had no products of its own; that it could not take our manufactures as it had nothing to exchange for them, and that the climate was very unhealthy. Captain Lugard had said it would be impossible for the English people to settle there, as they could not bring up their children in such a climate. The intelligent and interesting natives were really divided into warring factions; most of them were slaves, and the country was surrounded by persistent enemies. As to the desire of the people to become Christians, Captain Lugard had said that the introduction of Christianity had not entered into his mind at all. Captain Lugard simply went there and put up as King the head of one of the factions. That faction choosed to call itself Protestant because, as they understood it, "Protestant" meant "English." The King was once a Mahommedan, once a Pagan, once a Catholic, and once a Protestant. He called himself a Protestant when he hoped to obtain assistance from Captain Lugard, and when he threatened to withdraw from his engagements Captain Lugard instantly replied by threatening to supersede him by a Mahommedan King. When Captain Lugard went there there were Protestant and Catholic missionaries. In 1892, according to the work published by the Catholic Union, there were 300 Protestants and 3,000 baptised Catholics; but during the occupation it appeared the cause of Christianity had suffered, and, to his mind, that was not surprising when Christianity was associated in men's minds with Maxim guns and the loss of their independence. As for slavery, in that favoured country there was, as he had said, domestic slavery; but it was remarkable, as Captain Lugard told them, there were no slave raids in
    542
    the neighbourhood. But why was that? The raids took place in other parts in order to carry up the trade that was done with Uganda. This damnosa hereditas was 600 miles from the sea coast, and to send up goods it would cost £300 per ton. It was, therefore, impossible to organise a trade there, or to establish a garrison— for it must be remembered the garrison would have to be a considerable one, as it could not be reinforced under several months—unless a railroad were built there. The cost of such a railway would be about £3,000,000, and, at the same time, there would not be commerce for more than half a dozen trains per annum. Further than that, it would require a subsidy of £300,000 per annum to maintain and work that railway, for it must not be forgotten that it passed through the territory of hostile tribes who would seize the opportunity to provide them-selves with iron rails. In August a change of Government took place, at which time it had been settled that the company were to retire on the 31st December last. The new Government undertook to maintain the occupation during the three months—why they did so he did not know; but anyhow, it was clear at that time there was an idea that the intention of the company was evacuation—that they were to prepare for the full and final evacuation at the end of that period. Later on it was decided to send a Mission there, and it was somewhat remarkable that the Mission was sent off precisely at the period of time when it would arrive at the end of the three months, either a few days before or a few days after the time fixed for the evacuation of the country by the company. Sir Gerald Portal was put at the head of that Mission. Sir Gerald Portal was a very eminent and able gentleman, and was Consul General at Zanzibar when Lord Salisbury sent a communication as to what he ought to do with the territories in the sphere of influence around Zanzibar; Sir Gerald Portal was told he was to cultivate friendly relations with the inhabitants, but in no case was to interfere with tribal Governments. If this Mission had been sent out merely to aid in the evacuation, if that rule had been maintained that the Mission was not to interfere with tribal Governments he should not have complained as much as

    543
    he did now; he should have thought it a waste of money, but he should have accepted the fact without opposing it. The case, however, was very different, and so far as he could see the effect of the instructions were to countermand the rule that the Consul General or official, whichever they called him, was not to interfere with Tribal Governments; he was to be given a free hand to take over all the forts, forces, and guns belonging to the Company. ["No, no!"] Well, anyhow, they would take it that the Company had offered to make over to Her Majesty all their establishments in Uganda, because in the instructions occurred these words—"It will be for you to judge how far it is necessary to avail yourself of this proposal." Lord Rosebery in another place said that Sir Gerald Portal had about 230 Zanzibar troops, and under his instructions had full power to take over any forces belonging to the Company, and, therefore, he had a perfectly free hand in the matter. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought he had established his position that Sir Gerald Portal was given a free hand to take over the establishments, the forts, and also to take over the forces, that was to say, all that riff-raff that was enlisted by the Company. Sir Gerald Portal was enabled by these instructions to set up some sort of Government there, and maintain that Government when there; and, moreover, when he came away he was allowed by his instructions to leave some one else there to carry on the superintendence of the Government set up. Thus he contended that Sir Gerald Portal had the power to establish there a temporary protectorate, and consequently they would be involved in Imperial responsibilities, which would end in their being told — as these people were as strong Home Rulers as the Irish themselves—they had compromised themselves by joining in the Government set up, and we would be obliged to remain there to prevent them from being injured. They might lay it down as a rule in all uncivilised countries that whenever a civilised country established a temporary protectorate it became a permanent one. He thought hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him that that was the view they took of the instructions; they desired the protectorate, and they thought the protectorate
    544
    was practically obtained by the terms of the instructions. They had a two days' Debate on this question upon the Address. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would remember that on the first day they were not satisfied with the instructions; they did not gather the instructions were so large and ample as they were; they thought that during the period between the time of Sir Gerald Portal bringing his Report to England and the Government at home reporting upon it, the Government set up would fall to pieces. On the next day they were told that would not be the case, that not only would he set up a Government, but that a. locum tenens would replace him when he went away who would carry on the Government until the matter was decided. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had come down on the Monday primed with long speeches no sooner heard that— finding they had gained a point—than they put the speeches in their pockets, limbered up all their artillery, and were satisfied and silent. This temporary occupation would last a considerable number of months. They had to go there, then there was the time Sir Gerald Portal would be there, the time of his coming away, and then when the Report came home it would no doubt be considered by the Executive, and the evil— no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider it the good—would have been done; the Government would only have one choice, and that would be to convert a temporary occupation into a permanent occupation or protectorate. As usual, Parliament would be called upon to express an opinion on the matter, and that would be about as valuable as telling a person that he might shut his stable door when the steed was stolen. That was the history of almost all their wars and annexations. They did these things, and then Parliament was told it had the power because it need not pay for it. Of course, Parliament was obliged to pay for it, because the matter was settled before they came to Parliament. The expense and risk of taking possession of Uganda would not be commensurate with the advantages; but a great deal more was involved than mere possession of Uganda. They knew what the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite were; they had been told they ought to hold the entire course of the Nile from its source

    545
    to the mouth; they desired to establish a large Empire there. Already he had seen in the newspapers that supported hon. Gentlemen opposite suggestions that, if they took Uganda, obviously they ought to take the Soudan and the Equatorial Provinces of Egypt governed over by Emin; in fact, our being in Egypt was used as an argument in favour of taking Uganda—just as, when they had taken Uganda, that would be used as an argument that they ought to remain in Egypt for ever. In considering this mission and the results of this mission they had to consider also what were the views of the Earl of Rosebery, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On March 1 Lord Rosebery was the guest, he was sorry to say, of a nest of Jingoes, called, he believed, Imperial Federalists. Before his health was proposed Lord Rosebery made a speech, and in protesting against the doctrine of non-extension of the Empire he said—
    "It is said that our Empire is large enough and does not need extension. That would be true enough if the world were elastic; but, unfortunately, it is not elastic, and we are engaged at the present moment, in the language of mining, in pegging out claims for the future. We have to consider, not what we want now, but what we shall want in the future. We have to consider what countries must be developed, either by ourselves or some other nation, and we have to remember that it is part of our responsibility and heritage to take that the world, so far as it can be moulded, shall receive the Anglo-Saxon, and not another character."
    [Cheers.] He perfectly understood the cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He greatly admired Lord Rosebery; he believed he was a gentleman of great talent, and he regretted that his talent should to a certain extent be lost to the country by his being in the House of Lords. In home matters his Lordship's views were no doubt perfectly sound; in Foreign Affairs outside Africa he had no reason to suppose his views were not sound; but when his Lordship came to Africa he was the high priest of Jingoism. They were told their business was to peg out claims in Africa, not only what we wanted, but what we did not want, in case posterity should want it; that it was their object to mould the whole of Africa in our Anglo-Saxon character. During the last six years they had pegged-out, or, as he should call it, had jumped, claims in Africa over a
    546
    territory larger than the whole of Europe He had hoped this greed for land had been satisfied for a time. There were not more than 100 or 200 of real settlers in this vast territory we had pegged-out; the rest went to find gold, or brought back some specimens from parts where they said gold was, in order to float a rotten company. But where was this all to end? After having laid hold of a country as large as Europe were they to peg - out claims for the sake of posterity; were they to incur vast costs and risks in order that posterity should be able to go into places like Uganda, where, as a matter of fact, the climate would not allow an European to live? Perhaps their object was to prevent others going there. He could only say that he most deeply regretted that when the spheres of influence were decided between Germany and England that Uganda did not fall to the Germans, and he should have been glad if the greater portion of all our spheres and influence had fallen to the Germans. He would ask, was this pegging-out doctrine the policy of a Liberal? He could not think it was. A Liberal Foreign Secretary did not hold office to carry out his own views or the views of his predecessor. He held office to carry out the views of his supporters. He was merely the executive servant of his supporters in the House of Commons, just as hon. Members of that House were the legislative servants of their supporters outside. The Liberal Party had a programme they called the Newcastle Programme. Could it be conceived what would have been said if, when that programme was adopted, any one had suggested as an additional item this doctrine of pegging-out claims for posterity? He, at all events, had always been consistent in his conduct with regard to this kind of policy. He believed he divided the House at least 50 times against providing money for the Soudanese expeditions. If there was one character in Scripture history he despised more than another it was that leprous Syrian, Naaman, who bowed down before a false god in the Temple and abused him when he got outside. In the Temple and out of the Temple he had always opposed King Jingo. He was one of those of whom it might be said, "Cælum non animum mutant." He could not help thinking that if Lord

    547
    Salisbury had sent such instructions as had been sent to Sir Gerald Portal what indignation there would have been, what denunciations and outbursts of indignant protests there would have been from the Liberal Benches! He knew what he said was called un-English; but they were views entertained by such men as Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden. It seemed to him that everybody was un-English who was not prepared to hinder as much as he could the piratical instincts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Jingo doctrine was that they should spend as much English money as possible, provided it was spent out of England. If it was a question of improving the slums, relieving misery, or giving employment to people at home, then they were not ready to give anything; but if it was a question of annexing some African territory they were ready to squander all the resources of the Empire. These Jingoes were most remarkable men; they did not seem to care whether the land they acquired was valuable or valueless; they were like magpies, they loved stealing for the pleasure of stealing. He would ask the Committee to realise this fact, that this mission probably meant a protectorate, and this protectorate of Uganda meant further projects and a railroad to be built at a very large cost. This first step on the path of Jingoism must inevitably and necessarily lead to further steps, unless there were the strongest protests on the part of Liberals against it. Sir Gerald Portal had got the right to interfere with tribal government.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Where do you find that?
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought it was in the Debate that took place in the House when they were told that Sir Gerald Portal would establish a Government in Uganda. He would like to understand what Sir Gerald Portal's position was. When he arrived in Uganda he might, it was admitted, take over the forts, the establishment and guns. It was also understood that he was to remain there. Was he to allow a revolution to take place against the Government actually there? He certainly understood that not only was Sir Gerald Portal to watch over the Government, but when he came away he was to leave somebody else there to do the same thing.
    548
    If we mixed ourselves up in this matter, we should have to follow it up by assuming further responsibilities. The cost already incurred was considerable. There was the present Vote for £5,000; there was an additional £10,000 on the full Estimate; there was £10,000 to be given as a present to the Company for the period they remained in Uganda, £10,000 had already been voted for the Railway Survey, and in addition a considerable indemnity would also have to be paid to the French Government for the injuries done by the Company to the French missionaries. Then not only would the railway have to be subsidized at a cost of several hundreds of thousands of pounds, but a garrison would have to be maintained, as was the case in the Soudan; and he had no doubt that at a given time the whole thing would end as the raid in the Soudan ended, that the Government would get so utterly sick of Mohammedanism that they would give it up. He had no doubt he should not get many to vote for him on this occasion; but he did not get many in the Parliament of 1880, when he protested against the Soudanese raids—and yet he did not believe there was a single gentleman who was cot perfectly confident that he was absolutely right and the Government absolutely wrong. But his hon. Friends need have no fear of voting in accordance with their principles on this occasion; they need not be under the impression that they would endanger the position of the Government, because the Government would have the support of every Unionist in the House. During the Recess there was a great Jingo campaign, set on foot in the names of Christianity, slavery, and commerce, to induce us to take over this Uganda. Those who were opposed to that policy did not interfere, they did not hold meetings— they might have done so, and he had no doubt they would have been well attended, but they did not do so, for the reason that they trusted to the Government, they believed the Government would not take any action on the Jingo card. At the present moment he felt the Government would be glad if they could show them there were persons in this country who were prepared to aid them to resist the assaults from within and without of Jingoism. He thought the Government required in this matter of Uganda to have

    549
    their Radical fibre somewhat strengthened. The way to do that was by a rather bungling process. He moved that a certain sum should be struck off the Estimates in Committee, and if he was so fortunate as to carry it, he should move that the same be replaced on Report, because the money had already been spent; it was a bungling way, but it was the only way they had of raising the question of policy. If he could get a Teller he should unquestionably go to a Division. For his part he did not believe he should have given a vote more right, more just, more legitimate, more in accordance with the doctrines held by the majority of Radicals in relation to foreign affairs than the one he should give on the pre-sent occasion. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item M, of £21,600, for Special Missions and Services, be reduced by £5,000 in respect of Uganda."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not think that the speech of my hon. Friend has done much to increase the knowledge of the Committee. He has not dealt in a precise manner with the matters of fact as disclosed in the documents before us, but has merely explained the general construction which he himself puts upon those documents. I regret that my hon. Friend should have assumed without any proof that a case has arisen where the Committee is about to be entrapped into a course which must lead to dire con-sequences. My hon. Friend asked what would have been the wrath of the Liberal Party if Instructions had been issued by Lord Salisbury similar to those issued by Lord Rosebery. Any hon. Gentleman sitting on this side of the House who thinks it right to make an appeal of that kind is naturally, and perhaps legitimately, met by a warm cheer from the Benches opposite. But my hon. Friend, in making his charge against Lord Rosebery, did not condescend to quote one word from Lord Rosebery's Instructions.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I generalised them.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: After that admission I am very much tempted to sit down, for that is the whole head
    550
    and front of my charge against my hon. Friend, that, instead of particularising —as every man, it seems to me, ought to do who has an accusation to make—he generalised. Well, my hon. Friend asked what would have been said if these Instructions had been issued by Lord Salisbury. But Sir G. Portal's powers do depend upon the Instructions of Lord Salisbury, for he exercises those powers as Commissioner, and he was made Commissioner by Lord Salisbury. I am quite aware that we have not thought fit to interfere with those powers. Having regard to the difficulties of the case, and to the partial and perhaps insufficient information that we have, we have not thought it wise to deprive Sir G. Portal of his powers. My hon. Friend, however, does not direct his chief complaint against those powers, but points it against the Instructions of Lord Rosebery, and at the same time refrains from quoting one single word from those Instructions. My hon. Friend says that a rule was laid down by Lord Salisbury against interference with the native-tribal government, and that that rule has been relaxed or abolished by us. As far as I am aware, there is not a single syllable of truth in that allegation. Can my hon. Friend point to one word or passage in Lord Rosebery's Instructions to show that the rule has been relaxed by us? There is not a syllable in the Instructions of Lord Rosebery to that effect. As to the powers given to Sir G. Portal by Lord Salisbury, I need not again read the passage which I quoted on February 13 when this subject was before the House. It forms the Charter under which Sir G. Portal will act as Commissioner. The Instructions given by Lord Rosebery point out to Sir G. Portal that the purpose of his mission is that he should go to Uganda and there report upon the best means of dealing with the country. That is the main and essential feature of the Instructions, and everything else that is said by Lord Rosebery to Sir G. Portal has regard to emergencies and needs which may be incidental to the character of his mission and to that temporary sojourn in the country which will be requisite in order to enable him to conduct his inquiry. My hon. Friend rather conveyed to the Committee that Sir G. Portal had received from Lord Rosebery special powers to take over

    551
    property. But that is beside the purpose of Sir G. Portal's mission. The passage I read on a former occasion had reference only to what may be necessary for the wants of Sir G. Portal and his party. It would be an extraordinary thing to send him there and not authorise him, in the uncertainties of the case, to supply himself, either from the company or otherwise, with what might be necessary for the welfare and safety of his men. I regret the manner in which my hon. Friend has thought right to speak of Lord Rosebery. My hon. Friend says that Lord Rosebery in his foreign policy is actuated by the spirit of Jingoism. But what proof does the hon. Member allege? He did not recite any, but he generalised upon certain proceedings which had taken place at a dinner at which Lord Rosebery presided. The hon. Member did not allege that Lord Rosebery at that dinner made the slightest reference to Uganda.
    MR. LABOUCHERE (interposing): Yes, I did, and I will hand to the right hon. Gentleman an extract from a report in which Lord Rosebery referred to hereditary policy.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Any gentleman who indulges in patriotic aspirations—any gentleman who points out that the Anglo-Saxon race has evidently a great mission in the colonisation of the world, and who points out that among the Anglo-Saxon race England for this purpose is at the head—is immediately convicted by my hon. Friend, by his generalising process, of having given instructions for the establishment of a protectorate, and a virtual annexation of Uganda. I do not deny the colonising necessities which have arisen in certain parts of the world, and which have become not only a duty but a point of honour on the part of this country to meet. But what, after all, is the main complaint of my hon. Friend? He has been singularly inaccurate in his reference to documents, and to the matters of fact connected with the case. All this matter of taking over the property of the Company is simply a question whether, in case Sir Gerald Portal finds that the Company has got something which he has not got, and which he wants in order to meet any necessities or emergencies that may arise, he may take from the Company for the purposes of his mission. My hon.
    552
    Friend has used certain words bearing on the subject. He conveyed to the minds of the Committee in the most express terms that Sir G. Portal was authorised to establish an occupation of the country, that the Government should enter on a protectorate—on a virtual annexation of the country. These are points upon which Sir G. Portal has no authority whatever. He has not gone there for these purposes. He has not gone there to bind by any engagement, or any proceeding, the Government with regard to their future policy in Uganda. He has gone to consider and report on the best means of dealing with the country, and undoubtedly he has received the fullest, and most ample powers to do all that is necessary to carry these important purposes into effect. I do not deny that there may not be an important difference between my hon. Friend and myself, quite apart from the broad and general allegations he has made. Lord Rosebery has authorised Sir G. Portal to proceed in the following terms:—
    "A mission to Central Africa cannot, of course, be conducted according to ordinary precedent. The in frequency and difficulty of communication may require a latitude beyond what is usual, and in entrusting to you these important duties Her Majesty's Government reckon with full confidence on your meeting with firmness and caution any question that may arise."
    I do not deny that in order to reach the heart of Africa—I am not quite sure it is the heart, because that would depend upon where you have put the mile-stones —but I apprehend, whatever the distance may be, it is a serious matter to send a mission of this kind into the country. There was a question, however, which the Government were not prepared to answer at once, and in limine, in the negative. There was a question whether, out of the whole mass of proceedings that had taken place, upon most of which we were very imperfectly informed, and on which we had no independent information; whether out of that whole mass of proceedings there had grown circumstances and results which made it our duty to inquire how far we were prepared to go; whether it was open for us to treat this question as if the Company had never gone there, and how far results had arisen put of the presence of the Company, which it would be the duty of the Government to take cognizance of, and also to consider what

    553
    would be the best mode of dealing with those circumstances. That this is a serious thing I do not deny. We could not, with the approval of the House and the country—and not even with the approval of my hon. Friend —say, under the imperfect conditions that existed, that there was no case for examination. We could not treat as equivalent to zero all that had been done by the agents of the Company. We could not say that all the Company's Treaties should be set down as waste paper. The Government took the best mode they could to inquire into the circumstances, and certainly that was not an extravagant measure. We did it in obedience to the obligations of honour quite as much as of policy. I do not deny that an inquiry of that kind is different from an inquiry in a well-known and civilised country, where we have the means of meeting difficulty and uncertainty. It is the obligation to inquire which we assert, but as to the further obligations which my hon. Friend asserts, with regard to protectorate and annexation, I must submit that not only has my hon. Friend not established his case, but he has made no attempt to establish that Sir G. Portal has carried with him any powers of that kind. I believe Sir G. Portal will do his duty, which is, to reserve all permanent arrangements for the free consideration and decision of the authorities at home, and most of all, of course, of the authority of this House. There is the policy which has been announced in very definite terms by the late Government. Their policy was to allow the Company to come away from Uganda. Not a syllable was ever written by them, according to the Papers before Parliament, which signified the slightest intention on their part even to enter into relations to remain in the country; but at the same time they did not even imply, on their part, any plan for the ultimate abandonment of the country. On the contrary, they had a policy, and that policy was, that they would come down to this House in proper time and make a proposal for the construction of a railway. But as far as the question of a railway is concerned, I do not think, in the existing state of facts, that there is any solid information such as we can accept with confidence. I am not aware at present of anything which is in any way likely to lead us to
    554
    adopt the same view of this matter as has apparently commended itself to Lord Salisbury. I shut the door, however, against no suggestion which might be made. It would be premature and improper to do so, when we have already cast open the door to the widest inquiry into the whole case. It would need more than I have heard to convince my Colleagues and myself that the construction of a railway through 600 miles of uncivilised country and over a range of mountains is the best mode of approaching the Uganda question. In one portion of his speech my hon. Friend was most moderate. He said the railway would cost £3,000,000, or probably more. I must confess that that is a most moderate estimate. When we recollect what has been the original estimates for works lying a great deal nearer home than Uganda, and much more capable of being made the subject of thorough preliminary scientific investigation, I must say that, in my opinion, it would be very unwise in the Committee, or any of us, to look upon these figures as anything more than a merely speculative estimate. When we came into Office, or some time after, we found that the late Government had sent out Captain Mac Donald to inquire into the conduct of those gentlemen who were in Uganda, and into the sad and lamentable transactions which occurred nearly at the time when we were discussing in this House the railway survey ordered by our predecessors in Office. I think it was a very proper thing for Lord Salisbury to send out Captain MacDonald to inquire how far the conduct of the gentlemen in question might have given rise to any fair or valid international claim. Captain MacDonald had been intercepted on the way, and the actual fulfilment of his mission had been delayed. We had to consider then whether we should avail ourselves of that state of things to stop his mission or direct him to go forward. I believe that Lord Salisbury's action was a very proper action. But does not the hon. Member see that it is too late for him to say that the particular course which he speaks of ought to be adopted? Information was conveyed to us that the time was not sufficient to enable the evacuation to be completed with safety to life and property. Therefore, I submit that there will be no doubt in the minds of the vast majority

    555
    who are acquainted with the state of affairs that we could not refuse our assent to the proposal that some longer time should be given, but we took every precaution possible to prevent this country from incurring any new obligations which might involve us in the future. We endeavoured to secure our own liberty and the liberty of the House. This Vote is a necessary Vote. The House is not called upon to do anything which is not found to be necessary in order to act fully up to the spirit of the obligations which are inseparable, or which may possibly be found to be inseparable, from the policy which has been pursued.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The speech to which we have listened with so much interest embraced many topics, but there is one topic which we on this side of the House are hardly qualified to pronounce upon, and that is, what is the precise Radical orthodoxy in relation to this question. Whether the Member for Northampton is right in taking one view, or Lord Rosebery in taking another, or the Prime Minister, who oscillates between the two, we cannot venture to pronounce. But on this we surely may pronounce, that the Party which follows the right hon. Gentleman does not speak in this matter with a consistent and a uniform utterance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last Spring was in agreement with every syllable which fell from the hon. Member for Northampton, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were only now to follow his own inclinations he would be one of those whom the hon. Member for Northampton expects to lead into the Lobby to-night. While it is clear that the hon. Member for Northampton has an avowed policy, is it not equally clear, from what we have already heard, that Lord Rosebery takes an entirely different view of what ought to be the policy of this country in the matter of annexation? A phrase was quoted from Lord Rosebery that it was our duty to carry out our traditional policy—I think the words were—of "pegging out claims" for the benefit of posterity. Does any human being imagine that Lord Rosebery was referring at the time to any other part of the world than East Africa? Will anybody who heard him or read his speech point out any portion of the
    556
    habitable globe where we are occupied in "pegging out claims" other than East Africa? But, instead of Lord Rosebery, if any Member of the late Government when in power had said so, would not every platform in the country, from one end to the other, have been ringing with invectives against the Jingo utterances of a Jingo Government. But many things are permitted to a Liberal in Office which are not permitted to a Conservative in Office, and great changes may be undergone without rebuke by hon. Gentlemen now sitting on that side of the House, who certainly took the same view not so long ago as was taken by the hon. Member for Northampton to-night. The fact is, that it is very likely that gentlemen opposite do not always mean everything they say in Opposition. They have one creed with regard to foreign policy when they are irresponsible critics, and they have quite another when they are invested with all the responsibility which tenure, of Office brings with it. My complaint is not that they have changed their views, nor do I desire to rake up against them any utterances of theirs some six or eight months ago—my complaint is that, at the present moment, the Prime Minister is disposed to minimise the assurances which he gave us on the Address, and that he does not now see the full extent to which he and his Government are really committed with regard to a vigorous and forward policy in Uganda. In the Debate on the Address the right hon. Gentleman showed that he felt great uneasiness lest, after the Mission of Inquiry was finished, he should be compelled to leave the country in a position of unsettlement and anarchy. The right hon. Gentleman came down, and, in answer to questions, gave us clearly to understand, in the first place, that Sir G. Portal, under the old powers given by Lord Salisbury, had authority to make every regulation he could, or thought expedient, for the government of Uganda after he himself had left the country; and, in the second place, that he knew what were the views of the Government on this subject, and that it would be his duty to see that not merely during his presence in Uganda proper provision for the government of the country was made, but that, if necessary, a more permanent and more stable

    557
    arrangement should be established. We accepted those assurances; but if I understand rightly, I will not say the language, but the tenour of the speech we have heard to-night, the whole emphasis is now placed, not upon the arrangements to be made by Sir G. Portal in Uganda during his stay there, but on the information which he is to obtain in that country, by which is to be guided the future policy of the Government. If the Government desire information, I am very glad that they should have it; but let me assure them that of the two branches of Sir G. Portal's mission — that which concerns obtaining information, and that which is concerned with the organisation of the country — the second branch is by far the more important. To that branch the Government are as clearly committed by their statements on the Address as they are committed to the other branch. The hon. Member for Northampton is unquestionably right when he says that Lord Rosebery's policy, and probably Lord Rosebery's desires, point to establishing a state of things in Uganda which shall make our sphere of influence operative, and permanently operative, throughout the whole of that district for the benefit both of the natives and of this country. The fact is that it is possible in this, as in other questions, for the Government to put off coming to a decision because of the want of information. Their passion for information is known to be illimitable. It extends through every branch of public policy, foreign and domestic, and I am the last person to desire to balk them; but something besides the mere accumulation of information is asked from the Executive Government, and if that Government, or if some members of that Government, have not realised what unquestionably Lord Rosebery has realised —that the policy and the honour of this country emphatically require us not to withdraw from the position which we have taken up with regard to this sphere of influence—the fact remains, as the hon. Member for Northampton has seen, writ large upon their declared utterances in the past that, whatever Ministry be in power—whether it be the present Government or a Government drawn from the other great Party in the State, or a Government reflecting the particular com-
    558
    plexion of Radicalism which the hon. Member for Northampton affects to represent, whatever the Government may be which may be responsible for the further devolopment of our policy in Africa—it will be absolutely impossible for them to withdraw from the responsibilities undertaken not by the present Government, but by their predecessors, and fully accepted and absolutely endorsed by the gentlemen now holding Office.
    MR. STOREYhad no doubt at all about the good intentions of the Government, as expressed by the Prime Minister, who said he was not going to establish a protectorate, was not going to annex Uganda, was not going to have a war, and was not going to make an impossible railway over the mountains of the moon. Those were the intentions of the Prime Minister, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken showed that, notwithstanding the best intentions of the Government, facts would be too strong for them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) told them that no matter what Ministry came in they must be prepared for a vigorous and forward policy in Uganda. He thought it was necessary that some of them at any rate who held a contrary opinion should say now that, whether it were the present or any other Government, they were prepared to oppose a vigorous and forward policy in Uganda. He had no doubt the Prime Minister was in a difficulty, and he had no doubt that that difficulty was created in part by the late Government. But he felt bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had read the Despatches aright, and if he understood the matter, the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman was in at this moment, though a little dependent upon the acts of the late Government, was largely dependent upon the acts of the present Government. They were told, and with truth, that when the late Government went out of Office notice of withdrawal to the Company had been given; that no Mission had then be sent; there was no Sir Gerald Portal on the scene, the Company would have left, and after that the deluge. But then came the present Government, and what had it done? It was not going to annex; it was not going to protect; it had only sent to inquire. But when it interfered in order to inquire

    559
    what had it done? It had sent up to Uganda for the first time an armed party responsible to the Government of this country, had, by that Party, taken over all the resources in men, arms, and big guns of the Company there, and having taken the first Governmental step there was nothing for us, a civilized country going to uncivilized territory, but loss of honour and loss of credit unless they adhered to the position which the Government had taken up; and in time to come he (Mr. Storey) might tell the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench he should be free to say that whilst the beginning of this mischief came from the late Government, the sending of an English force into that country in the pay of, and by command of, the present Government, had had the effect of making it absolutely certain that we must remain there. He would ask right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and the Radicals who were in the last House of Commons, if the late Government had done this thing what would have been the attitude that they (the Radicals) would have assumed? They would have condemned such a thing as wrong, and they would have said, and with immense force, to the then Government, "You may wish to spend British money, and expend British lives in Uganda, but if you have got millions to spare, and time at your command, we would ask you to use those millions first for the good of our own country." As a Radical he should hold himself for ever disgraced if, on a matter like this—when he lived in a country which called itself Christian, but in which, at this time, millions of people were living under shameful and insanitary conditions, and which yet permitted hundreds of poor men and women to die in the workhouse wearing pauper garb—the Government should come and say they would expend these millions of money, annex a territory in Central Africa, where they were not wanted, separated by 700 miles of desert through which they would have to build a railway, he did not at once protest. If that Government came to him and proposed such a wild scheme as that, he would have said to them, "Your business is first at home, and if you have got millions to spare spend them here." The Prime Minister said there was nothing in the intentions of the Govern-
    560
    ment which implied that they had decided to establish a protectorate in Uganda, nothing to show they intended to annex that territory, and they would decide in the matter when Sir Gerald Portal reported. But he would humbly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in sending an armed force there under an able man like Sir Gerald Portal, with full powers to organise and control the country he had already decided, he need not wait for Sir Gerald Portal's Report, because they knew very well what it would be. He would put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. Now that that force had gone, now that Sir Gerald Portal was probably at this moment in Uganda, what would happen? Was the Prime Minister quite sure all would go smoothly? Would he and his Colleagues not remember what happened in the last Parliament in the Soudan? The right hon. Gentleman sent there General Gordon, who was to work wonders, and in so sending General Gordon he was pushed on from day to day and hour to hour by the Party opposite. But things did not then go smoothly in the Soudan. The Soudanese proved intractable, took up arms, and attacked General Gordon, and what was the consequence? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite said the honour and credit of England were bound up in this, and that we must have an expedition. An expedition was sent. [Hon. MEMBERS: Too late.] Yes; it reflected credit on the bravery of the British soldiers, although not, perhaps, much on the foresight of British Generals and the British Government. They shed the blood of thousands of men there and near Suakim, and what was the final issue? After all had been done, when Gordon lay in his grave and the British standard had been withdrawn from the Soudan, with the exception of Suakim, there was the bill to pay. And when the Government of the day, with the Member for Midlothian at the head, came down to that House and asked for the money to pay for this proceeding which the Tory Party had urged them to take, the Tory Party, one and all of them, voted against the finding of the money, and as some of the Radical Members also felt they ought not to vote for that money, the result was the Government went out of Office. He ventured to warn right hon. Gentle-

    561
    men on the front Ministerial Bench that they were preparing some such fate for themselves. Of course hon. Gentlemen opposite would urge them on. They had them on the ice, and it would not be their fault if they did not push them on until the ice broke and brought them to ruin. When the House came to vote, even if it should destroy the Government, much as his (Mr. Storey's) heart was bound up in it, he should say to Her Majesty's Ministers, "You have sown the wind, you must reap the whirlwind." He should say to them, "You have undertaken responsibilities abroad which I will never assist you to pay for." When that time came he should vote against the payment of this money even if he wont into the Lobby by himself. The view of foreign policy held by the right hon. Gentleman was not his (Mr. Storey's); it was not the view of many on the Liberal Benches; it was not the view of hundreds of thousands of intelligent people in the country. They might be right or they might be wrong, but their view of the present position of England in the world was that its Empire was large enough, that its responsibilities were grave enough, and they were not prepared to extend these responsibilities or enlarge that Empire. They believed that all the power they had, and all the time at the disposal of the House and all the money the State could command, should be used to redress the evils that existed at home, and never until these evils had been redressed, and until England had been made strong by filling her with a happy, comfortable, and industrious people, would they be willing to extend their eyes and thoughts and arms over the world to add to the great Empire the country already possessed. As for the missionaries he respected them, and if like Peter and Paul they went out with their lives in their hands to preach the gospel they would find reverence hero and doubtless their gain hereafter. But to say that the lives and properties of British missionaries were to be defended by soldiers and Maxim guns was a disgrace to British Christianity. The missionaries aimed at a great object, and he cordially sympathised with it, but he would invite them to do just as the great missionaries in the past had done—take the chance that came to them. The hon. Member
    562
    for Northampton might not have a large following on this occasion. What would it matter!
    "He was base who dare not be,
    In the right with two or three."
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, they were in possession of the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Northampton, and the question arose to his mind whether, this being the third time that the subject of Uganda had come up in Debate in the House, it would not be better to decide once for all who was to win the tug-of-war between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite and the Opposition acting in alliance with Lord Rosebery. There was a battle going on between those who said that they were the true Radicals and the Opposition in order to capture the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. So far both parties to the contest had met with but little success. The tendency to oscillation on the part of Her Majesty's Government had been noticed this afternoon —they had never had a more striking example of it than in the speech just delivered by the Prime Minister. On a certain Friday the hon. Member for Northampton delivered a speech alike in tone, and furnished with the same arguments, as those he had delivered this afternoon. What was the result? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister delivered a speech the exact parallel of that he had made this afternoon. It was the turn of the hon. Member for Northampton to push the Government on that Friday—it was the turn of the Opposition to push it to-day. And what were the forces the Government could command in the opposite direction —for it was clear from a survey of their position that the Government had no proper momentum and no direction of their own on the question of whether Uganda should be retained or evacuated. The Prime Minister had confined his assurances to the statement that Sir Gerald Portal had gone to Uganda in a double capacity—as the High Commissioner of the British sphere of influence, and as the candid friend of the King and all parties concerned who were afterwards to supply the Government with information. The Prime Minister laid stress chiefly on Sir Gerald Portal's

    563
    capacity as High Commissioner of the British sphere of influence. But the value of that capacity depended entirely on the interpretation which Her Majesty's Ministers placed on the phrase "Sphere of influence." What was the "sphere of influence?" The hon. Member for Northampton probably held that it was that part of the world painted big on the Tory electoral maps, but the Foreign Secretary the other night held that it was a claim pegged out for the needs of future generations of Englishmen. But what meaning did Her Majesty's Government attach to this "sphere of influence" —for it was that which must guide the judgment of the House as to the value to be placed on Sir Gerald Portal's position. It was only on the 3rd March, 1892, that the Prime Minister uttered words significant of the meaning the Government attached to the phrase. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "What is this sphere of influence? What right does this sphere of influence invest you with? Does it invest you with a juridical title to go into the country with several hundreds of men?"
    The Government, therefore, attached no importance to this term "sphere of influence," and if doubt existed as to its meaning, far from giving precision to the nature and emphasis to the effects of Sir Gerald Portal's mission, it plunged the whole policy of the Government into deeper gloom. The fact was that, though on this Vote they had a perfect right to discuss the whole policy of the Government with reference to Uganda, their difficulty was that during the last two years they had been endeavouring to discuss the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that hitherto their researches had been wholly futile and in vain. They wished to know not what the Government would do supposing they met with great difficulties, but what conception they had formed in their own mind of the kind of part which this country ought to play in Uganda. The hon. Member for Northampton said the other day that our obligations and duties in Uganda were no greater than our obligations and duties in Kamtchatka, and, in reply, the Prime Minister had said that he was unable to go quite so far in that direction. Was it possible to allow the question to rest there without demanding of the Government a more explicit statement of their
    564
    views? The attitude of the late Government had been accurately described. They were in favour of the construction of a railway from Mombasa to the Victoria Nyanza. They recognised that the Brussels Act had placed new obligations on them in connection with the Slave Trade. They recognised that there were conditions in these territories which one day would amply repay us for the undertaking. What was the position of the Government? The Instructions given to Sir Gerald Portal were so vague in their terms that it was impossible to judge of the intentions of the Government with any approach to accuracy. All that was known was that at the present moment there was a handful of Englishmen in Uganda and a few British flags floating over conspicuous sites. They knew that the presence of those Englishmen and the display of those flags were keeping off civil war and foreign invasion. They knew that one day's doubt as to the continuance of our occupation would bring all those evils of civil war and invasion upon that land, would overwhelm it. in desolation, and would waste all the money and energy which had hitherto been expended there by Englishmen. With those facts known to every Member in the House, they were asked to find solace and comfort in the Instructions issued to Sir Gerald Portal. Now, was this a tolerable burden to have been placed on the shoulders of the Representatives of the Queen. In paragraph 5 of the Instructions Sir Gerald Portal was told—
    "You will impress upon the King that, in following the advice which you may give him, he will best be proving the sincerity of the assurances given by him and his chiefs in their letter to the Queen of the 17th of June, and that your mission cannot fail to satisfy him of the interest which is taken by the British Government in the country."
    Therefore, Sir Gerald Portal, who was not to occupy the country, who was not to guarantee the Treaty the King had entered into, was to use the King's own letter as an engine for making him discharge his duties. In his letter to the Sovereign of this country, dated June 17, 1892, King Mwanga said—
    "Now, I earnestly beseech you to help me; do not recall the Company from my country. I and my chiefs are under the English flag, as the people of India are under your flag; we desire very, very much that the English should

    565
    arrange this country; should you recall these agents of the Company, my friend, my country is sure to be ruined, war is sure to come."
    Those words must touch every English-man with any sense of honour, and he held that Her Majesty's Government was guilty of meanness which was almost incredible in sending a representative of the Queen, to quote his own letter to the King, without empowering that representative to guarantee the Treaty which the King had made with the Company. Passing to paragraph 7 of the instructions, they were informed that in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government the greatest doubt overshadowed the Treaties which had been made under the Charter of the Company. It was said—
    "The Company has of late concluded a great number of Treaties with native chiefs. including one of perpetual friendship with Mwanga, which last, however, has not been ratified by the Secretary of State. There are many others—83 in all—which have been so approved."
    Lord Rosebery further said—
    "Whether an approval of this kind can be held in any way, directly or indirectly, to bind Her Majesty's Government is a moot point."
    Now, the Prime Minister had laid great stress upon his lack of information and the necessity for sending British agents to inquire and supply him and his colleagues with data on which to act. But, with all respect, he (Mr. Wyndham) would ask whether Sir Gerald Portal was better able than Lord Rosebery to determine whether the Treaties were binding or not, and whether East Africa was a more convenient place in which to arrive at a decision than Downing Street? One would suppose that this Treaty was lost or buried in some desert place, and that Sir Gerald Portal had been sent to discover it. In paragraph 8 Lord Rosebery wrote—
    "A mission to Central Africa cannot, of course, be conducted according to ordinary precedent."
    It was hardly necessary to add this. If they wished for a precedent the only one he was afraid they would be able to find was the one referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Storey)—namely, that of Gordon and the Soudan. It appeared to the Opposition that the real object of Sir Gerald Portal's mission was to cause delay. It conveyed nothing to their minds as to the intentions of the Government, and the question which, if possible,
    566
    he should like to have answered was as to whether it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to get out of Uganda if they could or to stay there. That seemed to him to cover the ground. All the speeches of the Prime Minister on this subject had been directed to show that even if they wished to get out of Uganda they could not succeed in effecting their escape, but that if they wanted to stay there they would find impossibilities crossing and barring their path. Surely, however, before they voted this money they were entitled to know from the Government which of these two policies they were desirous of pursuing. There was a distinct change of opinion in the House. There were those who believed that in Uganda they had obligations to fulfil and duties to discharge imposed upon them by the Brussels Act—that it was necessary to construct railways and administer the country, and to act on parallel lines with other countries in the endeavour to suppress the Slave Trade. Another view possible, no doubt, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) had, in a very able manner, placed it before the country in a letter he had written the other day. But what view did the Government take? Last year the Government repudiated any obligation to construct a railway or to take any steps within the sphere of influence in order to deal with the Slave Trade. Was that their view now? Could anyone who had listened to the Prime Minister say confidently that was their view now? Then there was the same change of opinion as to the contingent benefits to be derived from remaining in Uganda. There were those who held that, whether from a commercial or Imperial point of view, they had nothing to gain by occupying Uganda. The hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Baronet held that there were no products they could receive from Uganda in exchange for their wares. That was, no doubt, true at the present time. But civilisation and population and productions grew; and there were evidences in Uganda that it had a teeming soil, and that its population even now was large and increasing, so that that part of the world they found suitable for pegging out those claims which Lord Rosebery was so anxious to see pegged out in Africa. Turning from commercial to

    567
    Imperial benefits, they knew the view of the hon. Member for Northampton, but he (Mr. Wyndham) and his friends held Uganda to be the key to that civilized Africa which, sooner or later, must exist—sooner, if they did their duty, later if they neglected it. That view was shared by the present Foreign Secretary, who had said that it was the key of Central Africa commanding the Nile basin. Of course, it was not the view of the hon. Member for Northampton. What it was necessary to know was how far the Government were prepared to go in this matter. There were some people in favour of evacuation, but there was a large body of public opinion in favour of the continued occupation of Uganda. He (Mr. Wyndham) and his friends based their action upon that feeling, and they demanded information as to what line of policy this Government had made up their minds to pursue.
    Mr. William Allen rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. H. W. PAULsaid, the hon. Member for Dover in his able and eloquent speech put an epigrammatic question to the Government. The hon. Member asked them whether their object in sending Sir Gerald Portal to Uganda was to ascertain whether they could get out or whether they ought to stay on.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PAULadmitted the felicity of the epigram, but denied the force of the dilemma, for the answer on behalf of the Government might very well be both. They had sent a distinguished gentleman on a mission of inquiry and examination. The Leader of the Opposition contended boldly that the Government, by the very fact of sending out Sir Gerald Portal, had committed themselves to a policy of retaining control over Uganda. He would like to know how far the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to carry that doctrine. Supposing that Sir
    568
    Gerald Portal were to answer all the questions in regard to the utility of Uganda in the negative, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would contend that even in that case the Government were still bound, by the mere fact of having sent him out, to act in entire contradiction of the Report of their own Commissioner. The Leader of the Opposition commented with a sort of genial malice upon the difference of opinion which he observed on the Liberal side of the House. He (Mr. Paul) hoped the time would never come when such differences would not exist. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, in the course of his second philippic, expressed a wish not to endanger the position of the Government. He (Mr. Paul) did not think the Government need have been in much alarm, because he had observed that however strong might have been the righteous indignation with which his hon. Friend rose to address the House, however zealous and determined he might be at the outset of his remarks to execute judgment upon some offender who had come within the scope of his wrath, his good nature always prevailed as his speech proceeded, and he sat down a perfect specimen of the man who would not hurt a fly. There was one doctrine enunciated by his hon. Friend to-night against which he felt bound to make a humble protest. The hon. Member said the one duty of a Minister was to carry out the principles of his followers, and that the one duty of a Member of Parliament was to obey the orders of his constituents. He (Mr. Paul) ventured as a Liberal, aye, and as a Radical, to protest against both these doctrines. A Minister was a creature of this House, but while he was in Office he owed to this House and to the country the duty of giving them the benefit of his independent judgment. He (Mr. Paul) ventured to say also that while he held himself bound to fulfil every pledge which he gave to his constituents, and while he considered it his duty, so far as he could, to represent their views, yet he believed he would not earn their respect, but incur the contempt of those who sent him there, if he did not give them the benefit on any question which might arise of the best opinion which, with his imperfect lights and the materials before him, he was enabled to form.

    569
    The hon. Member for Northampton de-scribed the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs as a Jingo. He (Mr. Paul) thought the evidence for that assertion was imperfect. He understood by a Jingo a person who expressed vulgar and ostentatious and aggressive views about the rights of other countries. He thought that strongly objectionable form of sentiment perished in the year 1880. When they asked themselves how they came into this part of Africa, they were entitled to turn to the authoritative explanations which were given by Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury explained at the Mansion House the policy of his Government in these matters. He had been entertained by the Lord Mayor, and he certainly was entertaining in return. Much as they admired Lord Salisbury as the head and representative of a great and historic cause, there were some, and he was one of them, who admired him even more when he emancipated himself from the restrictions of Parties and examined public questions in the dry light of a cold, critical, and sarcastic judgment. In such a light, on the occasion to which he referred, Lord Salisbury examined the scramble for Africa. He explained that he had been engaged with foreign statesmen in apportioning large parts of the Dark Continent. These parts of the world, he explained, did not belong to us or to the other parties to the negotiation. They belonged to totally different people, but that constituted no difficulty whatever. The only difficulty arose when it was found that even with the existence of such maps as the Foreign Office could secure it was impossible to discover exactly where these places were. Did Lord Salisbury say Uganda was the pearl of Africa? Did he say it was the brightest jewel of the British Crown? Certainly not. He said nothing of the sort. The only reason he gave why these spheres of influence were created was that if they were not, some obscure quarrel in some unknown corner of Africa might involve this country in a European war. That he (Mr. Paul) thought was a sensible policy, and one with which it was difficult to find fault. But had that been adopted? It became the duty of the Liberal Government to consider the consequences to which it led. He confessed that in dealing with this question he was notable to scale the heights of heroic enthu-
    570
    siasm. In spite of the eloquent speech with which Lord Rosebery thrilled the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel at the Foreign Office, he had certainly to admit that Uganda did not recall to him either the literature of ancient Greece or the politics of ancient Rome. He regarded the question first as one of duty, and, secondly, as one of business. But apart from questions of policy, there were obligations which when entered into by a Government were binding upon their successors. The hon. Member for Dover talked about Treaties. It was not a question of one Treaty. There were numerous Treaties entered into with the Chief in Uganda, he admitted by the Company, but countersigned, he believed in every case, by Lord Salisbury. It was impossible to cut themselves off. Whatever they might think of the original policy of interfering in their matters, for the consequences of such deliberate action as that moral continuity as applied to the question of Uganda seems to him to be beset with another difficulty. Before they could continue a policy they must know what the policy was, and speaking in the presence of the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he said fearlessly that so far as Uganda was concerned there was no evidence that the late Government had any policy at all. It was true that they applied to the House for money for a survey which might ultimately have resulted in a railway being made from Mombasa to Victoria Nyanza. But what they had of late been told with considerable force was that if Uganda were even for a few weeks left to itself there might be a massacre or a series of massacres. He would like to know how many massacres might have been committed in Uganda while this railway across a mountain chain 700 miles in length was being laboriously constructed. There was no policy that the present Government could continue, but there were obligations and duties which the present Government had to discharge. The Government were confronted with two sets of critics—those who said that the Government ought to have disregarded what their predecessors had done, and to have left Uganda altogether alone, and those represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who said that there was no case for inquiry at all, and that we did not want

    571
    to know anything more about Uganda. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, never wanted to know anything, because he always knew everything, but inferior mortals who had not been to Uganda, and who wore somewhat perplexed by the contradictory reports which they read, were anxious, and he thought it was their duty to be anxious, for some definite statement upon which they could rely as to the nature and the capacities of this country for which England had become in some degree responsible. They had of course the Despatches of Captain Lugard, and most interesting Despatches they were. He, did think anybody could read them without acquiring the very highest possible opinion, not only of the remarkable ability, but of the striking originality of Captain Lugard. Captain Lugard was very naturally and properly an enthusiast. He had been accused of extorting a Treaty at the point of the bayonet. Well, he (Mr. Paul) was afraid that Treaties with savage chiefs, of which this country had made so many, were often made by the agency of the bayonet or a bottle of rum, and he thought the bayonet, especially if it were not used, was by far the least deadly of the two. Against the allegation of violence having been used they had the letter of Mwanga to Her Majesty asking for help to set his country free. He thought Lord Rosebery acted very wisely in dispensing with the future cooperation of the Company. He did not wish to say a single word against the objects of the Company, or against the way in which those objects were carried out; he did not doubt for one moment their philanthropic intentions, but he did hold that the sovereignty with a limited liability was a very dangerous policy. Whatever might be the result of Sir Gerald Portal's mission, it was not safe or right that this country should be represented by the agents of a commercial undertaking, however honestly it might be conducted, or however high might be the character of the agents who represented it. The hon. Member for Sunderland had asked if we were going to war for the missionaries. He would answer most emphatically, no. The missionaries were amongst the heroes of this country, and were men of whom Englishmen, and more especially Scotchmen, were justly proud, and he thought they ought to be
    572
    mentioned in the House with something better than a sneer, but he did not understand that they, or the Societies which they represented, had claimed that we should take up arms for them. They merely complained that if Uganda were without warning left to itself, and the protection extended to them were withdrawn, they would be in a worse position than if the Company had never interfered. He did not think Uganda was of any great commercial value, but they must look to the future and consider what might happen when the country was further developed and civilised. The country at present could only be approached on foot by a journey of three months from the coast, but it might be accessible ultimately from no less than four points —from Mombasa, by railway; by the Nile from Cairo, through the route of the Great Lake; from South Africa and the Cape; or from the Congo State. He was not prepared to admit we should never be allowed—as some hon. Members seemed to think—to approach it through German territory. Surely that was a strong doctrine to hold in view of our relations with the German Empire. He held that the Government would have incurred a liability, which no Government would have been justified in incurring, if they had, without making any inquiry to ascertain which view of the conditions and possibilities of Uganda was the correct one, simply turned tail and marched out and left the people to take care of themselves. He held that the House should heed a solemn warning contained in the Despatches of Captain Lugard, whose opinion of the immediate consequences of our withdrawal from Uganda would be not only to put an end to the Protestant mission in that country, but the outbreak of a most desperate war of religion which would end probably in the establishment of a Mahommedan Slave-hunting Power, and in the absolute destruction of such civilization that the country now enjoyed. It was said that this country had placed itself in a dangerous position, and that it was not known what future liabilities might be incurred. He did not believe that their liabilities would in any way be increased, even if, as the result of this mission, some permanent control were retained over Uganda. What was spent in one way would be saved in respect of

    573
    the useless, slave-hunting squadron. It was foolish not to regard the consequences of a right, just, and necessary policy. There were moral and other duties which they must discharge. There was the plighted word of this country, by which they must abide. He hoped that, whatever Government might be in power, this country would always fulfil her promises, protect her interests, and discharge her obligations, let the consequences be what they might.
    MR. ABEL SMITHsaid, that the hon. Member for Sunderland had stated he would have had more admiration for the missionaries in Uganda if they had not put themselves under the protection of the East Africa Company. But the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society had gone to Uganda 16 years ago without such protection. They had gone there at the peril of their lives, and a great number of them, including Hannington, and Mackay, and others, for whose memory they had all the greatest respect, had laid down their lives for the cause they preached. The British East Africa Company went to Uganda under Royal Charter, and it was no fault of the missionaries that they came under the protection of the Company. What was to be the duty of this country for the future in regard to Uganda? They owed a responsibility to the King and the people of Uganda, who, ignorant savages that they were, could not distinguish between the Chartered Company and the Imperial Government. He maintained, with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, that the word of England had been plighted, and they could not withdraw from their responsibilities, but must go on and protect the people in Uganda. They had heard from the highest authority— Captain Williams, who was in charge of the country now—that if the English troops were withdrawn anarchy would again reign in the country, and the good work which had been done there in the way of Christianising and civilising the country would be utterly destroyed. The cost of maintaining the country was only £40,000 a year, and Captain Williams had declared that with economy that sum might be reduced. He, therefore, most cordially supported the Motion before the House.
    MR. ROBERT T. REIDsaid, he had great respect for the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he felt certain that in the views he had urged upon the Committee, in the interest of supporting the missionary enterprise, he was only advocating what he had advocated elsewhere. But that was not by any means always the case with others who had put forward the missionary enterprise, and the protection of missionaries, as the ground for supporting as aggressive territorial policy. He felt that the Government had had very grave difficulties to contend with. He did not think that the Government was responsible for the trouble into which this country had been involved in the matter of Uganda, and, therefore, he should not be disposed to quarrel with the decision they had arrived at if it were possible to defend it. Great pressure had been put upon them, and great pressure would be put upon them, and unless it was counteracted from the Ministerial side of the House, he was afraid that the country would be embarked on an undertaking, the limits of which no man could foresee. Those who supported the hon. Member for Northampton were not the worst friends of the Government, and he believed that the Government themselves, if they were not convinced already, would be convinced of that by the events that would take place within the next two or three years. He observed that the Prime Minister did not say a single word as to what point of duty, or what point of interest, it was that compelled them to send this expedition to Uganda; and he observed still more with regret that they had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman one single hint as to what was to be the future policy of the Government after Sir Gerald Portal had returned. It had been said that the policy of the Government was a policy of inquiry. He was not aware of what facts they required to be informed; they had information from many sources; they knew the French history of the question; they had Captain Lugard's Reports, and they had Captain Lugard's Reports amplified by his speeches in the country and his letters to The Times. They had also Captain Williams' Report, and they had access to

    575
    the mass of information gathered by travellers through the country. He, therefore, did not know what facts Sir Gerald Portal had to ascertain. It seemed to him that the policy which might be pursued in Uganda might be one of two policies. They might either use the strong hand and at once send the necessary forces for the purpose of maintaining our position in the country; they might resolutely adopt the forward policy advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Though he did not agree with that policy, he admitted that there were some chances of its success. Then there was another policy—that was the policy of withdrawing from the position which in fact we do not now occupy, and of recognising that if we were to take that country it must be hereafter, when we were better situated for its occupation. That he believed to be the true and safe policy. He should gay that he did not observe from any Member of the Government—with the exception of Lord Rosebery, whose language outside the House seemed to be more or less repudiated by other Members of the Government—that there was any policy that the Government had resolutely adopted, or that they had any definite ideas on this subject. It was for that reason that he wished to say a few words in regard to the position in which hey now found themselves; he would do so in no sense of hostility towards the Members of the Government, but because he believed that if they on the Ministerial side of the House kept up a steady and constant pressure on their right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, they might induce them to rescue themselves from their unhappy position in Uganda. The proposed expedition to Uganda was a very hazardous one; it had to travel 600 or 700 miles from the coast through a country inhabited by a very large population, which was very warlike and addicted to massacre. When Mr. Stanley was there he saw the King at the head of his Army, consisting of 150,000 men, which was a very considerable force to deal with. They knew the character of these men as far as fighting was concerned, because they had had already bitter experience of their warlike propensities. They were now sending out an expedition of about 230 native troops with four or five European
    576
    officers. When that expedition got out there they would be joined by about 1,000 Soudanese troops who were with Emin Pasha, and who were—according to the Papers presented to the House-— a set of ruffians who had been parading the country, and were little less than slave-raiders themselves. Assuming that the expedition would number about 1,200 men, and that these men remained faithful, how could it face that enormous population of whom Captain Lugard had said they possessed 6,000 rifles, and who had since been supplied largely with the same weapons from French sources. It was impossible to send out any reinforcements. They could not send across that fever-stricken morass more than 300 or 400 men at a time. He hoped it would not happen, but suppose there was a rising on the part of the population—who certainly did not desire our presence amongst them —the expedition would be exposed to danger and beyond the possibility of being rescued by reinforcements from home. That would be a disaster indeed; and if it happened it would be one into which they had gone with their eyes open. He would not object to this risk being undertaken if it was for any definite or necessary object. He would not object if it was necessary to send this force for the purpose of rescuing our own countrymen, numbering some eight or ten, and those who had thrown in their lot with us in order to enable them to evacuate the country. But there was no such necessity. These people could evacuate the country at any moment up till now. The only danger of their being unable to evacuate it was if we thus further provoked the hostility of the King and people of Uganda by a manifest intention of taking possession of the country and governing it for ourselves. Neither would he object to the expedition if it were sent merely for the purpose of establishing some nominal sovereignty in our sphere of influence without assuming the actual control of the country. But that did not seem to be the intention—if, indeed, one knew really what was the intention—of the Government. They had to look to the instructions given to the expedition to know what the intention of the Government was. The whole frame of the instructions contemplated the remaining and the retention of Sir Gerald Portal in

    577
    Uganda, not merely to advise the Government as to the condition of affairs in Uganda, but to set up a Government of the country, which would make it dishonourable or impossible for them to withdraw. In this connection they could not ignore Lord Rosebery's speeches. He was a great admirer of Lord Rosebery, but he thought that the Foreign Secretary had used utterances in and out of Parliament for the purpose of putting pressure on reluctant Colleagues to fall in with his scheme, which meant a first step towards the premature establishment of a great Empire in the Valley of the Nile, and up towards Uganda and the Lake District. He had to ask himself, therefore, whether this expedition was not a prelude to the assuming of the government of the country. They could not doubt that that was so, and he asked what did it mean? It meant, in the first place, the assuming of responsibilities towards Foreign Powers of which they already had some experience in the action of the French, who were putting forward claims for compensation for the lives lost and the mission houses destroyed. It meant something more. It meant that they must maintain internal order, which would be something new in Uganda. It meant that they must keep at bay the so-called religious parties, who called themselves Protestant or English, French or Catholic—and into whose calculations the idea of religion was the last thing that entered—who were always flying at each other's throats. They would have to keep these people down, and, at the same time, protect them against foreign invasion, to which they were constantly subjected, surrounded as they were by enemies. That would be by no means an easy matter. The hon. Member who spoke last talked of £40,000 a year for the occupation of the country, but that was preposterous. They would have to maintain a considerable force to which they could not readily send reinforcements. It would cost £200 a ton to send up supplies to Uganda. The country could not, therefore, be maintained at the cost of £40,000 a year. Under these circumstances, it was absolutely certain that if they were to occupy that territory they must have a better means of communication. He had not had the pleasure of hearing the whole of the speech of his hon. Friend the
    578
    Member for South Edinburgh, but he understood that the hon. Gentleman had suggested three alternative routes to the route afforded by the railway. One of the routes was through an almost impenetrable desert, 700 miles long, and occupied all the way by hostile tribes. Another route was to go through Egypt. But they must conquer the Soudan first. Another route was by the Cape of Good Hope, but that was at least 3,000 miles off. Was there ever such a mad-cap enterprise? If they were to occupy Uganda, the simple, the obvious, and the necessary course was to construct a railway. It was said that would cost £3,000,000. The Prime Minister was surprised that it would cost only £3,000,000. He wondered when the House would be liberal to even one-tenth that extent for the purpose of benefiting their own people, and not squander it in a land inhabited by savages. But they must not only build the railway, they must guard it. The railway would be laid through 600 or 700 miles of country inhabited by savages, who, when they wanted iron for the purposes of making their own weapons, would be certain to tear up the rails. It meant this: an immense initial outlay, a, constant annual outlay, a constant danger of warfare, and the establishment of a line of communication which was perfectly unprecedented in the history of British enterprise. He was not one of those who were opposed at all to the extension of the Empire; he was prepared to see the extension of the Empire with pleasure, provided it was done on the lines of common sense and prudence, but not otherwise. The whole history of the Colonial undertakings of this country was quite different to the course which was now proposed by Her Majesty's Government, or rather by the Opposition, and half endorsed by Her Majesty's Government at the present moment. All their previous Colonial enterprises had been undertaken in this way: that they had seized some point of vantage or some easily accessible territory, and had pushed their advances as their resources behind them enabled them to do, until at last they had consolidated a great Empire. If they had set about it in the style now adopted they would never have established a great Empire at all. He asked himself what equivalent

    579
    were they to get. It had been practically given up that there was any present equivalent at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that there was no prospect of trade at present. He should think not. Mr. Joseph Thompson, a well-known authority, in the Contemporary Review last December, said he must reluctantly confess that from a purely commercial point of view Uganda was of but small value to them at present, and that as matters stood there were only two things which would pay to bring down to the coast—rubber and iron. Mr. Thompson proceeded—
    "If a railway was established in Uganda, four or five trains per annum could take all the produce we could rely upon from Uganda; and one train a month, or, say, one per week, would be sufficient for the trade to Uganda."
    And he could imagine that that trade would mainly consist of blunderbusses, pistols, and rum, or ammunition, which would be required for the occupation of the country. With regard to this being a grand opening for colonisation, the same authority said—
    "Captain Lugard has a theory which, if true, would make Uganda colonisable. I doubt the theory, though I am prepared to believe that medical science has discoveries in store which will make things possible that are the contrary now, discoveries that will rob Africa of half its terrors. In the meantime, however, we must consider Uganda not a place where homes can be formed and families reared."
    Notwithstanding all this, he admitted there might be some overwhelming duty incumbent on them, and, if so, he would not invite the Committee to disregard such a duty. But what were those duties? He observed that the Prime Minister said not one word about them. What was the theory they had with regard to missionaries? Everybody admitted that in the ordinary course, when missionaries went out to any territory they could not, and did not, expect their Government to send any material support to enable them to maintain their position. It was impossible that wherever missionaries, in pursuance of a sense of duty, chose to go, they should be followed by an armed expedition to save them from harm. That had never been advanced by any responsible statesman. But it was said there was something exceptional in this case. It was said that the East Africa Company had so unsettled the territories in Uganda that it
    580
    was necessary in the future to afford that protection which the missionaries did not claim in the past. He asserted that if in the course of public policy it was necessary to send an expedition to a country, and then it became desirable to withdraw from that territory, all they were bound to do was to give the missionaries a fair and full chance of leaving the country. They were not bound to keep up an occupation of that country, if it was against the public interest, merely in order to enable missionaries to carry out their duty. He entirely demurred to any argument as to Treaties with the blood-stained ruffian M'Wanga, and he could not understand that they should be invited to regard documents obtained from savages, partly by menace and partly by persuasion, as being of equal value with the great and solemn Instruments regulating the relations of European Powers. The first Treaty was extinct, and the second had never been ratified by Her Majesty's Government. There was, therefore, no obligation on them in regard to Treaties. It was said that it was necessary to send the expedition for the purpose of averting massacre. If they had produced discord, riot, and commotion, where previously there had been peace, he should say it would be a very mean and shabby thing on the part of the Government that, having caused anarchy, they should leave the people to their fate. But the facts were precisely the reverse. Captain Lugard himself, in a letter which he wrote to The Times, after the speech of the lion. Member for Northampton on the Address, made this statement—
    "Uganda has been placed by international agreement within the sphere of British influence. For years it had been the theatre of war and revolutions, till half its area lay waste and half its population was dead. I was sent to endeavour to bring peace and order, and I found on arrival that not only was the war between Christians and Mahomedans still being waged with great barbarities, but the bitter rivalry between the Christian sects pointed to the imminence of a final quarrel between them, and a triangular internecine conflict, which would have ended in the practical extermination of the people of Uganda, and the probable triumph over all parties of Kabarega, of Unyoro, whose cruelties are the theme of all travellers in Africa."
    Captain Lugard, with a courage that he could not sufficiently admire, by expending some 300 or 400 lives, which he himself bitterly regretted, succeeded in

    581
    averting these disasters, and in putting an end to the wars which he told them had already reduced the population by one-half. The East Africa Company was extremely unwise and incredibly rash in going to Uganda, but the wrong which had been done was rather to this country than to Uganda. It was a case in which they had done good in Uganda, and had stayed bloodshed rather than created it, and what they were asked to do was to prolong their position in Uganda for the purpose of saving the people from their own murderous propensities. But the natives did not want them, and had never asked them, and would be only too glad to get rid of them. By whom had this country been constituted the police over the whole of Africa? It was said they were bound to stay in Uganda for the purpose of suppressing the Slave Trade. That was, no doubt, an argument sincerely put forward by many, but it was not sincerely put forward by the East Africa Company. Sir G. Portal's expedition was one which had numerous slaves in its ranks. The whole territory of the East Africa Company now was swarming with slaves. What hypocrisy would be charged against this country if, their real motive being financial greed and territorial aggrandisement, they put forward the sacred cause of slave emancipation, while at the same time their own territories were swarming with slaves, and were actually impressing these poor creatures in large numbers to carry Sir G. Portal himself on this expedition. [Sir J. FERGUSSON: Oh!] He was sure the right hon. Baronet did not deny that, Sir G. Portal's luggage, stores, &c, were being carried by native porters.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: They are not pressed; they are freely engaged.
    MR. R. T. REID: I am sure the right hon. Baronet will not deny that the persons are in fact slaves who are carrying the whole of the stores of Sir G. Portal up the country.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I say they are really hired, and not pressed.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, they were hired from their masters. There was no slave-raiding in Uganda; if they wanted
    582
    to deal with slave-raiding they would have to go further and further west in the district of the Congo Free State. In fact, the further west they went the further west would the slave raiders go, and they would be committed to a vast crusade all over Africa. That would be a noble purpose, and if the country was prepared with its eyes open to undertake it, he would not be one of the laggards; but it must be a purely philanthropic enterprise, and not one for founding a great African Empire. Those were the grounds upon which he was opposed, with his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, to the granting of this money. He had not spoken more strongly than gentlemen on the Government Bench spoke only two months ago, and knowing that they were the inheritors of evils which they did not create, he hoped that before long they would be again leading their followers instead of opposing them in the efforts they were making in this matter on behalf of the best interests of the country.
    MR. R. C. JEBBsaid, the Vote for Sir G. Portal's Mission could be defended on grounds independent of any resolve to retain Uganda. These grounds were indicated by the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on February 6th. They were two. If no provision for order after March 31st had been made, anarchy and bloodshed would probably have ensued. And such consequences would have prejudged the question; since then, if the ultimate decision were to retain Uganda, a large expeditionary force would have been required. Since, however, the question of retaining Uganda had been raised now—though it could not now be effectively discussed till Sir G. Portal's Report arrived—the main arguments for retention must be stated. The engagements made by them at the Brussels Conference of 1890 were not the less binding because they had acted in Uganda through a Chartered Company. The Brussels General Act, Chapter I., Article I., laid down the best means of repressing the Slave Trade. Among these were—
    "The gradual establishment in the interior' by the responsible Power in each territory, of strongly occupied stations."

    583
    Also—
    "The construction of roads, and in particular of railways, connecting the advanced stations with the coast."
    By Chapter I., Article III., the Powers represented at Brussels pledged themselves to repress the Slave Trade, either by these means or by others. And then Article IV. said—
    "The Powers exercising Sovereignty or Protectorate in Africa may, however, delegate to Chartered Companies all or a portion of the engagements which they assumed in virtue of Article III. They remain, nevertheless, directly responsible for the engagements which they contract by the present General Act, and guarantee the execution thereof."
    This obligation could not be avoided on the plea that it did not refer to spheres of influence. The Powers which might thus delegate their engagements were, indeed, described as those exercising Sovereignty or Protectorate; but there was not a word to show that the area in which the Chartered Company might operate must be that of a Sovereign State or Protectorate, and might not be a sphere of influence. On the other hand, the phrase in Article I., "The responsible Power in each territory," clearly included a sphere of influence. And, as Captain Lugard said in The Times of February 6, British "Chartered Companies exist only in British spheres of influence." He contended that having, under the Anglo-German Agreement of 1890, accepted a sphere of influence which included Uganda, England could not now escape from her engagement under the Brussels General Act, merely because she had employed a Chartered Company to represent her. But, further, Imperial responsibility for the acts of the Chartered Company was distinctly implied in the instructions given to Sir Gerald Portal by the late Government, after he was appointed Commissioner and Consul General in the British sphere. He referred to the instructions conveyed in the letter of Lord Salisbury under date of March 22, 1892. It was there pointed out that our sphere of influence comprised three divisions of territory, namely, the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, now leased to the Company; the territory now administered by the Company under Royal Charter; and the territory not at present administered by the Company. In respect to the Company's
    584
    territory, the Commissioner was directed to see that any new agreements made by the Company should be submitted to him, to be forwarded to the Secretary of State for his consideration. But in the territory not administered by the Company— which was "liable to diminution in proportion to the extension of the Company's administration"—the Commissioner was himself authorized to make, subject to sanction, Treaties on the part of Her Majesty with Native Chiefs. Such Treaties would be direct Imperial engagements. And they were put on the same footing with Treaties made by the Company. It could not have been intended that the latter should be less valid than the former. Lord Rosebery, in his instructions to Sir G. Portal of December 10, 1892, referred to the fact that 83 Treaties made by the Company had been approved by the Secretary of State, and remarked—
    "Whether an approval of this kind can be held in any way, directly or indirectly, to bind Her Majesty's Government is a moot point. There is no doubt of the liability of the Company, and of the fact that the Company, having concluded these Treaties, finds itself compelled to evacuate the country without making any endeavour to implement them. It is to be feared that this proceeding may have a prejudicial effect"—
    On what? Not on the good name of the Company merely, but—
    "on the British good name in those regions."
    Could it, indeed, be otherwise, seeing that the Company acted under a Royal Charter, subject at every step to the sanction of the Secretary of State, and that among its agents were officers of the Queen, who received leave of absence for this special service? If we left Uganda it would not be the Company merely, it would be Great Britain, which, in the eyes of the natives and of the civilised world, would have withdrawn from its engagements. What was the importance of Uganda with reference to the repression of the Slave Trade, in which England was bound by the Brussels Act to assist? First, let them note, in passing, how matters stood as to the alleged use of slave-labour by the Company. That matter was placed in its true light by a letter in The Times (March 20) from a gentlemen (Mr. Frederick Holm-wood) who was for several years Consul

    585
    General at Zanzibar, and who can speak with authority. This letter said—
    "It is true that a large proportion of the porters, guides, and guards of all expeditions from Zanzibar to the interior is, composed of slaves, in a technical sense. Whilst representing England at Zanzibar, I engaged, both for the Company, for Mr. Stanley, and for other travellers, more than 1,000 of such porters.
    These men are professional travellers whose livelihood is gained by such work, and the fact of their being slaves or otherwise has no bearing on their engagement, for no master can compel a slave to travel, and, practically, the moment he is outside the coast region he can desert and settle as a free man in the interior.
    But their position as confidential slaves of Arabs is too advantageous for them to lightly throw it up.
    I know personally more than 100 of such slaves, and have employed them as carriers and guides in the interior of Africa, and do not believe that 10 per cent. of them would accept freedom if offered to them. In cases where they pay to their owners a stipulated proportion of their wages, they do so voluntarily, and always retain for themselves much more than they could earn by ordinary work. In discussing this question with them over the camp tire, they always frankly acknowledged that the arrangement suited them, and that they received a very practical return for it in the shape of food, clothing, shelter, and freedom from anxiety when unable to obtain employment."
    So much on that point. They must, next, clearly distinguish between African domestic slavery and the African Slave Trade. Domestic slavery was an institution universal in Africa, and could be extinguished only gradually, by the progress of civilisation. Our present aim "was to stop slave-raiding and the slave traffic. It was true that slave-raiders did not now come into Uganda itself; though, on the other hand, there was evidence that, as late as the autumn of 1891, there was still some export of slaves out of Uganda. In a letter of October 4, 1891, Captain Williams said—
    "It may interest you to know that a few days ago I got the King to issue orders against the sale of slaves across the borders."
    But our chief aim was to repress the Slave Trade in countries adjacent to Uganda. Holding that compact and central territory, we should be placed in touch with regions where the Slave Trade still flourished. First, there was the country West and North-West of Uganda, which had long been devastated
    586
    by slave-raiders from the borders of the Congo Free State. They came as far south as Miala, a little north-west of the Albert Edward Lake. Secondly, there was the country just east of Uganda. At Ketosh (on the proposed railway route) there had been slave-raiding in recent days. Thirdly, there was the country between Uganda and the East Coast. All trading caravans were potentially instruments of the Slave Trade. In this region they often captured women and children for the harems. Captain Lugard himself met and dispersed such a caravan. Thus Uganda was a central point of vital moment for the repression of the Slave Trade. The commercial importance of Uganda was described by Mr. II. M. Stanley when he spoke at Swansea on October 1, 1892. They must distinguish between what Uganda and the neighbouring districts could now yield, and what they could yield after a reasonable expenditure of time and labour. They could now furnish ivory, rubber, hides, copal and other gums, cocoanut and palm oils, nuts, seeds, and fibres. But the soil and climate was further suitable for growing cotton, rice, millet, corn, maize, indigo, fruit, coffee, rice, sugar, and (on the sloping uplands) tea. There was plenty of excellent pasturage. It was true that colonisation could not, so far as we yet know, be advised for British settlers, though experience showed that at least a prolonged residence and reasonable activity were possible for our race in the Highlands around the Victoria Lake. But native labour was available; and, as Mr. J. S. Keltie pointed out in his recent work on Africa, it was an error to suppose that African natives could not be trained to regular and even skilled labour. Hundreds of natives worked well for wages in the diamond and gold mines of South Africa. On the Blantyre Highlands south of Lake Nyassa—a district which Livingstone, on his last journey, found in a wretched condition, owing to slave-raiding and wars —Scottish missionaries and traders had brought thousands of acres under cultivation for coffee, and natives came from a distance to seek labour on the plantations. Many of them had been trained to various trades. As to the proposed railway, the Reports of Captain MacDonald and Captain Pringle showed that the length

    587
    from the east coast to Berkeley Bay at the north-east end of Lake Victoria would be about 660 miles. The estimated cost was £2,500,000, and it was believed that this would leave an ample margin. Alternative routes had been surveyed for every section of the line where a choice was open. No hostility had been met with. "Every where," said Captain Pringle (September 29, 1892), "we encountered friends and not foes, and no ammunition has been expended with any hostile intent." The railway would not only open commerce, but would kill the Slave Trade. The whole line appeared fairly easy, the difficulties being confined to a few points in the more westerly half. The first 300 miles from the coast might be made first, and after that animal transport could be organised to the Lake. As to the general importance of Uganda to British interests, it commands the chain of lakes to the south, and the Nile to the north. The value of this position would be enhanced if Mr. Cecil Rhodes carried out his project of extending the telegraph line from Mashonaland to Uganda, and thence north, so as to connect with the telegraph in Egypt. Mr. Stanley had pointed out that if we left Uganda some other Power, more appreciative of its strategic value, might come there. Mr. F. Holmwood, in his letter to The Times, emphasised this warning. He said—
    "However others may deceive themselves as to the intentions of foreign Powers, those who know the situation practically cannot believe that if we quit Uganda—that is, if we give up command of the head waters of the Nile, some foreign Power will fail to find some excuse for occupying them. The sequel, as far as the Soudan is concerned, I may or may not have correctly forecast in my memo.; but what I wished to urge was that a civilised Power in possession of the Nile sources would be in a position to occupy the Soudan if at any moment she cared to incur a certain expenditure, and that there would be no means of preventing it. And it may be well plainly to state that the possession, by a civilised Power, of the head waters of the Nile even as far down as Lado, gives the possessor a virtual control over Egypt for all time; for should such a Power become involved in a war in which it might be to its interest to dictate its own terms at Cairo, it would not be necessary to occupy the country.
    By means of a few comparatively simple engineering works communicating with the vast expanse of low-lying country on the right bank of the Nile below the Albert Lake, the river could be deviated at any moment, with the result that the Lower Nile provinces of Egypt would in a few weeks become desert, unable even to support its own population."
    588
    Already there had been an expedition from the Congo Free State through the north-west of our sphere to Lado on the Upper Nile. In his reply to the Anti-Slavery Society on October 20 last, Lord Rosebery justly described Uganda as—
    "A country of great possibilities, as the key perhaps of Central Africa, and as commanding the Nile basin." "My belief is," he said, "that having put our hands to the plough in that great enterprise, we shall not be able, even if we were willing, to look back."
    As a great Power, Great Britain was bound, both by duty and by interest, to aid in civilising East Africa. Uganda was our opportunity, which, once lost, could never be recovered. Uganda was also of vital importance for our prospective influence in the Nile Valley. It also afforded an opening for new markets and for the extension of our trade. The existence of social problems was not a reason against, but was one of the strongest reasons for, retaining Uganda. We must think not merely of our own day, but of the future, and of the destinies of our Empire.
    MR. PICTONsaid the hon. Member who had last spoken had given some interesting information that did not, however, really touch the point before the Committee. The question before them was simply this—whether they should pass what was practically a Vote of Censure. That was really the point before the House, and as he was about to separate himself so far as his vote was concerned that evening from hon. Members with whom he usually worked, and with whose views on this question he to a very large extent agreed, he wished in a few words to explain the reasons which actuated him in taking such a course. The hon. Member for Dumfries in the admirably argued and most weighty speech he had addressed to them had put many parts of the question very fairly to the House. All unconsciously to himself he had given one reason at least why inquiry was absolutely necessary before any further step was necessary. He had admitted that certain consequences had followed upon the entry of Englishmen—even of the East Africa Company—into Uganda. Amongst other things he said we had stayed massacre in Uganda. Was that

    589
    true? If it was true surely we ought to make some inquiry as to how that state of peace was to be maintained after our departure, and whether massacre was likely to occur again after we had left. He agreed that the Company had engaged in an impossible undertaking when they went to Uganda. They had not the means to do their duty by the country. They were on the point of bankruptcy and they ought never to have gone. A great deal had been said in praise of Captain Lugard. He should be the last to avail himself of an opportunity in the House of belittling a brave man; but much as the private and individual qualities of Captain Lugard might be considered admirable, he thought his policy was absolutely abominable and most reprehensible. It was policy like that which brought our country into disgrace all over the world. In dealing with this matter the last Government had nothing whatever but a policy of drift, and in August last they handed over Uganda in a state of confusion to the succeeding Government. They did not even know what was going on in Uganda. What were the present Government to do? Were they, without any further inquiry, to retire and shake off all responsibility? They had not information sufficient to justify them in taking such a course. They had to consider the unsettled claims of France, and if they were to negotiate with France they must get more information for these claims were unsettled still. If they had gone out, from the country hastily and unthinkingly, fresh disturbances would almost certainly have arisen, and additional claims would have been made against us. He, therefore, held that the Government could not possibly have taken any other course than that which they did in authorising inquiries to be made by a. gentleman in whom they could place confidence. With regard to the missionaries be thought the hon. Member for Dumfries had put the case very well when he urged that the missionaries ought to go out on their own responsibility; if they were disturbed in the midst of their labours by filibustering companies and prancing pro-Consuls, they ought to be protected. It was Said, "Give them a safe retreat," but that was not the view he took of the matter. These missionaries had devoted their lives to the salvation of men; they
    590
    were working for the glory of God, and what consolation would it be to them to be taken away, even if safely taken away, from Uganda. Having allowed filibustering companies to go into Uganda they were bound to see that after they left the work of the missionaries was likely to be continued, and carried on with success. Besides, no Government could take Office in this country without paying a good deal of respect to public opinion. If a Government came into Office charged with one supreme mission it often happened that on many subsidiary points they had to yield to public opinion in order that they might carry out the greatest duty with which they were charged. He held that to be a very proper principle. Apparently the hon. Member for Northampton would overthrow the most beneficent Government they had known in this country for a long time on any side issue when they did not happen to agree with him. He hoped the Government would be able to make such arrangements as would enable them to retire from Uganda, but if in the end they found it impossible to retire, if they found it necessary to retain a force in this territory, he should hold that it was not their fault; they would not be responsible. With right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would rest the entire responsibility for all the bloodshed and all the misery that had been or might be suffered in Uganda. So far as he was concerned, whilst the supreme task of the Government was undischarged, and a country nearer home remained in a state of slavery, he should give no vote which would weaken them in the slightest degree.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The discussion, opened by the hon. Member for Northampton, and carried on by the hon. Member for Sunderland, has been an extremely interesting and an extremely important one, and many questions of serious gravity have been raised in the course of the Debate. I confess that when I listened to my two hon. Friends I thought that their primary object was to show to the Committee the difference between Liberals in Office and Liberals out of Office—between Liberals above the Gangway and Liberals below the Gangway; and I certainly think they

    591
    proved that while Liberals above the Gangway are extremely latitudinarian in their acceptance of Liberal principles, Liberals below the Gangway remain rigidly sectarian as long at all events as there is no prospect of their being transferred to the Bench above the Gangway. Well, Sir, that is no doubt an extremely interesting question, but it is one on which, I think, a stranger, an outsider like myself, who has been excommunicated from the congregation has really very little right to offer an opinion. I do not like to interfere in domestic squabbles. I know the proverb which says it is wrong to put your finger between the bark and the tree, and therefore I shall leave my hon. Friends to settle this private question with my right hon. Friends upon the Government Bench. But there is another issue that has been raised which perhaps has a greater, a more general, and even a national interest, and it was put, to my mind, extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. He said that he as a Radical—I may perhaps in passing say that there are Radicals and Radicals, and that although I fully admit his claim to be a Radical, I hope he will admit that there are other Radicals who do not hold altogether his opinions—he said he as a Radical was opposed to the expansion of the Empire, and that he would not spend one penny for any such object so long as there are poor and distressed and destitute persons at home on whom the money which could be afforded by the State might be expended with great advantage. That is a very important statement, and I should like to know how far it is likely to meet with general concurrence. I wonder in the first place how far my hon. Friend's economy will carry him? Take, for instance, one of the subjects we have been discussing tonight. We are spending at the present time £200,000 a year, which might be spent on the poor and destitute for whom my hon. Friend claims consideration in endeavouring to put down the Slave Trade. Well, Sir, is my hon. Friend prepared to move that that expenditure should cease?
    MR. STOREY: That is not a question of expenditure for the expansion of the Empire at all.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; but my hon. Friend made two statements.
    592
    He said, in the first place, that he was opposed to the expansion of the Empire-That may stand by itself. But he said, also, that he was opposed especially to the expenditure of money, which might be laid out for the advantage of persons at home who are poor and destitute; and the inference, which I am perfectly certain—and I am speaking in the recollection of the Committee — everyone who heard him would draw from his observations, was that, so long as there were poor and destitute persons in the United Kingdom, they had the first claim upon our consideration. Then I ask him whether, for himself and those whom he professes to represent, he considers that the £200,000 a year, now spent in order to prevent and put down the Slave Trade, might be better spent on the poor and destitute at home?
    MR. STOREY: I do not wish to interrupt my right hon. Friend. My argument was precise. I was raising the question of an expenditure on the movements in Uganda, and I said that I was not prepared to spend money on these wild expeditions for expanding the Empire in Africa or elsewhere, so long as so much was needed at home. I adhere to that. If I had the choice to-morrow as to whether I would spend £200,000 on improving the slums of London or in endeavouring to put an end to the Slave Trade, I would expend it on the slums. But I submit that that question does not arise here.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, who has confirmed my suspicion. He would to-morrow prefer to devote the £200,000 a year which this country spends in endeavouring to put down the Slave Trade on the improvement of the position of persons in the slums. I am not saying for a moment that that is not an agreeable contention. All I say is that when we are dealing with this question of economy it raises a vast variety of questions, and I am curious to know how far my hon. Friend is consistent. We have it that the hon. Member thinks the hereditary duty and responsibility which this country has taken on itself in regard to the Slave Trade of less importance than the new duty which he foresees in

    593
    the future of dealing with the slums. I am tempted by his answer to ask him how far he reconciles this intense sympathy for the poor with the vote which it is understood he will give on Friday night to spend £300,000 a year in paying Members of Parliament, who do not live in slums, and who do not want to be paid. I say this discussion has raised many questions of very considerable-interest and importance. But I must put another question to my hon. Friend. I put it to him rhetorically, and I ask it because I think he is the best representative we have had this evening of a view consistent, arguable, and well worthy of serious consideration. He is opposed to expansion of the Empire and to any expense, on the ground, as I understand, that we have enough to do at home. Now, suppose this view which he puts before the Committee, and which I suppose will not be accepted even to-day by the majority of the Committee, had been put 50 or 100 years ago, and suppose it had been accepted by the Parliament of that day, I ask myself what would now be the position of this country, what would be the position of persons in the slums for whom my hon. Friend has so much sympathy and feeling? Does my hon. Friend believe, if it were not for the gigantic foreign trade that has been created by the policy of expansion, that we could subsist in this country in any kind of way—I do not say in luxury, but in the condition in which at present a great part of our population live? Does he think that, we could support 40,000,000 of people in these small islands? Is it not the fact that the great proportion of the 40,000,000 people of this country earns its livelihood by the trade brought to the country in consequence of the action of our ancestors 50 or 100 years ago who did not shrink from making sacrifices, and who were not ashamed—if I may borrow the expression which has been referred to more than once to-night—to peg our claims for posterity? We are the posterity who enjoy the result of that policy; and are we to be meaner and more selfish than those who preceded us? Are we to do nothing for those who come after us? Are we to sacrifice that which those who went before have gained for us? Why, if this idea of closing all the doors through which all new trade is to come to us is to
    594
    be accepted by this House, we must adopt some moans or other by which our population can be kept stationary. And I venture to say that when our ancestors pegged out claims for us, as they did in many parts of the world, they were not at the time more promising than the claims which are now under consideration. Well, what is it we are asked to do to-night? This is not a question of Uganda only; but we are asked to reverse the whole policy of this country —a policy undertaken, I believe, with the consent of the vast majority of the people of this country. We are asked to give up all the advantages which have been secured by the surrender of Heligoland, and by the Treaties and arrangements made with foreign Powers. My hon. Friend does not take into account any advantages. At any rate, we have made sacrifices. We gave up territory with the full consent of the majority of our people in the belief that we were getting a quid pro quo. Parliament is now asked to sacrifice the quid qro pro which this country obtained. We are asked to give up all part and share in what has been called the partition of Africa. I am bound to do my hon. Friend this justice—to point out that he always speaks in the first person singular; therefore, I do not suppose that he claims to speak for more than himself. He will be in a minority in the House to-day. I believe he will be in a small minority in the House, and I believe that in the country he is in a still smaller minority. I believe that the people of this country have decided this matter in their minds, and have determined that they will take their full share in the disposition of these new lands and in the work of civilisation they have to carry out there. I think they are justified in that determination—justified by the spirit of the past, justified by that spirit which has shown that the spirit of travel and adventure and enterprise distinguishing the Anglo-Saxon race has made us peculiarly fit to carry out the work of colonisation. It is a curious fact, and one which I have never been able to explain, that of all the nations of the world we are the only one able to carry out this work without absolute cost to ourselves. Take, for instance, the case of France, which has been for a long time ruling in Algeria. Up to this

    595
    moment, although French rule there has been beneficent, Algeria costs to the French Exchequer large sums every year. The same is the case with regard to Tunis, and the German possessions with regard to Italy in Abyssinia, and also with the foreign possessions of Portugal. There is no other country in the world except Spain, in the early days of America and Holland up to comparatively recent times, which has been able permanently to carry out a policy of colonisation without imposing burdens on its subjects. I say that all these facts should lead us to be hopeful in undertaking this new work of colonisation, which does not differ in any respect from the work we have carried out successfully in the past. If we are not going to give up this mission—to use a word I do not much like, but it has been previously employed—let us look the matter courageously in the face, and be prepared, if need be, for sacrifice of life and money, which, in the first instance, we may have to make in order to carry it out. We have come to the point at which we do not consider life so sacred that it may not be sacrificed to save life. For my own part, I hold that, both in matters of life and money, we may sacrifice both, if we see before us a prospect of good and a satisfaction for the sacrifice we may make. The people of this country, in my opinion, have by large majorities declared that it is our duty to take our share in the work of civilisation in Africa. I do not believe they are at all prepared to sympathise with my hon. Friend below me. They know that an omelette cannot be made without breaking eggs, and I do not believe that they are prepared to count the cost. They think that in the long run any expenditure they may have incurred will prove to have been well expended. And now I leave the general question, and come to the particular question of my hon. Friend.
    MR. STOREY: Do.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, my hon. Friend is pleased to hear this, but I would observe that, so far as he was concerned, I said nothing whatever about Uganda. His observations were directed to the general question of the expansion of the Empire. I come back to Africa, and I say, in the first place—and, after
    596
    all, I do not think that our divisions should make us indifferent to national honour—that our honour is pledged; and that whatever you may think about the matter, it is too late to go back. The Government are in a state of suspense. They are always in a state of suspense. That is the policy of the hon. Member for Sunderland. I respect the hon. Member for Sunderland for having a policy, which is perfectly intelligible, and which, as the Committee has seen, can be defended with energy and success. I have also a policy. I and those who agree with me believe in the expansion of the Empire, and we are not ashamed to confess that we have that feeling, and we are not at all troubled by accusations of Jingoism. We, I say, also have a policy, but the Government have no policy at all. My profound sympathy is with the Government, who are endeavouring once again to do what no Government has ever done with success—namely, to ride two horses and to promote two different policies at the same time. Here is my hon. Friend below me, the Member for Leicester, the great opportunist of the present Parliament. He has an excuse for the Government. I do not know whether the Government approve of their defender—he says that he approves of their policy of inquiry. This policy of inquiry! Who believes in it? Is there any man in this House who believes in it? It is a policy of postponement. The Government have plenty of information at their disposal; they know all they will know when Sir Gerald Portal has reported. But it is difficult to go against old friends; they did not want to come to a decision; it is better to appoint a Commission than to come to a decision. I wonder they did not send out a Judge of the High Court. But they have sent a "Commission of Inquiry" to Uganda, and, of course, the Commission cannot report until very late in the Session. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester says, the one supreme ambition of the Government will have been accomplished, and then, perhaps, he will support them in attending a little to what he calls subsidiary questions. It is a most convenient doctrine which my hon. Friend, who is a leader amongst the new Radicals, has now taken up. He never

    597
    mentioned his new convictions in the time of the late Government. I never heard him explain then that the Government might have a supreme mission which would lead them to ignore all subsidiary questions. The only things he cared about then were the subsidiary questions. I do not accuse him of inconsistency; but it is delightful to note the growth of his mind. I was saying that in Uganda we cannot go back if we would. What have we done there? By a Charter we gave to a Company certain powers. Not only was the Company entrusted with discretion, but distinct and definite pressure was put upon it to go forward and to prevent other countries from coming in and taking possession of territories which were within the sphere of British influence. Rightly or wrongly, the Company yielded to the pressure of public opinion; they went forward in Uganda; they broke up such government as there was in Uganda. I am told the hon. Member for Dumfries has said, in an excellent and powerful speech, which I had not the advantage of hearing, that the normal condition there was one of massacre. But, of course, there was a Government there—such a Government as you may expect in those countries. But after all, suppose we have no business there whatever, and no responsibility, and never intend to take any, we had better have left those people to work out their own salvation for themselves, be it by massacre or in any other way. However, as a matter of fact we did not do so. We broke up the authority of those who were held to be chiefs and rulers in Uganda. We came in at a cost which, to my mind was trifling in comparison with the results achieved. We have secured for Uganda the pax Britannica which has been so beneficial in India. I heard the Prime Minister to-night—and I confess I was delighted to hear him—I heard him talk about the sad and deplorable occurrence in Uganda. I think he spoke of those occurrences as constituting massacre. There was no massacre at all. What existed in Uganda at that time were anarchy and civil war of the worst kind. If we had not been there thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people would have been cruelly massacred; and after the victory of one party or the other
    598
    what remained of the minority would have been cruelly tortured to death. Captain Lugard was on the spot. Let me say in passing that I sometimes feel we do not do justice to our bravest and noblest citizens. Of Captain Lugard I know no more than any Member of the House may know—I know him only through reading his works. He was, I believe, an Indian officer who was sent to Uganda under the orders of the Company. He undertook a work of the highest responsibility and the greatest importance, and I say that anyone who reads his accounts impartially will agree with me to this extent, that he was, at all events, a man of extraordinary power and capacity, tact, discretion, and courage. Courage is a common virtue, but he has shown it in no common way, and he has exhibited a modesty which is beyond all praise. I say it is something for England, for the United Kingdom, to glory in that we can still boast such servants as these. I was saying that Captain Lugard was present in Uganda when this state of things arose. He took his measures, and as a matter of fact in all the confusion which followed, 400 lives at the outside—he himself puts the number at considerably less—were killed. It was deplorable, no doubt; but that sacrifice cheaply purchased the peace, the pacification, and temporary civilisation which followed; and at all events, long before now the people of that great country would have been at each others throats but for the presence of the English. You have taken this responsibility through the Company to whom you gave a Charter; you have never disavowed them; and now you cannot leave that country whatever it cost you. Even if, as the hon. Member for Northampton said, it cost you another expedition, you are bound at all costs to fulfil the obligations of this country to maintain the faith of this country to the people to whom it is pledged. What would happen if you left? Would not the Protestants, Catholics, and Mahomedans be at one another's throats, and would there not be a massacre almost unparalleled even in the history of Africa? And who would suffer most? Those who have been our allies. They are the people whom we have disarmed and who would now fall an easy prey to their enemies. I do not think my hon. Friend contemplated such

    599
    an abandonment as that. I am quite ready to protest against any further extension of the Empire. But we are dealing now with what has taken place and cannot be recalled; and I say it would be a greater disgrace than ever befel England if you were to retire from a country whose prosperity and the lives of whose people depended absolutely upon your continuance of the hold you have upon them. The hon. Member for Northampton has made one of those speeches to which we are accustomed. It was a very amusing speech on a very serious subject, but I do not think that questions of international policy ought to be determined by buffoonery. This is not a small matter. Remember that the consequences of the decision at which this Committee is about to arrive will extend to long years after you have made it. The decision at which you are about to arrive involves the faith of Great Britain and the influence of Great Britain not only in Uganda, but in the whole of Africa, for news travels fast even in that vast continent. The hon. Member has talked about the cost of an expedition to Uganda, but I do not understand this measuring duty and honour by the money it costs. The hon. Member for Northampton, however, is only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in that respect. If we have to protect people who are in danger of their lives we have to count the cost. According to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, if it will cost £10 we may protect their lives, but if it will cost a million we had better keep the money in our pockets. But I believe that the hon. Member for Northampton has ludicrously exaggerated the cost of this matter. He has told the Committee that it will be necessary to bring up the British troops in large numbers if we are to have an expedition like that to the Soudan. But Uganda is only 600 miles from the coast, while the Soudan is 2,000 from the coast.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I was referring to the expedition to Suakin.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member speaks as if Suakin was really a serious part of our work in connection with the Soudan. Our position in Suakin was abandoned. The railway was
    600
    abandoned. I confess now that I wish it had not been abandoned. But really the heavy part of that expedition was the cost incurred in the attempted rescue of Gordon. The two expeditions are, in my opinion, absolutely incomparable. All the evidence—and I believe it to be good evidence—goes to show that the peace of Uganda and of the neighbouring countries can be secured at a comparatively trifling cost. A few English officers with a small body of Soudanese troops will be able to keep the country quiet. The hon. Member for Northampton talks of the cost of erecting forts, but all the forts that will be necessary are mere stockades, which can be erected at the cost of a few shillings, and which will be amply sufficient to withstand the assaults of savages. I do not see the slightest reason for believing that the cost of preserving the peace and of policing the country need be anything more than the taxation of the country itself will bear. We have had this same question argued over and over again with regard to other parts of Africa, and in every case it has been shown that the discretion and the prudence of a few English officers has enabled the peace of the district to be preserved without a single farthing of expense to the English Exchequer. The hon. Member spoke of possible danger that would arise from the attacks of the Mahdi and Senoussi. As for the Mahdi, those who know best do not fear the Mahdi in any way. Mahdism is a periodic outburst of fanaticism which is nearly exhausted, and I believe that in a very short time the Soudan will fall like a ripe pear into the lap of Egypt. I make that prediction with confidence.
    An hon. MEMBER: You always do.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I make that prediction with confidence.
    An hon. MEMBER: It's a way you have.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the observations of the hon. Gentleman are inarticulate, so I will not take notice of them. The Committee may rest assured there is no danger to be apprehended from Mahdis. The Senoussi is a person of great importance, but of a different character, and it is very difficult to prophesy what will be the future of the party he leads. Tradition and all

    601
    information as to this sect is entirely in a different direction. He is not at all likely to interfere with the position we may acquire in Uganda. Putting aside these two impossible hypotheses, there is no reason to believe that the cost of our Protectorate or rule in Uganda is likely to be anything but moderate in the first instance, and nothing at all in the course of a very few years. As to the commerce of Uganda, the late Mr. Mackay, the missionary, who was universally respected, said that the climate of Uganda was excellent, that the country would produce almost anything, and that the only difficulty was the want of transport and of British enterprise, but that once those two things were secured there was no reason whatever why Uganda should not be a most prosperous, even a wealthy, country. Of course, Uganda, 600 miles from the coast, in such a position that everything brought there from the coast or taken to the coast from there costs £200 per ton in transport, is not likely to have a very brisk trade at present. But I would ask hon. Gentlemen what they would have said about the cost of carriage to the North-West of Canada 100 years ago? Until the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed there was scarcely any trade in those great dominions of the British Crown. I say that the prospects of Uganda at this moment are quite equal to those of the North-West of Canada 50 years ago. This is what Lord Rosebery means by pegging out claims for posterity. Lord Rosebery is sensible that our returns cannot be immediate, but, on the other hand, a return at some time or another is almost certain. This brings me to another point. I have quoted the opinions of Mr. Mackay to the effect that you cannot have a commerce in Uganda without a means of transport. I call the policy of the Government one of drifting. They might just as well make a bold stand at once, because the result will be the same. They have committed themselves as much by sending out this mission as by facing the people of this country, and saying, "We are going to retain the country, and make the best of it." The question is, Are we going to make the best of it? How much time are we going to waste by this Commission? I tell the Government what they know
    602
    already—that nothing can be done in the territory unless they are prepared to make the railway at a cost of some £2,500,000, or of £3,000,000, according to that great financial authority, the Member for Northampton. That would be the cost if you made the whole 600 miles, but those who are best acquainted with the country think that it would be sufficient at first to make a railway for 300 miles up to the mountains, which are not very lofty, nor do they prevent engineering difficulties, though no doubt they would add to the cost of the railway. If you made such a line you would get over all the country which is difficult for animal porterage, and by animal porterage you would be able to carry the traffic for the rest of the way. The cost of a railway for 300 miles would be £1,500,000, taking it at £5,000 a mile, which our experience in India shows is about the average expenditure on railways of this kind. All I want to impress on the Committee is this: that whether the railway costs £1,500,000 or £3,000,000, you had better make up your minds tonight that if you are going to stay in Uganda, you will have to spend the money—in other words, you will have to guarantee some interest on the money. I firmly believe that the railway will pay in the end, and will prove a good investment. If you spend this £1,500,000 or £3,000,000, the working classes of this country, and the people in the slums, for whom the hon. Member for Sunderland is so anxious, will benefit, for the whole of the work will, of course, be done in this country, and the line will be engineered by natives of this country. Even in the hon. Member's view, therefore, the money will not be wholly thrown away. I believe that the chances of this railway are every bit as good as the railways which this country made 30 years ago in the Peninsular of India, and which are now bringing in a good revenue. This railway will bring us into contact with 12,000,000 of people, as, besides the people of Uganda, there is the population of the countries conterminous with the Victoria Lake and the other great lakes to be considered, and whatever may be said of Uganda, nobody will deny that the neighbouring countries, like Unyoro and Usoga, are countries of enormous natural wealth. I

    603
    believe that just as soon as you make porterage possible, we shall have a very large commerce. We shall get from this country gum and rubber, and perhaps even wheat, and in return we shall send out large quantities of our manufactures. One thing I must say in confirmation of this. I think it is a most remarkable fact that since we created this Company and this sphere of influence, the British and the general trade of Zanzibar has been increasing at a perfectly marvellous rate. In one year—the last year for which we have Returns—it nearly doubled, increasing from 72,000 to 131,000 tons. If that is done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry? I have no hesitation in saying, therefore, that the investment is one which a rich country can wisely undertake. The hon. Member for Sunderland says he does feel a certain amount of obligation in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade, though to his mind it is inferior to the obligation we have to the inhabitants of the slums. Well, I say with regard to the Slave Trade, that the railway will do more to suppress that abominable traffic than can be accomplished by any other expenditure of the same sum. What is the Slave Trade, and what is the cause of it? People do not make slaves through love of cruelty or mischief, but they do so because they made their livelihood by it. Tribes are enslaved, are taken as slaves, in order to carry burdens to the coast, and when they have done that they are sold for what they will fetch. If you could give to the slave-raiding Arabs, who at the present moment are the most barbarous and brutal people on the face of the earth, peaceful means of making an honest livelihood, do you mean to say that they enjoy war so much that they will not accept these means? If you say so, I think all history and experience is against you. You have never found a case where it has been made profitable to a nation or tribe to keep the peace that they have not done so. Take an illustration. In the old days we had to fight with the Punjabees, and when we had conquered them they supplied us with our best soldiers in India. But now that we established peace, and the country is more prosperous than it ever was before, and people, who were once the most warlike race in India, are
    604
    settling down, or I should say, rising up, into agriculturalist and peasants, and we cannot get from them an adequate number of recruits for our Army. We have to go farther afield. What happened in India will happen in Africa. Make it the interest of the Arab slave traders to give up the Slave Trade, and you will see the end of that traffic. It costs at present between £200 and £300 to carry a ton of merchandise to Uganda. Construct your railway, and increase the means of traffic, and you will take away three-fourths, almost the whole, of the temptation to carry on the Slave Trade. I ask the Committee, and I should like to put it to the country: Are they in earnest in this matter of the Slave Trade? Is the hereditary sentiment of the British people still existent amongst us? Do we hold it to be one of our prime duties, as Lord Rosebery said, and great glories, to take a prominent part in suppressing this trade? If we do, let us look boldly in the face the necessities of the situation and let us spend our money wisely and direct it to this purpose. We are spending £200,000 a year for a squadron on the East Coast, as I said just now, which, I am afraid, has too often increased indirectly the horrors and sufferings in connection with the trade. Now we are asked to sanction an expenditure which I believe will be much more fruitful of good results. I have to apologise to the House for having spoken at greater length than I intended to. I wish, in conclusion, to say that I do hope that the Government will take to heart this Debate. They get no credit from either side by taking a middle course. I am uncertain whether if the majority of them might follow out their wishes they would not at once pronounce in favour of the absolute evacuation of Uganda, or whether they would not be prepared to take all the risks of such a course. At all events that would be a bold course, and they might make their own defence and might go to the country and see if they could get approval for it. But, on the other hand, they may take the course I urge most earnestly upon them. I do not care whether they say that course was forced upon them by the proceedings of the Party opposite or in obedience to their own wishes, but at least they could say in the present situation and with the responsibilities which

    605
    we have undertaken, and which are incumbent upon them as much as they were upon their predecessors, that they will face this problem, and that they will carry out the policy which of course will result in the protectorate or the annexation which is feared by the hon. Member below me, but which I believe will do credit to the British name, and will, in the long run, be in accordance both with our interest and our honour.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: After the very interesting speech to which we have just listened I rise to appeal to the Committee to come now to a decision upon this Vote. I may point out that we have not only certain Votes to come afterwards which must be finished, but we must also take the Resolution on Ways and Means before 1 o'clock. I therefore hope the House will now agree to come to a decision.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to say——
    Mr. Haldanerose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly,
    "That Item M, of £21,600, for Special Missions and Services, be reduced by £5,000 in respect to Uganda."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 368.—(Division List, No. 33.)
    Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
    Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £15,500, Supplementary Colonial Services.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have to complain that when I rose on the last Vote to refer—[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to the last Vote.
    3. £4,756, Treasury Chest.
    4. £20,600, Behring Sea Sealers' Compensations.

    CLASS VI.
    5. £30,274, Supplementary, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.

    CLASS VII.
    6. £10,000, Supplementary, Chicago Exhibition, 1893.
    7. £4,114, Relief of Distress, Ireland.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    8. £168,000, Supplementary, Post Office.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I intended to raise a matter of considerable importance on this Vote, attention to which would conduce, I believe, both to economy and good service. But at this late hour I will not press it.
    MR. W. L. JACKSON: I had also given notice of my intention to raise a question, but will defer it now till the Vote on Account.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £21,000, Supplementary, Post Office Telegraphs.

    CIVIL SERVICES EXCESSES, 1891–2.
    10. £1,817 13s. 11d., Civil Services Excesses, 1891–2.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: Has any part of this expenditure been incurred under the Tithe Act, 1891? I think I have a right to know that. I do not want to unnecessarily occupy the time of the House, but I do object to public money being expended in collecting tithes for parsons and other owners.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The amount is obliged to be brought in on the Excess Vote.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: How much? Cannot any right hon. Gentleman tell me that? We are paying £176,000 a year for our Government; surely some one can tell me how much of this £1,817 has been spent in collecting tithes for parsons and others.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now, but I will give him the information on Report.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, 1892, and 1893, the sum of £806,711 4s. 7d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

  2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, the sum of £9,497,300 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [17th March] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
    Resolution 1 [see page 395] agreed to.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,876,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894."
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would give some information on the question which he addressed to him the other day with regard to the coaling stations at Thursday Island and St. George's Sound?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The work of the proposed two coaling stations are under the responsibility of the Colonial Authorities, and to the best of our belief they are almost entirely finished. The whole armament has been issued with the exception of a very small part which is ready for shipment. The garrison will be provided by the Colonial Authorities, and will consist of a permanent force and local auxiliary.
    COLONEL NOLANasked what action the right hon. Gentleman had taken with regard to Captain Lugard and Captain Williams, the two gentlemen who had taken a leading part in
    608
    Uganda? He believed their salaries were included in this Vote, and, if so, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman had he taken any action whatever in regard to their conduct in Uganda? He did not mind stating to the House that Captain Lugard and Captain Williams had organised the massacre of Catholics by Protestants in Uganda. [Cries of " Oh, oh!"] He adopted the word "massacre" from the military books, and he did not wish it to apply in any way except to mean that a good many people had been killed. He wished to know had these officers been allowed to return to their regiments, and whether they had instructions to take sides in a dispute between two Religious Bodies in Uganda?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that while officers are engaged on such duties their military pay is abandoned. None of the gentlemen named received any pay while they were in Africa, but Captain Lugard having returned to this country, I presume he is in receipt of pay now. He was not in receipt of it while in Uganda.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had not brought forward in Committee matters of which he had given notice with regard to this Vote, in order that the Business of the Government might not be delayed; but he understood that they were to be allowed a general Debate on the Army Vote on another occasion. He should like to be clear on that point in order to preserve the rights of private Members, and the right to discuss the condition and treatment of the private soldier.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The understanding that we should have a Debate on the Army Vote in June was arrived at with a view to concluding the discussion in Committee on a certain night, but the discussion was carried over that night, and so the arrangement was cancelled. There will be a Debate in June, but not a general discussion.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I refrained from speaking on the Vote in Committee, and I do not think the fact that other hon. Members prolonged the Debate should be used against me. I hope the

    609
    right hon. Gentleman will keep his promise.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolutions 3 to 6 [see page 416] agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES, &c, ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
    Resolutions 7 to 12 [see page 417] agreed to.
    13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893,for the Expenses of the University of London."
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKappealed to the Government to consider the question of additional accommodation for the University of London. There had been a large addition in the numbers who came up for examination, as was shown by the great increase of fees. Instead of being a burden on the Treasury, there was an actual profit on it of £2,000 a year. In the scientific examinations the need for room was extremely urgent. Several years ago it was contemplated to extend the buildings in South Kensington, but nothing had yet been done. The authorities of the University found the greatest difficulty in accommodating the candidates who came up for examination, and he, therefore, trusted the matter would receive the early attention of the Government.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, W. R.,): When this Vote was in Supply, the Secretary to the Treasury expressed regret that the right hon. Baronet was not present, and he particularly mentioned the subject of the new buildings. The subject needs careful consideration, and I believe that attention will be given to it.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would ask the authorities of the University of London to consider the question of reducing the fees? The University was now used by a large number of persons who could not pay high fees, and if there was a profit made out of the Institution he thought it should go to the reduction of the fees. MR. ACLAND: I will do that.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolution 14 [see page 471] agreed to.
    15 "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £157,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in giving effect to the ' Irish Education Act, 1892.'"
    MR. T. M. HEALYexpressed the hope that the Government would see their way on an early day to bring to a conclusion the question which had long agitated the Board of National Education in Ireland,—namely, the admission of the schools of the Christian Brothers to a share in the grant of National education. He did not think it was fair either to the members of the Board themselves or to the Christian Brothers, or to Ireland at large, that this question should be allowed to rest in its present condition. The vast majority of the Board of National Education of Ireland had twice made a proposition to the Government, and twice it had been rejected by the Government. Perhaps the Chief Secretary expected that these gentlemen would for the third time put forward some other proposition; but what guarantee had they that their proposition would not be rejected once more? Suppose that occurred, and supposing that these gentlemen—finding themselves refused access to the minds of the Government—took it into their heads to resign, what a plight the Board of National Education and the Government would be in. When distinguished men, such as Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and Lord Chief Baron Palles and other eminent and distinguished men, put forward a view of this kind, it was rather hard to be told by the Government— "We don't agree with your proposition; you can make others if you like, but we make no suggestion for the solution of the difficulty; we throw the whole responsibility upon you." That, he thought, was not the way to meet a difficulty. He might be told that the Lord Lieutenant bad not the burden cast upon him of making a suggestion for the solution of the difficulty, but still, things of that kind were generally done. Very soon the Compulsory Education Act would come into operation in Ireland, but

    611
    it would never be effectively worked until the question was settled; and he thought that after the valuable speech from the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, who represented a considerable section of opinion on the question in the Tory Party, the Government ought not to be afraid of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It was idle for the Government to expect—supported as it was by the vast majority of national opinion in the country—they could ever hope to satisfy gentlemen like the Member for South Tyrone. The effort of the Government ought to be to satisfy the majority of the country—that was the effort of the Government in England, and it ought to be the same in Ireland. He would allow the hon. Member for South Tyrone to howl himself black in the face before he pleased him. It was the majority of the people the Government had got to please. He thought the action of the late Government in this matter was most unfair. They waited until their last day in Office, the day of the Division on the Vote of Censure, before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) wrote this letter to the National Board of Education throwing the difficulty into the lap of the succeeding Administration. Let the present Administration then deal with the difficulty in a manner that would satisfy the vast majority of the Nationalist Members, the vast majority of National opinion in the country, and a large section of Protestant opinion in the country. They had been under Tory Government in Ireland for seven years. Let the Irish people now get a taste of Liberal Government, and he assured the Chief Secretary for Ireland that nothing would give greater pleasure to the people of Ireland than this proposed concession to the Christian Brothers.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this discussion in Order? Is it possible to discuss the question of the admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools on the Vote for the National Education Board?
    COLONEL NOLAN: On the point of Order, I wish to say that this Vote ought to be divided amongst the Christian Brothers. It is most unfair that they should be excluded from a share in it.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not out of Order to discuss this matter now.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he never uttered one single word against the Christian Brothers' Schools being allowed the advantage of the National Board, provided always they conformed to the Rules of the Board. The position which he took up—the position which the Presbyterians of Ireland and a large number of Protestants took up—was this: that if the schools — whether they were Christian Brothers' Schools or Church Education Schools—were not willing to conform to the Rules of the National Education Board, they could not expect to receive State aid. The moment these schools were ready to conform to these Rules and Regulations no action on the part of the House of Commons was necessary to admit them to the advantages of the Board of Education. It was simply because these schools refused to conform to the Rules which had been in operation for 60 years that they were outside the privileges of the National Board, and the position which he and his friends took up was this—that the Rules of the National Board made the system of education in Ireland a non-sectarian system, but the admission of these schools, whether Catholic or Protestant, which refused to conform to the Rules, would make it a sectarian system. If the system was to be changed from a non-sectarian to a sectarian system it ought to be done by Parliament, and not by a Board sitting in Dublin, no matter how respectable it might be— a Board that was purely administrative, and which had never been intended to have legislative powers. He admitted that the Christian Brothers were doing excellent work, and so was the Church Education Society, but these schools were excluded from the benefits of the grant by their own act. The remedy was in their own hands; the advantages of the Board of Education were open to them if they choose to comply with the Rules.
    MR. STEWART WALLACE: I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very substantial body of Presbyterian opinion in. Ireland opposed to the views put forward

    613
    in this matter by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I make no complaint against the hon. Member for Louth for mentioning, in the incidental way he has done, this subject. I do not at all wonder that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen of his creed and opinions take every reasonable opportunity of pressing this subject on the consideration of every English Government, whether Liberal or Tory, and of pressing it on the attention of the House. We are within measurable distance of the date when compulsion will come into force in Ireland. On the 1st of January, 1894, Ireland will be more or less effectively placed under the compulsory system. I foresee, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson) foresaw when he passed the Act of 1892, that the introduction of compulsion would, perhaps, immediately, and certainly at no distant date, fail to force on the attention of the Government of the day the question as to the terms on which the Christian Brothers would be admitted to the benefits of the National Board. I do not think the hon. Member for South Tyrone will deny that contention. The hon. Gentleman's opposition in this matter I do not quite understand. He is anxious for the House to believe that he does not object to the proposed admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools, but that his action and the action of his friends has been dictated by a strong opinion that the question is one that should be settled by Parliament, and not by what he calls an Administrative Body sitting in Dublin. He does not say what kind of proposal he himself or his friends would support on the floor of this House. I think my hon. Friend would not expect me to go into the subject to-night. As the House and everyone knows, it is one of extraordinary complexity, one of great difficulty, and one that requires the most delicate consideration. I can only assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am just as alive as he is to the fact that the bulk of opinion in Ireland is favourable to the inclusion of the Christian Brothers' Schools within the scheme on terms which shall not entirely upset the existing system of education in Ireland. I am told that in Ireland the mixed system
    614
    is in force over a great extent of Ireland, but I can assure my hon. and learned Friend, and those he represents, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway (Colonel Nolan), that we have the subject fully in mind, and will do the best we can, even in the midst of other pressing engagements, to see our way to some settlement, but I can make no promise, I can enter into no pledge, only give that general assurance. I am aware of the importance of the subject being settled before the 1st January, 1894.
    MR. JACKSON: There are two points I would wish to refer to. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M Healy) wished the House to understand from his remarks that there had been some delay on my part in dealing with this question.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I said you waited until the last day.
    MR. JACKSON: And by that statement he wished the House to believe there had been some unnecessary delay, otherwise I do not see the object of the remark. The House will remember this Bill was almost the last business transacted by the House, and so close was it run that a verbal mistake that was made in the Bill we refrained from altering because there was not time to send it down from the House of Lords to have the necessary Amendment sanctioned here. I forget the date of the passing of the Bill, but it was towards the end of June, and if the House thinks that at such a time, with so much work in hand, with so much to do, the lapse of about three weeks was an unnecessary length of time, I am willing to leave it to the House.
    An hon. MEMBER: It was more than three weeks.
    MR. JACKSON: I understood the hon. and learned Member to say the 22nd of July.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The date of the letter of the right hon. Gentleman was the 11th of August.
    MR. JACKSON: Even though it were, I have explained this occurred at a time when there was so much work to do that I do not think there was any unnecessary delay. The other point I wish to refer to is that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley). I think he is

    615
    mistaken as regards the application of the date of compulsion to this particular question. The question of the Christian Brothers' Schools became a question of greater importance to them by reason of the freeing of education from school pence in the other schools in Ireland; but this took place on the 1st October, nearly six months ago, the date for compulsion is 1st January, l894, there fore there is, so far as I am able to judge, no point in the date of compulsion; that does not affect the Christian Brothers' Schools at all. I think it does not affect them at all, because, if children are in attendance at the Christian Brothers' schools, they are free from compulsory action—the fact of the children attending frees them from any action that could be taken against them or their parents. No doubt the question is made more pressing by the fact that the other schools in Ireland have, most of them, been freed, and, therefore, the Christian Brothers' Schools are placed at a disadvantage greater than before if they had to compete against free schools. So far as the date of compulsion is concerned, I do not see that it affects the question at all. As regards the admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools and the Education Commissioners, I say nothing on that question; the right hon. Gentleman "will deal with it in his own time and in his own way. I quite admit the difficulty of the question he has to deal with, but I wish to point out, as far as we were concerned, there was no unnecessary delay considering the enormous amount of work; the Election was shortly coming upon us, and, therefore, I do not think the hon. Member for Louth haw any cause of grievance.
    MR. SEXTONwas scarcely disposed to accept the apology which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. JACKSON: I made no apology.
    MR. SEXTON: Then the explanation which he had made concerning the period which had elapsed between the rising of the House and the Election. The Bill passed in June, but the letter of the right hon. Gentleman was not written until August, and he (Mr. Sexton) should have thought that he would have considered it expedient to have written at a much earlier date than he did. He did not write until the eve
    616
    of his exit from Office, although he had promised to deal with the matter immediately. But the unfortunate matter was that the letter was written by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose, avowed again and again in debate, of bringing the schools of the Christian Brothers and other schools within the limits of the National system of education. But there was another point the right hon. Gentleman saw no importance in—that was the date of compulsion. In his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion that was a matter of considerable importance. The Education Act applied only to the cities and towns of Ireland, and not to the rural districts. In those cities and large towns the Catholics had no option but to send their children to the Christian Brothers' Schools. But the Christian Brothers' Schools insisted upon receiving a fee in order to keep up their schools, and therefore, if free education was to be given in all the other schools, it would become a very serious matter for the Christian Brothers. It had been admitted over and over again in the House that they could not compel a parent to send his or her child to a school in reference to which they entertained a conscientious objection.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member misses the point of my remark. I said they would be in attendance on the 1st January as much as they are now.
    MR. SEXTONsaid that that depended. There was now no compulsion, and from the 1st January there would be compulsion, which would be the law, and unless they provided a fee for the parent to send his child to school, the compulsion would be a dead letter. Could not the right hon. Gentleman sec the difference between a state of law where the parent had no option but to send his child to school and the case where they could not force the child to attend on account of the conscientious objection of the parent? He (Mr. Sexton) saw a fundamental difference, and he believed the law would be brought into discredit, and disgrace would be brought upon the Imperial Parliament. Therefore he said that before the 1st January next it was necessary to make provision for constituting free and compulsory education in all the schools alike. He heard with considerable satisfaction the

    617
    statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), but he did not think it contained anything new, because they had discussed this whole question on a recent Wednesday, when the hon. Member explained the views that he held. The Christian Brothers bad done all they could to conform to the Rules and Regulations. They had agreed to an examination of the pupils, they admitted inspection, and there was only one small and trifling question now left in dispute. The Christian Brothers had gone as far as they could to bring themselves into harmony with the existing system of education in Ireland. From what had occurred in the Debate the other Wednesday he expected the right hon. Gentleman would exert himself between that time and the 1st January to bring about such an agreement. He hoped he might take the promise of that Wednesday in an unrestricted sense. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would feel sufficient interest in the prosperity of the Education Act to bring it into real operation between this and the 1st January. He admitted the present heavy duties of the Government, but he was so sensible of the great value of the Christian Brothers, and of the great importance generally of this question, that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would further inquire into it, and see if by the exercise of a little common sense something could not be done to complete the system of National education in Ireland.
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid, they all desired that the Christian Brothers should derive whatever benefit they could from the system of National education, and there was, he thought, very little difference between the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). But what they were determined upon was this: that there should be no upsetting of mixed education in Ireland by the action of the National Board in Dublin without discussion and the assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That was the position which he and his friends took up. The hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. S. Wallace) said that he spoke on behalf of the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland. He (Sir T. Lea)
    618
    denied that he represented anything of the kind.
    MR. S. WALLACEsaid, that he only opposed the views of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid, that that was not so. The hon. Member had asserted in the House that he represented the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland.
    MR. S. WALLACEsaid, that he was a resident in Belfast, a native of Ulster, and was entitled to speak regarding the Presbyterian feeling there.
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid, that the hon. Member did not attend the meetings of the General Assembly in Belfast, and, therefore, he knew nothing of the resolutions they had passed there.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is rather deviating from the subject before the House.
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid, that what he wished to state was that the Presbyterian General Assembly had passed resolutions in favour of the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) and entirely against the views of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. S. Wallace). The opinion of the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland was that a mixed system of education had been very beneficial to all classes, and they were determined to oppose any other system as far as they could.
    MR. KNOXsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the feeling in the North of Ireland as being contrary to that stated by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. S. Wallace), but there was this one fact in favour of the hon. Member for Lime-house, and that was that in Belfast and all the other large towns in the North of Ireland Presbyterians had no separate schools of their own. He entirely agreed with the remark that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), that the question as regards the Christian Brothers was intensified by the fact that free education had been given last year. At the present moment in the South of Ireland Catholics had to pay school fees, while the Protestants could send their children to school free, and he maintained that that was an injustice which ought not to be allowed to go on longer than the Government could possibly help. It was a great in-

    619
    justice that the Christian Brothers should get no support for their schools except what was derived from the fees of the children. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be able to go as far as the Government had gone in England in support of voluntary schools. The Christian Brothers' Schools were nothing more than voluntary schools like they had in England, and which obtained grants at the present time.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought it was ridiculous to refer to the resolutions passed by the Presbyterian General Assembly, and it would not have been more ridiculous to say that Rules passed by Catholics should govern the teaching of Scotch Presbyterian schools. The Catholics did not want to interfere with the education of the Presbyterians or any other non-Catholic denomination, but the Presbyterians were most anxious to interfere with the Christian Brothers' Schools. What he rose chiefly for was to see if he could extract a little more information from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1st of January, 1894, as the date when compulsion would come into force. What he wished to know was whether that would be in time to get the matter on the next year's Estimates? If it was a little later than the 1st of January then they would not be able to get the matter on the Estimates, and they might have to wait for another 12 or 14 months. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to frame his letter in time, so that they might get the question on next year's Estimates. The second question he wished to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would again bring this matter before the attention of the National Board, and whether they would abide by the decision of the majority of the Board?
    Resolution agreed to.

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 8th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.
    "That 76,700 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, including 15,005 Royal Marines."
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and
    620
    that. Mr. Secretary Campbell-Bannerman, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth, and Mr. Woodall do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 266.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, &c.
  Ordered, That a Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures, have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings, and any amended clauses of Bills committed to them.—(Sir Henry James.)

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 124.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 124.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES (TIMBER) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Furness, Bill to amend the provisions of the Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," and of the Acts confirming the same, which relate to the carriage of Timber, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Furness, Sir James Whitehead, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir John Blundell Maple, Mr. Storey, Mr. Brand, Mr. Alpheus Morton, and Mr. Bennett.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 267.]

  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Macdonald, Bill to provide for the Registration of Teachers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Grove, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 268.]

  DEATH CERTIFICATION.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the sufficiency of the existing Law as to the Disposal of the Dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and especially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect.—(Dr. Cameron.)
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.