Commons Sitting of 2 May 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, considered.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,):

    1725
    A Motion stands on the Paper in my name to insert in page 28, after Clause 40 of this Bill the following clause:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to impose upon the Postmaster General the obligation of transmitting, under the provisions of 'The Telegraph Act, 1868,' or any agreement between the Postmaster General and the Company made in pursuance thereof, any larger number of telegraphic messages of the Company free of charge than he would have been bound to transmit had this Act not become law."
    The clause, as you will see, is one to prevent the extension of what are called the free messages privileges. The Directors of the Company have agreed to the arrangement that has been provisionally entered into with the Post Office and the General Manager of the Company by which a commutation of the privilege has been agreed to, and which will be, I think, an arrangement that will be satisfactory to the Company and certainly also to the Post Office. It will not, therefore, be necessary for me to move the clause, and perhaps I may be justified in saying that the Post Office has come to terms with many of the principal Railway Companies both in England and Scotland. In England we have arranged with the Midland; the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire; and the London and South-Western Companies; and in Scotland, with the Highland and the North British Companies. To-day I have received a communication from the Great Northern Company, stating that they are willing to come to terms on a similar arrangement by which these free messages privileges will be commuted. I trust the other companies will shortly come to an arrangement in the same way.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  RECKLESS CYCLE RIDING.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the reports in the daily papers of the death of one child and the serious injury to another at Garstang caused by
  1726
  persons riding bicycles; whether he is aware of the fact that the cyclists escaped, and are at present unknown; if he is aware of the frequency of serious accidents caused by reckless cyclists; and if he will consider the advisability of proposing some scheme of registration of bicycles and tricycles, such as obtains in Paris, for the purpose of assisting the identification of riders of these machines in cases similar to the Garstang one?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am informed that the accident at Garstang to which my noble Friend refers was caused by a bicyclist accidentally running into a perambulator which contained two children. At the time their injuries were thought to be serious; but I am happy to be able to state that the doctor attending them now reports that they have both quite recovered from the effects of the accident. The cyclist did not run away, but fell off, and helped to pick up one of the children. His name is known, and he states that he shouted to the girl in charge of the children; but she seemed to let the perambulator go, and he ran into it. Such information as I have does not appear to show that the number of accidents caused by cycles is out of proportion as compared with those attributable to other vehicles. I find that, in the Metropolis, for the year 1891, out of a total of 5,637 persons injured by vehicles and horses in the streets, there were 337 cases of injuries attributable to cycles. The question of the registration and numbering of cycles has been considered by the Metropolitan Police; but it is found to be attended with great practical difficulties, and the Commissioner has formed the opinion, in which I concur, that the existing law, if vigorously enforced, is sufficient for the protection of the public.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERIES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has yet made his promised inquiry into the need for additional cruisers on the north-east and west coasts of Scotland to protect the fishermen from trawlers?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): H. M. S. Jackal and the cutter Daisy are under a special and excep-

  1727
  tional arrangement, made early in the century, at the disposal of the Scotch Fishery Board for the purpose mentioned in the question. The Admiralty have never admitted any obligation to extend this service; but the question has recently been, and now is, the subject of correspondence with the Scotch Office, and at present it would be premature to make any additional statement.
  MR. MACFARLANE: What power is there to enforce the law against trawlers except by means of the cruisers?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: That question must be addressed to the Scotch Department.

  THE M'KINLEY ACT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the provisions of the 6th section of the United States Act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the Revenue, to the effect that all such articles of foreign manufacture as are usually marked shall be plainly marked in legible English words so as to indicate the country of their origin, have led to any diplomatic remonstrances at Washington on behalf of this or any other country; and if analogous conditions are exacted by any other nation on the importation of foreign goods?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): No representations with reference to the M'Kinley Act have been made, either by the present or by the late Government. I am not aware whether any diplomatic remonstrances have been made at Washington by other nations, or whether analogous conditions are exacted in other countries.

  THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that a sum of £92,447 16s. l0½d. was expended on jigs, gauges, cutters, drills, and other special tools for the production of the Lee-Metford magazine rifle, he will state what number of magazine rifles were manufactured during the year 1891–2, or give the proportion which each rifle manufactured during that period bears to £18,489 11s
  1728
  4½d. written off as depreciation on such jigs, gauges, cutters, drills, and other special tools for the year 1891–2; and whether any material alteration has been found necessary in the jigs, gauges, cutters, drills, and other special tools for the year 1891–2; or whether any of them have been abandoned since the manufacture of the Lee-Metford rifle was started; if so, what has been the outlay on such alterations or for abandoned jigs, gauges, cutters, drills, and other special tools, and why is no separate account given of such outlays in the annual accounts of the Ordnance Factories for the year 1891–2?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The production of magazine rifles in the Ordnance Factories in 1891–2 was 71,554; so that the depreciation on special tools amounted to about 5s. 2d. per arm produced. There have been certain alterations involved by the adoption of an improved pattern. These changes were completed in 1892–3, in the accounts of which year their costs will be duly shown.

  THE BALLANTRAE BANK FISHERY.
  MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that beam trawlers were working within the prescribed limits off Ballantrae Bank on Friday, the 21st instant, and Monday, the 24th instant, and that great damage was caused to the lines of the coast fishermen on both those occasions, he will order a cruiser to be stationed between Loch Ryan and Campbeltown, to see that the orders and bye-laws of the Fishery Board are enforced?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The Admiralty would not think it proper to send a vessel within the jurisdiction of the Scotch Fishery Board, whose duty it would be to deal with the case supported by my hon. Friend. As it appears, on inquiry, that the cutter Daisy is about to be repaired, another vessel of the same class can be sent to take her place if required.

  LIGHTS ON THE SCOTCH COAST.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has recently received a representation from the Committee of Lloyds'

  1729
  that the need of additional lights and fog signals on the coast of Scotland has been accentuated by the great increase in the number of vessels which now approach the cast coast from the Atlantic round the North of Scotland; whether he is aware that nearly 700 vessels, with a tonnage exceeding 630,000 tons, passed Dunnet Head Signal Station in the year 1891; whether he is aware that there is no fog signal between the Atlantic and Aberdeen, although the northern passage is now used by so many vessels coming to the east coast and the Baltic; and whether, either from the Mercantile Marine Fund or otherwise, as soon as the lights and fog signals on the English coast already determined upon have been completed, steps will be taken to erect lights and fog signals on the headlands and islands of Scotland as recommended by Lloyd's Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): To the four questions of the hon. Member the replies are as follows: — (1) Yes. (2) The signal station referred to belongs to Lloyd's, who have furnished the figures quoted in the questions. (3) No. Two fog signals have been recently established on Fair Isle, and another is in course of erection on Rattray Head. (4) Considerable sums for some years past have been, and, at the present time, are being, expended in Scotland. And whatever applications may come to me from the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses will, so far as the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund permits, receive careful consideration; but the condition of the Fund precludes the possibility of large expenditure on new works.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Commissioners of Northern Lights have made repeated applications to the Board for a grant from Parliament for additional lights on the north-west coast?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I should be glad to have notice of that question. I have no doubt they have made such application, but I must point out that in recent years the cost of coast lighting has greatly increased, and has been in excess of the money obtainable from the Mercantile Marine Fund.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that out of this
  1730
  Mercantile Marine Fund, which is obtained by a levy on ships and sailors, a sum of £120,000, or thereabouts, is abstracted to cover the expenses of inspection and maintaining clerks at Whitehall?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not think that that arises out of the' question. Nothing whatever is derived from a levy on sailors.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Board of Trade for offences against the Merchandise Marks Act, and with what results; and if the Board employs any Inspectors for the enforcement of the Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There have been nine prosecutions, four of which resulted in a conviction, three were dismissed, and two withdrawn, and others are under consideration. No Inspectors are employed, and none were ever contemplated under the Act.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: May I ask whether, looking at the great inconvenience caused to traders by the way in which they are harassed by this Act and its absolute uselessness, he will consider——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There are a good many assumptions in that question.

  LINLITHGOW PALACE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is correct that a fever hospital is proposed to be built on the grounds adjoining Linlithgow Palace; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent the proposal being carried out?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have to state that the site proposed but not yet acquired for the hospital referred to in the hon. Member's question is on the north-east side of Linlithgow Loch, and is distant, I am informed, not less than 400 yards from the nearest point of the Palace grounds. I regret to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find sites for hospitals; but, if this site is resolved on, it must come before the Board of Supervision for approval, and, as is always the case, any objections will then be considered.

  ST. ASAPH CEMETERY.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS, &c): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that within the last few mouths graves have been opened in the St. Asaph Cemetery in which the coffins are respectively interred within 15 inches, 18 inches, and two feet six inches from the surface; and whether any minimum depth at which coffins must be interred is prescribed by public authority; if not, whether he will take steps to have a minimum depth prescribed?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have not yet been able to ascertain whether the facts are as stated in the question, but the Inspector will visit the place as soon as possible. The cemetery appears to be a private one, not at present under the authority of the Secretary of State; but by the regulations under which it is conducted, no interment can take place unless a space of four feet is allowed between the top of the coffin and the surface, and the vicar informs me that he has repeatedly called the sexton's attention to the regulations. If I find it necessary I will take steps to have the cemetery placed under the Home Office Regulations, under which no coffin can be buried within four feet of the ordinary level of the ground, unless it contains the body of a child under 12 years, when it shall not be less than three feet below that level.

  CROWN LANDS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the duty of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to defend public rights in Crown Lands against private encroachment by enclosure or otherwise; and whether the subject of encroachments on public rights of way and of common pasture will be considered by the Welsh Land Commission?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): It is the duty of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to defend the Crown rights in Crown lands against private encroachment; but it is the duty of local bodies representing the public to defend public rights whether in Crown or private lands. The question in paragraph 2 appears to be one for the
  1732
  Commission referred to, and not for the Treasury. I would suggest to my hon. Friend to endeavour to obtain powers for Parish Councils to defend such public rights.

  THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Congo Free State has established any post, military or otherwise, in the Nile Valley, south of Khartoum; whether Her Majesty's Government has expressed to the parties interested any disapproval of such extension on the part of the Free State into a district which was never contemplated as within its area of influence; and whether he will, at an early date, lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence that may have taken place on the subject?
  *SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government, in reply to repeated inquiries, have been informed by the authorities of the Congo Free State that no Report whatever has been received of the establishment of any post in the Nile Valley. Those authorities are aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, but they have not admitted that orders inconsistent with those views have been given to the leaders of the expedition which seems to have gone with some undefined object in the direction of the Nile. Papers cannot be laid at present.

  DOCKYARD WORKMEN AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty upon what scale is compensation given to the establishment or other workmen in Her Majesty's Dockyards, or their representatives, in the case of injury or death incidental to their work?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I would refer the noble Lord to Parliamentary Paper No. 349, of 1887, which contains the information he desires.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Will it explain if the compensation given in these cases comes in in all cases of accident?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member will find all the information in the Paper.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Will it also explain whether the regulation applies to workmen not actually on the establishment?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONYes; I believe so.

  THE PARCEL POST IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the suggestions in favour of a revised scale of charges for the conveyance of parcels in rural districts, forwarded to his department by Mr. Wright, of Harleston; and whether he will take into consideration the desirability of introducing a new scale?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The subject was carefully considered when the Parcel Post was first instituted, and the objections against a rate dependent upon distance were found to be insuperable. I am not prepared to propose any alteration of the present system.

  THE ANGORA TRIALS.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the forthcoming trials of political prisoners at Angora, and in view of the fact that the British Vice Consul in that town is a permanent resident, and occupies therefore a position of some difficulty and delicacy, the Foreign Office will consider the advisability of sending a Consular officer to Angora for the special purpose of watching the trials and making a full Report?
  *SIR E. GREY: The Secretary of State does not consider it advisable to send a Consular officer specially to Angora. As has already been said, Mr. Newton, the Vice Consul, will report upon the trials, and there is no reason to suppose that the fact of the Vice Consul being a resident at Angora will prevent him from making a full and accurate Report.

  TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in consideration of the exceptional difficulty at the present moment of
  1734
  obtaining teachers for small country schools, he would temporarily extend the provisions of Article 52, and allow pupil teachers who have obtained a place in the second class in the Queen's Scholarship Examination, if specially recommended by the Inspector on the ground of their practical skill as teachers, to be recognised as provisionally certificated teachers?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I am not at present satisfied that there is an exceptional difficulty in obtaining teachers in small country schools, if adequate salaries are offered. But I will make inquiries; and if I find that such is the case, I shall be happy to consider the proposal made in the question of the hon. Member.

  BOARD SCHOOL CHILDREN AT CHURCH.
  MR. BAKER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education by whose authority, and under what regulation (if any) of the Education Department, the children of the Board schools in the parishes of Denmead and Hambledon, in the County of Hants, are inarched to the public services of the Church of England on Ash Wednesdays and on Church festivals; and, if such practices are contrary to the law, will he take the necessary steps to have them discontinued?
  MR. ACLAND: These two schools are only transferred to the Board for use on certain days, and Ash Wednesday, together with other Church festivals, is expressly excluded from the transfer. But the Board appear, by permission of the managers, to have held a meeting of the school on Ash Wednesday. The Board, in respect of the details of that meeting, violated the Time Table, and no religious instruction in the school was given on that day. Although it is contended by the managers that at the conclusion of the secular instruction the school was dismissed, it is obvious that the children may have attended church under the impression that such attendance was part of the school meeting. The attention of the Board has been called to the matter, and I understand that there will be no repetition of this irregularity.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY AND HOME RULE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, as he has been good enough to authorise the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary to allow a central meeting of delegates to be held in Dublin on the proposed terms of disbandment, he will extend the favour so as to permit one constable to be sent from each county, having regard to the difficulty there would otherwise be in selecting the 11 representatives?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Inspector General of Constabulary has in his discretion issued an Order directing that 11 representatives be selected for conference in Dublin—namely, two from each Province, one from Belfast, one from Cork, and one from the Depot. He cannot alter this arrangement and allow one constable from each county; nor does he see any difficulty in having the selection made under the terms of the Order issued.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that any special expenditure incurred by the Port Sanitary Authorities of the Kingdom to prevent the importation and spread of cholera will be for the benefit of the whole Kingdom, while any neglect at the ports would be injurious to the whole Kingdom, whether he is prepared to reconsider his refusal to grant some assistance from the Imperial Exchequer towards such expenditure so far as it is special; and whether he is aware that the Associated Chambers of Commerce have recently passed resolutions affirming the justice of the demands of the Port Sanitary Authorities for such Imperial assistance?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have nothing further to add to what I said to the deputation which waited upon me the other day.
  MR. FOSTER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that something like a breach of faith has been committed by an officer of the Local
  1736
  Government Board going to Lowestoft and instructing the Town Councillors there as to the steps which should be taken against cholera, and making a statement that the Local Government Board would not contribute a farthing towards the cost unless their recommendations were carried out in their entirety? The gentleman named is Dr. Copeland.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I know nothing about that.
  MR. FOSTER: I will repeat the question.

  DREDGING AT THE NORE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of depositing the dredgings from Sheerness on the Barrow Deeps, instead of east of the Nore Light, on the Kent and Essex fishing grounds?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The dredgings from Sheerness are deposited off the Nore, by means of small hopper barges, towed by tugs, which are not adapted to going so far as the Barrow Deep. After the completion of the Ship Channel new arrangements will be made, and the question of deposit at the Barrow Deep will, doubtless, be considered with other alterations.

  THE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Artillery Volunteers will be armed with the Martini rifle?
  MR. WOODALL: Twenty-three corps have already been armed with Martini-Henry carbines. The remaining corps will be so armed as soon as the carbines are ready, which will, it is hoped, be during the present financial year.

  THE DEER FOREST COMMISSION.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a statement that the Deer Forest Commission intend to ask the people of Raasay and Brace-dale to give evidence at Portree, which is about 35 miles distant; and whether he will make arrangements so that the Royal Commission shall hold meetings within a convenient distance of the people's homes, as Lord Napier's Commission did in 1883?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I can only say that the mode of conducting the inquiry referred to is a matter which lies entirely within the discretion of the Highlands and Islands Commission, and I am not prepared to interfere with their discretion without very grave cause. I may say that people in that part of Scotland think no more of going 35 miles by steamer than a person in London thinks of taking a hansom cab for a short distance.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the expenses of these witnesses are paid, especially if they have to stay a night at Portree?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Chairman of the Commission thoroughly knows the Highlands, and I am quite certain he will see that the witnesses are not put to unnecessary expense.
  MR. A. C. MORTON; But will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the expenses of these poor people shall be paid?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I will send a copy of these questions to the President of the Commission. I cannot interfere with him.

  THE SOLWAY FISHERMEN.
  MR. ROBERT REID (, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is prepared to accept such Amendments to the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill as will continue in favour of the Solway fishermen the exemption as to trawling reserved to them in the Herring Fishery Act of 1889?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government, on their own responsibility and on full information, excepted the Solway Firth in the Herring Fishery Act of 1889. I have satisfied myself that they were right, and am prepared to accept an Amendment which will permit the continuance of the exemption to which my hon. and learned Friend refers.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Is it not a fact that since the passing of the Act a separate inquiry has been held into the Solway fishing, and did not the Committee recommend certain modifications and restrictions?
  MR. R. T. REID: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Commis-
  1738
  sion does not, and never did, possess the confidence of the people in the neighbourhood?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I understood no evidence has been brought forward which will shake the main fact—that the fishing in the district is not what is called trawling, but is a very mild form of it conducted in waters where no other fishing can be pursued by the ordinary process.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL MANAGERS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will reconsider the proposed changes in Article 82 of the Code, under which inconvenience will be caused to managers of voluntary schools who have no office or paid clerks; and whether the Article, as it stood in 1892, gave every reasonable facility for the investigation of the school reports and accounts?
  MR. ACLAND: I do not think that the proposed changes need re-consideration. The reason for the changed proposed is that those to whom facilities were offered by the Code of 1890 for inspection of the accounts and the report sometimes found that the information was not available to them when it was needed. I do not think inconvenience has arisen under the former arrangements, which were limited to 14 days. Similar arrangements can now be extended over the year. The Department would consider any representations that might be made to them as to the reasonableness of the time or the convenience of the place.

  ZULULAND.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any intention of reconsidering the sentence of banishment and imprisonment passed on Dinizulu and others concerned in the troubles in Zululand?
  MR. SCHWANN: Have the Government arrived at any decision with regard to contemplated changes in the administration of Zulu-land, and can he give the House any information as to the proposed arrangement?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): My answer will cover both questions. The whole of the Zululand questions, including that of Dinizulu's position, have received most careful attention; but, for various reasons, it is not likely that an early decision will be taken. I may add, that one reason for delay is that Mr. Osborn, the British Commissioner in Zululand, is about to retire on pension, and it is desirable to have the opinion of his successor before taking action.

  DISTURBANCES IN DROGHEDA.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in The Dublin Daily Express of 29th April, that on the preceding day the windows of the Whit-worth Hall, the Presbyterian Church, and St. Mark's Church, in Drogheda, were smashed by the mob returning from a Home Rule meeting in that town, and that the carriages of several Unionists returning from an Anti-Home Rule meeting were attacked, the occupants receiving severe injuries; and what steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice?
  DR. AMBROSE: Have not leading Home Rulers condemned this outrage, and offered to pay the expense of the damage done?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: Some regrettable occurrences did take place on the occasion referred to, though not, I am glad to say, to the extent indicated by the language of the question. Some panes of glass were broken, but the damage will be covered by a few shillings. Stones were thrown at the carriage of Colonel Coddington, striking three of the occupants, but not injuring them seriously. So far as the police are aware, this is the only carriage at which stones were thrown. I understand that some of the leading Nationalists of Drogheda have written to the rector expressing regret at what occurred, and offering to pay the expense of the damage done.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that on the occasion of the recent
  1740
  visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Dublin——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table the information promised by him two mouths ago regarding the Law of Shipowners' Liability prevailing in the chief maritime nations?
  MR. ASQUITH: The information which I have received is not yet complete; but the Foreign Office is doing what it can in the matter, and I hope I may be in a position to give the promised information before very long.

  PORTMAHOMACK HARBOUR.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the Scotish Office or the Scotttish Fishery Board with sufficient funds to meet the cost of putting the harbour at Portmahomack in such a condition that the fishermen may be able to enter the harbour with their boats at all states of the tide, and thus obviate the decline of this important fishing town?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a matter on which I have no information.
  *MR. WEIR: I will postpone the question for one week.

  SHOREDITCH GUARDIAN NOMINATION.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with respect to the nomination of Dr. Hunt by the Local Government Board as a Guardian for Shoroditch, what are Dr. Hunt's qualifications for the office and why he was appointed; whether he has up till now taken any active part in any local public work in Shoreditch; whether he is aware that Dr. Hunt was an unsuccessful candidate for the Board of Guardians last year, and whether it has been the practice of the Local Government Board not to appoint a defeated candidate as a nominated Guardian; and if he will consider the advisability of continuing the practice of the Local Government Board under the late

  1741
  Government to refrain from increasing the number of nominated Guardians?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): From my personal knowledge of Dr. Hunt I am satisfied that he is qualified to discharge the duties of a Guardian, and I am of opinion that he will render efficient aid in that capacity. With regard to the question of nominating an unsuccessful candidate, the Guardians of Shoreditch have sent me a pressing request to nominate a gentleman who was unsuccessful at the election in the present year, and, having regard to that gentleman's services and qualifications, I am disposed to comply with their request. The number of Guardians the Local Government Board are empowered to nominate for the parish of Shoreditch is six. At present only three have been nominated.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set down the North Sea Fisheries Bill (Committee) among the first Orders of the Day for an early date?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Bill referred to is in substitution of an Act passed by my Predecessor in 1888, and is merely to ratify an International Convention recently agreed upon. It is not usual to place such non-contentious measures among the first Orders of the Day, nor are they usually opposed at any hour. The former Bill was only 11 days on the Paper from its introduction to its Third Reading, and was passed through all its stages after midnight, whereas this Bill has been opposed night after night for about two months. I hope, having regard to its important and beneficent character, it will be allowed to go through to-night.
  MR. HENEAGE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, as this Bill is to carry out an international engagement, and could be carried in a few minutes, seeing that it is identical with a measure already on the Statute Book, and seeing that England is the only Power which has not passed legislation in pursuance of the international arrangement, he will give facilities for its passage?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I will answer the question if the right hon. Member will put it down.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take an answer from me. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow the Bill to come on after 12 o'clock it will be through in five minutes.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman distinctly refuses to put down this important Bill before 12 o'clock now that the Government have the whole time of the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The late Government passed the previous Bill after 12 o'clock without a word of discussion. The present Bill is identical with that passed by the late Government, and there has not been a single Amendment put down.

  THE LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL COMPANY.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that by the original Act of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company (10 Geo. III c. 114, s. 7) that company was compelled to enrol at the West Riding Registry all its contracts and deeds, so that the public were able to obtain access thereto and to get copies, and that by a subsequent Private Act (54 and 55 Vic. c. 177, s. 71) this provision was repealed; and, if so, whether he would, when opportunity occurs, recommend such legislation as would enable the public to obtain access to the contracts and deeds of the said Company which relate to matters in which they have an interest?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): I believe the statements in the question are correct. The question whether legislation shall be undertaken will be taken into consideration.

  THE HULL STRIKE.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that 50,000 persons, many of whom are women and children, are suffering in consequence of the Hull strike; and whether the Government will set apart one evening this week for discussing a definite pro-

  1743
  posal for bringing the dispute to a termination?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I can very well believe, in reference to the first part of the question, that it may be taken for granted that not only great inconvenience but considerable suffering must have resulted from the prolongation of the present state of things at Hull; but, notwithstanding, I hope the hon. Member will not think it due to any want of sympathy on my part if I say that I cannot, in the present state of the facts, hold out any encouragement in reference to the suggestion he makes. The Government have very strongly indicated their interest in the subject in the person of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has exerted himself, in conjunction with other hon. Members of this House desirous to obtain a settlement, and the result of their negotiation was that they did attain to what might be termed a definite plan for a settlement, which, however, undoubtedly has for the moment entirely failed. With regard to the intervention of this House, I consider it would be a very serious matter. Of course, if any question in the nature of a grievance is considered to have arisen at Hull or anywhere else, that is a fit matter for the consideration of the House; but as to the intervention of the House with respect to some definite plan, I must observe that every plan is indefinite until we know what it is. No such plan is suggested in the present question. I think the House will agree that it would not be seemly, nor politic, nor desirable that this House should attempt to interpose unless it were with some very definite and hopeful prospect of success, because such interposition would undoubtedly tend to excite expectations the excitement of which, without our being able to fulfill them, would amount to a public mischief.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give urgency to the Arbitration Bill supposed to be in charge of the President of the Board of Trade, and make it compulsory in its provisions as a definite proposal for meeting the present dispute at Hull?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, I think that is putting to me a very difficult question. My right hon. Friend
  1744
  is probably better able to answer the most important part of it than I am; but it appears to me that to ask this House to pass a Compulsory Arbitration Bill— though I am not about to condemn in the abstract the principle of such a measure—would require a good deal of consideration, and the strongest assurances that it would be received with satisfaction. I must confess that I do not at this moment see any likelihood of this Bill being available as a sudden and instantaneous remedy in the existing embarrassment.
  MR. DARLING: Is the House to understand that the President of the Board of Trade, in the recent negotiation in which he took part, was acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or as a private individual?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It could not be said to be on the part of Her Majesty's Government in an official sense, because, in an official sense, Her Majesty's Government had no right whatever to intervene; but I think that the Colleagues of my right hon. Friend— I myself and the rest of his Colleagues— viewed with great sympathy and goodwill his intervention, and very cordially desired that he might be able to bring about a settlement.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgency to the Bill in the charge of the President of the Board of Trade as now drafted?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: To take precedence over all other subjects? I do not think we ought to take a step of that kind, or alter the course of Government Business, unless it were with some real hope of a substantial and definite kind of being able to do good. Otherwise, I am afraid we should be exciting an expectation we should not be able to fulfil, which would be a public evil.

  SMALL LEASEHOLDERS AND THE CROFTERS ACT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will support the Bill now before the House to give effect to the recommendations made on the 10th May, 1892, by Leaders of the Liberal Party, that the provisions of "The Crofters Act, 1886," should be extended to small leaseholders?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We are disposed to do so.

  THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the possibility of suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule on Friday in order to allow time for a full discussion of the question of the appointment of County Magistrates?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Inasmuch as the discussion is likely to embrace the Three Kingdoms, I consider the suggestion conveyed in the question is not unreasonable, and I shall be disposed to move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule unless I bear there is a very strong feeling to the contrary sense.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government proposes to introduce this Session any legislation on the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I am sorry to say I am not in a position to make any announcement.
  MR. BARTLEY: Am I to understand that there will be no legislation this year?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member is to understand exactly what I say.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what Business it is proposed to take on Thursday and Friday?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We intend to proceed with Supply. There is a small matter in regard to the Employers' Liability Bill, too, which we propose to take. It will not occupy much time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will that be put down before Supply?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.

  CUTTING THE ATLANTIC CABLE.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Atlantic Cable was cut near Ballycarbery, County Kerry, the week before last, the only possible motive being a dispute between the Company and a tenant, through whose land the cable goes; whether he is aware that
  1746
  the said tenant demanded and received a sum of £20 before he would allow the Company's men to repair the cable; and whether, considering the great inconvenience caused to the public by such acts, he will take steps to see that their recurrence is prevented?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: The facts mentioned in the first paragraph are substantially correct. It appears that a sum of £25 was paid to the tenant on behalf of the Company in settlement of his claim. I am not quite sure to what extent the Government has either power or duty in a matter of this kind; but it is now under consideration.

  MILITARY INTERPRETERS.
  MR. NEVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether preference is given to officers qualified as interpreters in modern languages with regard to appointments to the Intelligence Department, Military Attachéships at European Courts, or special duties in Europe; and whether there is any practice excluding married Lieutenants from appointment to the Royal Horse Artillery?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The first part of this question is similar to the one of which the hon. Member for Warrington has given notice, and perhaps he will allow me to reply to it at the same time. Such appointments are given to those officers who are considered best qualified on account of their general professional acquirements, and proficiency in modern languages is, no doubt, one of the main qualifications. The inducement to officers to pass the interpreter's examination is the prospect of special employment in time of war, coupled in the case of three of the more difficult languages with a money reward for passing. My answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT SCHEMES.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether Section 14 of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," requiring the Charity Commissioners when making a scheme in relation to any charity, part of the endowment of which consists of land, to insert in such scheme a provision enabling the Trustees of such charity to set apart portions of the laud for allotments, does

  1747
  not make it the duty of the Charity Commissioners to insert such enabling provisions in schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, where part of the endowment is in hind; or, whether, in consequence of Section 15 of the above Act Act of 1882, further legislation is required in order to impose such a duty on the Commissioners in the case of schemes under the Endowed Schools Act?
  *SIR J. RIGBY: Under the Endowed Schools Acts the Charity Commissioners do not make schemes; they only prepare them for the Education Department, and the schemes so prepared are not passed by the authority of the Charity Commissioners. It has, therefore, been thought that such schemes are not within Section 14 of the Act of 1882, and Section 15 seems to support this view.

  ARMY CONTRACTS FOR BROOMS.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has caused inquiries to be made concerning the conditions upon which Mr. A. Smith, of Stratford, is executing his contract to supply brooms for the Army; whether the contractor is paying the recognised rate of wages and employing competent workmen; and whether the evidence which has been supplied to him was obtained from the contractor, his agents, or the workpeople?
  MR. WOODALL: The contract for brushes entered into with Mr. Augustus Smith, of Stratford, contained the usual condition to pay current wages. Mr. Smith denies the allegations made against him by the Brushmakers' Union. In consequence, his factory has been visited by a representative of the Department, and, although the Government work was not in hand at the time, he was enabled to inspect the processes of manufacture, which involve a sub-division of labour and the employment of steam-power to an extent not ordinarily followed in the brushmaking trade. The wages-books were also examined, and the Inspector conversed with the men employed. From what he reports, and on the evidence now before us, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for the intervention of the Department.
  MR. CREMER: Will the hon. Gentleman consent to receive rebutting testimony from the operatives themselves?
  MR. WOODALL: The hon. Gentleman will see that my answer is confined to an opinion on the evidence before us.
  *MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has caused inquiries to be made as to the sanitary condition of the premises of Mr. A. Smith, a Government contractor at Stratford?
  MR. ASQUITH: These premises were visited and reported on by the Inspector on 22nd March, and again yesterday. Certain defects in the roof and in the sanitary arrangements were pointed out to the firm at the first visit. These are now found to have been partially remedied, and the Inspector has required the further improvements which he considers necessary to be promptly completed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [1st May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  * ADMIRAL FIELD, whose speech on the preceding night had been interrupted by the Twelve o'clock Rule, said, that he was very sorry to be obliged to intrude this question on the notice of the House, having brought it forward three years ago. But he was impelled in the matter by a strong sense of duty, and he hoped that hon. Members would not accuse him of wasting the time of the House if he could succeed in inducing the Home Office to meet his reasonable demands so far as those ships which were under their jurisdiction were concerned. He felt that his demands were not unreasonable, and he must press them upon the attention of the authorities until he got some satisfaction of the grievances which existed, and which, he held, had an important bearing upon the interests of the country, and especially the Mercantile Marine. The question which he now raised directly concerned the welfare of

  1749
  some 4,000 boys. He reminded the House that the industrial and reformatory system of the country had now assumed huge dimensions. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer when Home Secretary some years ago had promised various reforms in that system, but, so far, nothing had been done. Bills to deal with the subject had been sent down to the House from the Lords, but no action had been taken upon them owing to pressure of business in that House. Worse than that, reforms which might be carried into effect without the need of legislation were not carried into effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when Home Secretary certainly did one very good thing. He took steps to prevent boys being committed to prison. In that he had the warm sympathy of every reformer, and of all who took an interest in the humane administration of the law and in the suppression of crime. In referring to this subject, he might say that it was difficult for him, in dealing with this question, to confine himself solely to the reformatory and the industrial school ships, they were so mixed up with the reformatory and industrial school system as a whole, and the Report of the Inspector did not separate the expenditure upon the ships from the general expenditure. Still, he wanted, as far as he could, to deal with this question from a nautical point of view. The reformatory ships were three in number, and 1be industrial school ships nine in number. What he wished particularly to impress on the House was indicated in the terms of the Motion of which he had given notice, but which he was not able to move, namely—
  "That in any measure dealing with reformatory and industrial schools provision should be made for the interchange of boys between school ships and land schools, so that lads deemed unsuited for a sea life should be discharged to land schools and vice versâ and that all training ships under the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act should be inspected by competent seamen Inspectors."
  He thought that the proposals in this Resolution wore obviously reasonable, and he hoped that the Under Secretary for the Home Department would accept them. The waste of life in the Mercantile Marine was enormous. There had been numerous cases of shipwreck which had tended to emphasise the unsatisfactory way in which our ships were
  1750
  manned, and the decay of that great Imperial Reserve Force—the seamen of the Mercantile Marine. The places of these seamen were being largely taken up by foreign seamen. He supposed that in the fierce competition of the shipping trade the shipowners did their best to run the ships at the least possible expense, and foreign seamen cost less money. But, still, they had no less than 15,000 sailing vessels between the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and nearly 7,000 steam vessels. These vessels were manned "nohow." He did not for a moment contend that it was the duty of the State to start training schools to supply the waste in the Mercantile Marine, but he thought that it was their duty to encourage those who were prepared to start such schools. It was with this view before him that he urged that the State should carry out a proper system of inspection of training ships just as was done with the National schools under the Education Department. The National schools were admirably inspected, but the system of inspection of school-ships was very defective and faulty. He did not, in saying this, wish to cast any reflection on the present staff. But they were under-manned. It was stated again and again in the Reports that the staff was inadequate for the work. There were no less than 52 reformatories (including the ships) in Great Britain, and seven in Ireland. There "were no less than 141 industrial schools (including the ships) in Great Britain, and 70 in Ireland. The total was 270. Of course, for the purposes of his argument as to inspection, he must eliminate the Irish reformatory and industrial schools, for they were under separate inspection. He might, however, in passing, say that he thought that it would be some information to the House to learn that these Schools were, till recently, inspected by the doctor of the Prisons Board, who, doubtless, would be well able to look after the health of the children, but could not be regarded as all that could be desired as an Inspector of Schools. Resuming his general argument, he pointed out that the number of children in the reformatory and industrial schools of Great Britain was 24,500, and in Ireland 9,500. In making the criticisms which he felt it his duty to make, he cast no reflection on those engaged in the work of these schools. They were doing splendid

  1751
  work—angels' work. They should be spoken of with the highest respect. If any hon. Members imagined that in raising this question he was going to find fault with institutions in which they took an interest they greatly misunderstood him. His sole object was to further their good work. He had already alluded to the subject of reform in the way of preventing children being sent to prison. There was still much to be done in this respect. He wished there could be some short measure introduced to put an end to the system. At present no boy could be committed to a reformatory unless he had first been sent to prison. With industrial schools it was not so. This was a change that they must strongly press forward. But there was the interest of the Mercantile Marine to which he had already referred. The late President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) had once remarked that any person who could point out how the Mercantile Marine could be efficiently supplied with seamen would be a public benefactor. But he thought that something might be done in that direction by the reformatory and industrial schools. Since the repeal of the Navigation Laws and the abolition of the system of apprenticeship, the country had drifted and drifted. They could no longer look to the Mercantile Marine as the great reserve in time of war as they could 40 or 50 years ago. They still drew their reserves from the Mercantile Marine; but the present state of affairs was such that they could only do this at the cost of great injury to the Mercantile Marine. He submitted that the reformatory and industrial school ships were not worked in the way that they should be to give the best results so far as the interests of the Mercantile Marine were concerned. He held strongly that boys should not be committed to a ship till they had reached 14 years of age. They ought to be sent to a land school. As it was, boys were committed to a ship when they were under 12 years of age, and were unfit to be sent aloft. No fewer than 1,138 boys under 12 years had been committed to these ships, and 4,025 over 12 years had been committed in five years. Now, how was that to be stopped? He complained of this state of affairs three years ago to the then Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley).
  1752
  He knew the hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet his views, but he had had considerable difficulty, he believed, with the Committees, and had probably had more difficulty in sending a Circular to those Magisterial Benches who were in the habit of committing boys to ships. The Magistrates were not the persons to send a boy to a ship, for they could not be judges whether the lad was likely to be a good sailor or not. They did not possess the nautical instinct. Some of these boys, half-starved — and more sinned against than sinning—were sent on a ship when they were quite unfit to go aloft. They ought to be committed to a land school, and the ships ought to be allowed to recruit from the land schools. There would be no difficulty about that. A certain area should be marked out near where a ship was located, and she ought to draw her boys from the land schools within that area. He did not want to go into details, but it was easy to understand that there were land schools in certain counties contiguous to the ships. The committees of these schools should be called upon by the Home Office to allow the ships to draw boys from their schools, and they should encourage the sending of boys who were unfitted for sea life to the land schools. What was needed was to pick out the best boys to make sailors. It was no good sending to the ships lads physically unfit for the hardship of sea life. They were only fit for food for sharks; they would never make sailors. When sent aloft many of them fell overboard and were drowned. But if the ships were to recruit from the land schools there would be hundreds of volunteers, and then the ships would have no difficulty in filling up the vacancies. Indeed, the ships would then be always full. He found that in the reformatory ships there were 3,334 boys against 3,800 places. Were these ships to be kept filled up it would be more economical to work them with the same staff'. It costs less per head when the ships were full than it did when they were incomplete. So on the score of economy he would urge on the Home Secretary to take the step he desired. He well knew, however, of the difficulties to be encountered in carrying out this proposal. He knew the land schools would not like their best lads to be taken away from them. But if it were pointed

  1753
  out to them, on behalf of the Home Office, what was required, he thought they would see their duty clearly in this matter. People were not aware of the amount of money expended on these institutions by the Treasury. He had taken the trouble to work the thing out. He found that in a year no less a sum than £373,000 was paid by the Treasury to reformatories and industrial schools, of which 12 were ships. More was paid for boys on ships than for those at laud schools. Six shillings per head was paid a week for boys on ships. Therefore, on the score of economy alone, it would pay the Government to recruit the boys from the laud schools at 14 years of age, and to keep them on the ship for a couple of years. Taking all the circumstances into consideration he would ask, Was his request an unreasonable one? He had in his possession some correspondence from Captains of these ships, some of whom were heart-broken at the difficulties they met with in carrying out their duties. They had urged him to press this matter so that some reform might be obtained. One Captain wrote to him saying that the vessels were not efficiently manned for safety or utility, and that the Home Office did not care as to the quantity or quality of the staff. There was no system for regulating the staff according to the number of boys in the ship. The number of the staff seemed to depend upon the influence of the Captain with the committee. The same correspondent went on to speak of the want of appliances for putting out fire on board ship. The present Inspector (Colonel Inglis) was an excellent officer, but he knew nothing about the requirements necessary on board ship for putting out fire. A Naval Inspector would see at a glance of the eyes what were the necessary requirements. Of recent years there had been some very serious fires on board these reformatory ships. It was grotesque that a ship should be inspected by an ex-officer of Dragoons. They might as well appoint a sailor to inspect the Life Guards. What was required was that naval officers should be appointed to inspect with regard to nautical matters. His point was, that if they adopted his plan they could got the work done for practically nothing. Naval men wore not persons who were always looking about for a lot of pay.
  1754
  Around the coast there were district Coastguard ships commanded by officers with skeleton crews. If application were made to the Admiralty, he believed permission would be granted that an officer on board these Coastguard ships should inspect the reformatory industrial ships in their vicinity. There would be no difficulty about this, but he had as yet been unable to get it done. He did not know whether it was because the Department were unwilling to accept suggestions from a friendly quarter or whether it was because Colonel Inglis and his staff wore against having any naval officer within their doors. He did know this: that naval officers were most friendly and cordial people to work with. Naval officers would adapt themselves to any position of things, and they were not always standing upon their rank and station. Personally, he believed it would be better to have an officer set apart to do the work, but it could be done as he had suggested. He did not care who did it so long as it was done. Of course, if the Department wished to have a man entirely under their control to go travelling about inspecting ships he would not complain. He had received various other letters on the subject. One officer wrote—
  "I would sooner be inspected by a chief bo'swain's mate than by the present system."
  Of course, Colonel Inglis was a gentleman, and he was received on board ship as one. He was always very nice and pleasant. But it was not always Colonel Inglis who went on board the vessels. Civilians often went on board. One captain wrote—
  "Sometimes we have a civilian come on board. He does not know the difference between a post-captain and an Esquimaux. and he treats us accordingly."
  Attached to every ship there ought to be a playfield on shore. In connection with that they had an illustration in the industrial school at South Shields, where they had an admirable playground. Boys wanted driving from one occupation to another. If one did not keep them always moving, somebody else would get them, and they could not be turned into good men. He held, and all the naval men who commanded these ships held, that there ought to be somebody as second in command superior to the seaman petty officer. In some ships they had such an officer.

  1755
  There ought also to be some uniformity as to the staff of officers, whose duty it was to instruct the boys. He had with him a Return by which he found that in one ship having accommodation for 250 boys, the staff consisted of 15 only. Another ship, having accommodation for 200 boys, had a staff of 13. That was a very wrong arrangement, and one with which he said the Home Office ought to deal. He quoted from a Return of 1890, and it must be that since 1890 the state of things had been improved in that respect. The Clarence, a reformatory ship, with accommodation for 300 boys, had only a staff of 11. Another ship, the Clyde, with 265 boys, had a staff of 20. The next, with 200 boys, had only a staff of 12; and another, with 219 boys, had a staff of 14 only. Then there was another ship with 400 boys, which it appeared had a staff' of only 17. The Formidable had 340 boys, and a staff of only 18; and the Southampton, with 237 boys, had a staff of only 14. A Naval Inspector going round would see these points, and would press them upon the Committee and upon the Under Secretary, and then a letter threatening them with the withdrawal of the grant would have a very salutary effect he had no doubt. In some cases the Local Authorities took much interest in these ships, and in some they paid fairly well. But he had a case in Scotland which fell very much below the rest. He was sorry for his Scotch friends. There was a statement on the matter in The Times a year or two ago, and there had been no change, because the Inspector in his Report made the same statement. The Times said—
  "In England, it appeared that the Local Authorities generally pay fairly and regularly for the children sent from their districts. But in Scotland the Local Authorities contribute nothing in many cases, with the result that they have no interest in watching the committals to see that none but proper cases are sent to the schools of detention, and that the schools themselves, being often filled with improper cases, are so over-burdened that their managers find it difficult to carry on the work efficiently. The figures given in illustration of this point are very remarkable, in England the total amount of the Treasury Grant for industrial schools in 1889 was £127,082, the Local Authorities contributed £91,000,: the Parochial Authorities £3,499, while £24,132 was received from subscriptions. In Glasgow the Treasury Grant amounted to £19,552: the Local Authorities contributed £6,341—Glasgow having a special Act in force enabling rates to be levied in support of
  1756
  such institutions—the Parochial Authorities contributed nothing, and private subscriptions amounted only to £552. In Aberdeen the Treasury Grant amounted to £4,969: the Local Authorities contributed only £928, the Parochial Authorities nothing, and private subscriptions amounted to only £479. In the rest of Scotland the Treasury Grant was £31,325: the Local Authorities contributed only £1,003, the Parochial Authorities nothing, while private subscriptions amounted to the comparatively respectable sum of £8,229. These figures speak for themselves. They show that in Scotland the Local Authorities do not adequately recognise their responsibilities for the maintenance of the schools of detention, and we cordially agree with Mr. Inglis when he says 'Such a state of things should not be allowed to continue. The law should lay down a fixed, compulsory minimum sum to be paid by the Local Authorities for each child committed, and they should not be permitted to make any arrangement with managers of schools to take children from their districts for any less sum. In my opinion, the fairest rule would be for the Treasury to contribute to no school where the local contributions do not equal the Treasury Grant.'"
  Those were points worthy the attention of the Home Secretary. These terms had been made to affect all the schools; but they applied with considerable force to all the ships. He wanted to emphasise his point that these schools should be inspected by Naval Inspectors; and in order to show the absurdity of the present system, he was obliged to refer to the Inspectors' Reports upon some of the ships. A captain wrote to him to say that if the Inspectors came on board they paid particular attention to the examination of the boys in their educational standards. A landsman reported of industrial schools—
  "They are good models of instruction; the boys are taught the use of the lead, and to steer."
  Of course—
  "The rule of the road, the use of the rocket signal, and to distinguish the lights on the British coast."
  They could not distinguish lights unless they went to the coast to see them.
  "The quadrille is taught them; there are good bands. I saw the boys drill aloft, lower the yard, lower the fore-topmast, and lower the jibboom."
  They did not lower the jibboom; they hauled it in. The Report went on to say—
  "The boys are trained in all that a sailor ought to knew in the early stage; the training is suitable and sufficient."
  That must be taken on trust—
  "There is a class for tailoring; the boys make their own clothes."

  1757
  Of course they did. Coming to the Report on the Clarence, he found that that said that the boys did their work before the Inspector, and that the nautical teaching was of a superior kind, especially with regard to the teaching of sailing and steering. And then there was a cumbersome sentence which sailors would laugh at. The Report on the industrial training of the Clio said that the boys received careful nautical instruction, and that the naval teaching was a success, the boys going aloft in the spring and summer. We should think they went aloft in the autumn as well. This was nonsense. He would pass that by and come to the Report on the Cornwall. There was there a great deal about education. Who read these Reports? Had hon. Members read them in that House? They formed a very bulky Blue Book; but if hon. Members had read it, they should call attention to this defect, and then ask the Homo Secretary to remedy it. Unless they did so, they would have failed in their duty. The Report said that at present no extra subjects were taught, and that boys discharged from a ship ought to have some knowledge of geography and navigation. That showed another necessity for a Naval Inspector. As to industrial training, the Report went on to say that there were 30 boys employed in the tailor's shop, 10 boys in the shoemaker's shop; that there were models for instruction, and that the usual nautical drills and exercises took place. The poor man who made the Report knew nothing about his subject, for he said nothing about sailing. Coming to the next ship, the Wellesley, the Report said that there were 24 tailors and a good band of performers. To read these Reports one would think that the object was to give us tailors, shoemakers, and bands; nothing was said in them about the result of the nautical training, about which something more was wanted. The Report then said that musical drill was taught. They did not want that. Then it mentioned that there were boats in which the boys learnt to row. It must be taken for granted that there were boats for that purpose on all these ships. Next, he would take the Shaftesbury, which was an admirable ship and an excellent worker. The Inspector said that the boys there received careful and regular instruction in the
  1758
  elements of nautical knowledge, that he saw the boys under competent seamanship instruction, that the requisite appliances for teaching seamanship were provided, and that the boys went aloft. That was the first word said in these Reports as to the boys going aloft and being exercised in that branch of their work. The Inspector proceeded to say that he examined the boys in cutlass drill; that there were 24 tailors and 22 shoemakers, 16 carpenters, and that gas was manufactured on board. That was a good ship. Now he came to the case of the poor Havannah! He found that she was not intended as an industrial ship. It was, in his opinion, to be regretted the Admiralty had not given her to be a ship school instead of a shore school. Nothing could be worse as a school than a ship, unless it were to be employed for teaching sailing. It was far better to have boys on shore. With regard to the next ship, it was stated that the boys went through their course of nautical instruction, and were made familiar with all branches of the Service, and that the port watch went through their exercise intelligently. The inference was that the starboard watch did not, because nothing was said about it. There were two watches—the port watch and the starboard watch—but the Inspector spoke of only one. He (Admiral Field) wanted to know what became of the starboard watch? The Inspector said that there was a competent staff of naval instructors, and that 30 boys were employed in tailoring. There was always something about tailoring. It also mentioned that six boys were employed as shoemakers, and that there was an effective band. The band was always coming in. Good performing boys' bauds were not necessary to learn boys sailing. Then they were told that 13 entered the Naval Reserve and 64 went to sea. They ought all to go to sea. Unless he could drive that into his hon. Friends opposite nothing would be done. With regard to the training ship Southampton, at Hull, they were told that every boy was taught to make his own clothes; that there were tailors, shoemakers, and that the Inspector saw the port watch at musical drill. But these ships did not exist to turn out tailors and shoemakers; sailors were what they wanted from them. The use of the rocket apparatus was taught; that was good so far as it went. As to the Cumberland

  1759
  industrial training ship, they were told that the boys were taught to make their own clothes. That went without saying, for wherever a ship was commanded by a naval officer, the boys were taught these things. It was then added that there were eight tailors; that the boys were taught the use of the cutlass, the rule of the road, to cut and splice a rope, and the use of the lead line. That was the first time lead line was mentioned. Of the next ship, they were told that there were 20 boys in the tailo'rs shop, four in the carpenter's shop, and a band. There was always a stress on the band. It was then said that the boys were taught the use of the cutlass, the rocket apparatus, and the rule of the road and knotting and splicing. He thought he had said enough to show his point. If they had a Naval Inspector they would have something more in the way of the Reports, and data would he forthcoming which would give them some idea of the nautical work which was carried on. He had failed to point out one great point he wished to emphasise—that was, the number of boys that came to us from these ships. By his Return, in five years out of the whole number of boys discharged from the reformatory ship—namely, 950— only 577 went to sea. Out of 5,204 boys discharged from the 12 ships, only 2,797 went to sea at all; that was to say, a little over 50 per cent. The point he wanted to press upon the Under Secretary was this: that every one of these boys in these ships under a proper system ought to go to sea—every one of the 5,000 in five years. If the ships were filled up with their full complement, only 3,800, by entering boys from the land schools at 14 years of age, and keeping them for two years, they would be able to turn out more boys by nearly half than was done now. Two thousand boys a year ought to be turned out if they were kept two years. That would not only be the best, but the most economical method of conducting these ships. He omitted to mention that the number of merchant seamen had fallen the last 15 years no less than 20,000—that was to say, there were 20,000 bonâ fide fewer British seamen than there were 15 years ago. That was a vital matter. Everything in this country depended on our sea power, and everything which would help us to improve the morale of
  1760
  the Mercantile Service by sending good lads into these ships—as might be done with a little trouble—would confer an inestimable blessing on the whole body of men in this country. This ought to be a matter worthy the attention of the Under Secretary and other politicians, to see that these ships, from which so much good might emanate under a proper system—to see that that proper system should be brought to bear upon them with the least possible delay. He had shown the enormous cost we paid for these ships, and that they cost 6s. per head for boys, and that only half the boys came to us at all. How long was this system to go on? Taking the money point of view—which was the lowest from which the question could be regarded —we did not get a return for our money; and if the boys did not come to us at all, they had far better be educated on shore, because, amongst other reasons, it was more difficult to detect offences committed by boys on a ship. The only excuse for having ships was to manufacture British seamen and to keep them to it. There was no difficulty about absorbing all the sailors the ships were capable of turning out; and he earnestly begged the Under Secretary to turn his mind to this question and see if he could not get some good out of this expenditure. He urged the sending of circulars to Magistrates who-were in the habit of committing these boys to these ships, urging them not to send boys of tender age, or at any rate under 13, though he maintained the age should be 14. Boys under those ages should be sent to the land schools. A circular should also be sent to the managers of the land schools urging them to work only in the best interests of the country and of the boys themselves. They all knew that at one time or another almost every boy longed to go to sea, either as a result of reading books or seeing ships, and it would be well for them to take advantage of that desire. But they must have strong and healthy lads who were physically fit for sea-life, and able to bear the hardships they would have to encounter. He felt sure that if the Home Secretary would only give his attention to this subject it would be a great blessing, and would throw new heart and life into the captains of these ships. But they must have a naval officer to inspect these vessels. The present

  1761
  system was a grotesque absurdity. A soldier could not inspect these ships to the satisfaction of anyone; find as regarded Colonel Inglis, the work put upon him was more than he could properly carry out.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): He has assistants.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he might have; but the assistants were not proper men to inspect these vessels, and Colonel Inglis, though he might be a good man, was not a suitable man to inspect ships, that took up the subject of nautical training, such as it was, for the money paid. The change would cost them nothing, for all they had to do was to make application to the Admiralty, who would, no doubt, grant one of their officers. Or the captain of the district Coastguard station might be called upon to inspect these ships, or to send an officer to inspect them for him. He apologised for the lengthy statements he had made to the House; but it was a very important matter, and he felt that he was only doing his duty in calling attention to it. He hoped The Under Secretary for the Home Department would give him some favourable reply which would carry consolation to the captains in the discharge of their onerous duties—men who loved their work, but wanted encouragement, and who asked to be inspected by someone competent to judge. He hoped that some good would come of it in spite of the objections of the Department, or he should be obliged to make himself very nasty and troublesome when the Vote came on again. He did not wish to do that; but unless he got a satisfactory reply, he should certainly move the reduction of the Vote, and raise another discussion on the subject. He only wanted good to be done, and he hoped the House would pardon him for having taken up so much of their time.
  *MR. LENGsaid, as he had for many years taken a personal interest in the management of one of the industrial training ships to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) had referred, he might interpose for a few moments between him and the Under Secretary of State (Mr. H. Gladstone.) The hon. and gallant
  1762
  Gentleman dealt chiefly with the nautical aspect of this question; but there was the point of view of the managers, subscribers, and the public at large. He cordially agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his contention that the Inspectors of those ships ought to be nautical men. The fact was, that they had too many retired half-pay officers of the Army intruded into many classes of work for which they were not especially fitted. There was a remarkable instance of that in the appointments a year or two ago of Inspectors of Cattle by the Board of Agriculture. For some reason unknown to the rest of the world it was supposed that to be a captain or a major of a regiment was a special qualification for dealing with the inspection of cattle. In default, however, of nautical Inspectors, there had been really no lack of nautical interest in the management of those ships. On the committee of the vessel in which he was more deeply interested they had had two excellent and distinguished naval officers who took the strongest personal interest in it, and spent much of their time on board the Mars training ship, and did as much as could be possibly done by any Admiralty Inspector to keep everything shipshape, and to give the youths on board the best possible preparation for becoming well-equipped seamen. Then the local managers of those ships were generally shipowners, shipbuilders, and retired shipmasters, who made a personal hobby of the management. It was also to be remembered that the captains of the ships were not landsmen, but officers who had served in the Navy—some of them with distinction—in all parts of the world. The gallant Admiral was, perhaps, not aware that a couple of years ago a number of those gentlemen came up to the then Under Secretary of State, and remonstrated against his proposal that the age should be raised to 14, and they satisfied the Under Secretary that it would be unwise to alter to the extent proposed the age at which boys were admitted. It was quite clear that much was done to prepare the boys for sea service. The Inspector's last published Report said—
  "There is a brig of 140 tons in which the boys cruise and are instructed in practical seamanship. The boys are taught all the usual nautical exercises and drills, such as the use

  1763
  of the lead-line, compass, and rocket apparatus, steering, the rule of the road, knotting and splicing, and carbine and battalion drill."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman had led the House to suppose that he would demonstrate that the management of those ships was both extravagant and wasteful. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought he had done so, but he (Mr. Leng), for one, doubted it, The whole aim and drift of the gallant Member's remarks had been to the effect that those ships ought to be placed much more than they were at present under Admiralty control, and conducted on the same system as the training ships for boys for the Navy. It was to be remarked that he had not given the House one word as to the expense of that system compared with the system under which the boys were trained at present. He had endeavoured, by studying the Naval Estimates, to discover what was the cost of the Naval training ships, and he had seen enough to satisfy him that the cost, head for head, was much greater than in the industrial training ships. The gallant Admiral had said that the Local Authorities were not contributing so much as they should. He overlooked that that was compensated for by the very liberal and generous subscriptions from the public, and it would be most unwise to do anything to alienate public sympathy. If they made those ships mere Naval and Admiralty drill ships, they would divorce from them that public interest which it was so desirable to maintain.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I never for one moment suggested that. I should utterly oppose putting them under the Admiralty. I only asked for a Naval officer to inspect.
  *MR. LENGsaid, he was very glad to hear it, and he cordially agreed that the inspection of those ships should be placed as soon as possible under a qualified Naval officer, although it was quite unnecessary to add greatly to the expense of the country with regard to it. There were different points of view with respect to the question of age. One of the main objects of our industrial and reformatory system was to take boys from the streets, where they were apt to drift into crime, and to prevent them from being sent to prison. Statistics showed that there had been during the last 20 or 25 years a most remarkable increase in the
  1764
  number of boys and girls now sent to those industrial and reformatory schools who would formerly have been in prison. As to the expense to which the gallant Admiral referred, that expense simply came in place of a much larger prison expenditure which would have to be made. The gallant Admiral knew the rule, "Learn young, learn fair." Several of the captains of those vessels believed they could scarcely get hold of the boys too soon, and statistics showed that the results of beginning to educate boys at 11 years of age were quite as good as from educating them at 12. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that no one should be admitted under 14; but if that rule were enforced many boys would have to be sent to the laud schools. No alteration was required to provide for an interchange of boys. The Committee of the Southampton, the industrial training ship at Hull, said—
  "We have always had, and now possess, every facility for the mutual interchange of boys between our certified industrial school ship Southampton and the land schools, of which we have availed ourselves whenever the circumstances arose necessitating the same. No difficulties whatever have ever been raised to this by the Home Office; but, on the contrary, we have received every facility in accomplishing the same, and no alteration is required or needed in the existing Home Office Regulations on the subject. It is impossible to ascertain precisely which boys are best fitted for sea life until about the expiration of their terms on board, and it is found that the physique of the boys, consequent upon the discipline and training of the ship, are much better than the land schools."
  To that extent the proposals of the hon. and gallant Member were unnecessary.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Only one ship.
  MR. LENGsaid, he had no doubt other ships would have the same experience if they adopted the same system. The Reports of the different training ships showed most excellent results. In 1888, 1889, and 1890, of 399 boys discharged from the Mars 356 turned out well. It was true that only some 60 to 70 per cent. of them went into the Navy or into the Mercantile Marine; but the others became good, industrious landsmen. Scores of lads in all parts of the world had shown themselves full of gratitude to those in command of the ship. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished that these ships should be used more for supplying boys for the Navy.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Not on any account.
  MR. LENG: Then for the Mercantile Marine?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Yes.
  MR. LENG: So far from receiving any encouragement to draft these boys into the Navy, every discouragement had hitherto been placed in the way of doing so; and, in fact, so many objections had been raised, that it had been found perfectly useless to attempt to put them into the Royal Navy. As to the question of expenditure on the Dundee, Hull, Bristol, and Clyde ships, the cost of these boys was only £20 per head, and that cost had been exceeded in several instances by the land institutions. As to the question of age, that was a very disputable matter, and he trusted the Under Secretary of State would not commit himself to going anything like the length which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed of preventing boys entering these ships before they were 14 years of age.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: In the Navy you do not take boys until they are over 14½— in fact, I believe the ago is now raised to 15 in our training ships.
  *MR. LENGsaid, as to the interchange of boys between the land schools and the school ships, there was nothing to prevent that being done already, and he thought that on this point there was much to be said in favour of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal. As to having competent seamen for Inspectors, he was at one with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He did hope that full credit would be given to the managers of these institutions, most of whom were moved by philanthropic motives to act as they had done, and who had conducted these institutions hitherto with the greatest success.
  *SIR E. HILLsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend had stated that the loss of life in the Marine Service was enormous. No doubt shipwrecks did take place with loss of life in the Mercantile Marine, as they also took place in the Navy. Such occurrences were very deplorable; but, so far as the Merchant Service was concerned, the loss of life was a diminishing quantity. That result was being brought about by the transference of the carrying trade from sail to steam, the latter being a
  1766
  much safer mode of conveyance than the former. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also said that shipowners took foreign sailors in preference to British seamen because they were cheaper. He was aware that that was not the fact. Foreign sailors were paid exactly the same amount as British sailors. Although foreigners were very good men, sober, industrious, and hard-working, still, if there was a large supply of British sailors and the British shipowner had the opportunity of doing so, he would, no doubt, give the preference to his own countrymen. The question of industrial schools was one in which he had taken a great interest for many years. He had in his own constituency the Formidable, which was commanded by a post-captain of the Navy, a most admirable man, who took no common interest in the vessel. He had for many years been on the Committee of the much-abused Havannah School at Cardiff. His hon. and gallant Friend had rather mixed up the question of industrial ships with that of vessels whose sole object was to train sailors for the Royal or Mercantile Marine. The origin both of the Formidable and the Havannah was this—Some philanthropic individuals thought it would be extremely desirable to have an industrial school where waifs and strays could be placed, and they borrowed from the Admiralty these two vessels, which they fitted up by public subscription for the purpose for which they were required. The public subscribed to these vessels, which also received a grant, and between the subscriptions and the grant they were maintained. The cost of their maintenance, he ventured to think, was very small. He believed in the Formidable, which was a training-ship where boys who went to sea were instructed in the higher nautical branches, the cost was about £17 per head. The Havannah was a rather humbler kind of school, and the cost there was about £13 per head for clothing, feeding, and educating the boys. He could not help saying that he had never more pleasure in the execution of his magisterial duty than when he was able to send a poor waif and stray to that ship for three or five years. He visited the Havannah every year, and he ventured to say that anybody who visited it and saw the results that were

  1767
  obtained at a small cost could not but feel rejoiced that such a vessel existed. He considered that to impose the age limit of 14, which had been suggested, would be extremely injurious in the case of these industrial schools. He did not at all quarrel with the suggestion that there should be a Naval Inspector to go round these vessels. There could be no difficulty about it. So far as the Formidable and the Havannah were concerned, the boys received as much naval instruction as could be expected. It was true that all the boys did not go to sea, but a very considerable portion of them did. These boys made excellent sailors, and many of them wore only too glad of the opportunity of going to sea. But should the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine be satisfied to draw their seamen from such sources exclusively? He had called attention to the deficiency of sailors on the Naval Estimates. Thousands of boys would gladly go to sea if they had the chance. Ships should be stationed along our coasts; the cost of the training would not be large, and be thought some arrangement might be made between the two branches of the sea service to bear some portion of this cost. The Industrial School Ships were doing good work, and no better use could be made of public money than by assisting in that work and giving it every possible encouragement.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,)said, the House would appreciate the motive of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would have general sympathy with the object he had in view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone at considerable length into a very wide field—considerably wider than that covered by the Motion which stood in his name. He did not propose, therefore, to go at this time into detail on the various points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had mentioned in connection with the general management of reformatory and industrial training ships. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken about the education of the boys, their diet, and other things, and had criticised the management. He could assure him that his remarks would have full consideration. With regard to one point which had been touched upon, it
  1768
  had been met by the hon. Member for Dundee—namely, as to the age of the boys. He agreed with his hon. Friend that that was a point which involved great practical difficulties and considerable differences of opinion. All he had to say was that that point was now under the consideration of the Home Secretary, who would come to a decision on the matter in a very short time. Another point mentioned in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—namely, that the industrial and reformatory training ship system was an extravagant and wasteful one, had been dealt with in a very cursory manner by him, and had left very little opportunity for reply. He thought, therefore, they might leave that part of it to the hon. Member for Dundee, who had given figures showing that even in the ease of land schools the expenses per head were higher than in the case of boys on training ships. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised this subject really upon the question of the desirability of improving the Mercantile Marine. That was a question which every hon. Member in that House had naturally a great interest in, and any proposal to improve in any way the Merchant Service of the country would always be received with respectful and sympathetic attention and consideration. But he would point out to the House that was a subject which was rather beyond the jurisdiction of the Home Office; and although the Home Secretary had a great many things to look after, the Merchant Shipping of the country was not exactly in his province. There were two main points which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. First of all, there was the interchange of boys between the land schools and the ship schools; and, secondly, there was the question of inspection. He would point out that the Government responsibility in this matter was not as the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the House think. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that this question was entirely under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. But hon. Members would remember that these schools were all under their own managers. The managers wore under obligations to the subscribers and the general public, and the responsibility of the Home Secretary was limited virtually to inspection, and

  1769
  to seeing that the conditions which it was generally understood should exist were carried out in consideration of the grant which the State made in support of these schools. The ship schools could not be dissociated from the system of industrial and reformatory schools throughout the country. The primary object of these schools was the improvement of the children committed to their charge; but whether or not there should be a nursery was too important and too large a subject to be dealt with in connection with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member. In looking at these schools, the first point to consider was reformation, and next nautical training. As far as the reformation side of the question was concerned, the results were extremely satisfactory. He agreed that it was very difficult to trace the boys and find out what had been their conduct after they had left these institutions. But, so far as they could be traced, it seemed that 80 per cent. of the boys from the reformatory and industrial training school s turned out very satisfactorily. Then they came to the question of nautical training, and the figures of the percentage of those who went to school from the reformatory and industrial ships for the last three years were in the case of the reformatory ships 68 per cent. and in the case of the industrial ships 56 per cent. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see, in the case of the reformatory ships there had been an improvement of 9 per cent. since he (Admiral Field) brought his original Motion forward in the House, and perhaps that result was due to the action which the hon. and gallant Gentleman then took. If so, he was sure the House would congratulate him upon it, and he hoped the same results would follow from the present discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to raise the percentage of those who went to sea; but the question was how they could do it.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Recruit from the land schools.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: But, even supposing they did that, they could not force all the boys who were put on these ships to go to sea.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Take those who will volunteer.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: He agreed they might improve the percentage; but they could not insure that the whole number should go to sea. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew quite well that when many of these boys grew up and became useful at different occupations, the parents, who perhaps had been neglectful in earlier years, urged that they would be of great use at home, and thus an influence would be exerted in the direction of wishing the boys to come home and not to go to sea. That was a state of things which they must look to, and no suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could touch that part of the subject. He quite agreed that it was most desirable to make the best of the boys they had got. Then there was the question as to whether anything could be done in the way of interchange. The fact remained that the managers of these land schools had a very great objection to the system of interchange, because interchanging meant the giving of new lamps for old, giving the best boys and taking from ships the worst. That was not a process which commended itself to the minds of judicious managers of land schools. The managers had an unwillingness to fall in with the scheme suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the Home Secretary had no power to compel them to consent to such a system of interchange. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was a very easy matter, and that all the Home Secretary had to do was to threaten to withdraw the grant if the managers declined to accede to the demand made. He was not at all sure what the House of Commons would say to any responsible Minister of the Crown who used that kind of throat to people in the position of responsible managers such as the managers of industrial schools. What did it mean? It would mean that they would go to these managers with regard to the supply of men for the Mercantile Marine, and practically say to them—"We do not consider your position. We do not consider you at all. If yon do not do what we want we will bring the industrial school system to a standstill until you consent." Was it worth while running that risk? The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew quite well that, even if they brought pressure to bear upon the managers, in all proba-

  1771
  bility it would only raise the percentages something like 10 or 20 per cent. Would a possible gain of 10 or 20 per cent. be such as to justify the Home Secretary in taking the drastic course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member? He quite agreed that if anything could be done in reason it ought to be done by the Government to encourage and increase this system of interchanging; and he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Home Secretary would only be too glad to avail himself of every opportunity to use his influence in the direction indicated. He now came to the question of inspection, and he quite admitted there was a good deal of force in many of the comments made by the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that distinguished Naval officers should be appointed to carry out a system of inspection. There were, at the present time, in command of the training ships distinguished Naval officers, and no complaint had been made of the way they performed their duties. In fact, he thought it was generally admitted that they discharged their duties in a most satisfactory and admirable way. The officers in command of these ships included Commanders, Post Captains, Captains, and Rear Admirals. Who was to inspect the Rear Admiral? It would be rather a difficult and delicate task to inspect a Rear Admiral. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said there was no difficulty in the matter, and that if they applied to the proper quarter there were many gallant sailors who would give their services to carry out the duties required in inspection. But the duties of inspection at the present time were carried out in a very satisfactory manner. He was glad to find that no complaint had been made so far as the reformatory and industrial side of the matter was concerned. He agreed that a certain case had been made out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, as far as he know, there were no charges brought against the reformatory and industrial system as such. It was not alleged that the system was a bad one, or that it turned out boys unfit to be sailors. Quite the contrary. He took it that the boys who were turned out as sailors turned out extremely well, and made efficient seamen in the Mercantile Marine. He would say that his right hon. Friend the Home
  1772
  Secretary had no objection to the appointment from time to time, as occasion might arise, of Naval officers in high positions to go round these ships and report on their condition; and that, he thought, would meet the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He could assure him that, both in regard to the question of inspection and the more general question of the interchange of boys, the Home Secretary would be very glad to do all in his power to further the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, as he understood the contention of his hon. and gallant Friend, it was that, the principle of evolution having gone so far as it had in connection with these establishments something, might be done in regard to a larger number of these waifs and strays with a view to developing their taste in the direction of the sea. With that object in view, his hon. and gallant Friend had suggested, among other things, that some attention should be paid, if possible, to the nautical training of boys on board the various training ships; and he thought that the concession the Under Secretary had just made, that from time to time Naval officers should proceed to these ships for the purpose of inspecting the nautical part of them, was a very valuable concession which his hon. and gallant Friend would gladly accept. Another point to which his hon. and gallant Friend had drawn attention was the fact that only about 60 per cent. of the boys ultimately wont to sea, and he very properly suggested as a reason for this that many of the boys sent to these ships were not sufficiently strong or healthy to undertake sea life. For his own part, he would suggest the advisability of a greater extension of the present system; and as the age limit was to be extended, might it not be possible to get two or three of these ships kept for the boys who really intended to go to sea? Of course, there were difficulties in the way of carrying out that suggestion, but he thought such difficulties were not insurmountable. He thought the Home Office would be doing a great service if, in conjunction with the management of these various ships, they could devise some scheme by which the available material they had in such largo quantities might be more generally

  1773
  used for turning these boys into useful sailors. He thought the House would be grateful to his hon. and gallant Friend for having brought this subject before them. He had made it his especial question for a considerable time, and it might be true, as the Under Secretary had said, that the slight increase of boys who had entered into the Marine Service was due to the solicitous interest his hon. and gallant Friend had taken in this matter, and he hoped his continued interest would tend to the benefit of the Marine Service. He thought that his hon. and gallant Friend had every reason to be satisfied with the result of the discussion so far as it had gone.
  *MR. STUART-WORTLEYthought his hon. and gallant Friend had reason to be well pleased with the nature of the discussion which his Motion had elicited, and not least because it had drawn from the present Under Secretary a declaration of very sound doctrine. It would be a mistake to suppose that they had in these ships, either in quantity or quality, any very ideal material for the Mercantile Marine. The boys who went to these ships were drawn from a class whose moral and physical beginnings were not such as to produce the endurance and strength of mind and body which went to make an ideal sailor. His hon. and gallant Friend complained that in many of these institutions the staff was inadequate. But the numbers of the staff was not settled by the State, but by the managers of the ships themselves. What they saw in the Motion, apart from the hon. and gallant Member's natural and pardonable desire to give increased employment to retired naval men—[Admiral FIELD: No, no!] —if there was such a desire—no one present would find fault with it. But, apart from that, there was a desire to force the hands of the managers in respect of the expense of supporting these establishments. It might be desirable to improve these institutions; but possibly they would improve them out of existence. If they insisted on making them ideally perfect, they would, by these unreasonable requirements, drive them out of existence, and they would have to substitute for them an elaborate system of State-managed institutions, and would
  1774
  alienate thereby all the great fund of philanthropy and munificence by which such excellent results had been achieved. He could not but think it would be well to leave to the public-spirited individuals who managed these ships, to a large extent, the discretion which they now used so well, and so much for the public good. Of course, it was difficult to secure a greater number of the boys for sea service, because, as had been stated, there was a great deal of prejudice. These boys were not sent to the ships by the choice of their parents. Indeed, the committal might be contrary to the wishes of the parent, and a prejudice existed against sending the boys into the Marine Service. He was glad to hear that the Government had seen their way to making some concessions to his hon. and gallant Friend. In those days of rigid economy when the late Government was in power, he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was obliged to present to his hon. Friend on the occasion of his previous Motion a very much less favourable front. Of course it was obvious that it would be better for some purposes to have a Naval inspection of Naval institutions. But it must be remembered that there were schools on land equally special in their character. He wished to ask the Government a question. He supposed that the proposed inspection by a distinguished Naval officer, should it be brought about, would not mean a permanent increase of the establishment, but that it would be an inspection ad hoc, and would not supersede the inspection by the existing Inspectors. Personally, he set great store by the experience gained by the officer who inspected all schools alike.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: There will be no increase.
  *MR. STUART- WORTLEYsaid, he objected to the inspection by the Coastguard officer of some establishment close by, for it was obvious that the local and limited knowledge which he could bring to bear would be of extremely small value. They wanted the trained experience of a man who had studied the system in all its workings all over the country.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, there was a considerable number of training ships in his constituency, and in the execution of his duty he had obtained a good acquaintance with many of them.

  1775
  He entirely agreed with the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne and also by the hon. Member for Holderness as to the interchanging of boys from sea to land, and in the desire that there should be some change made in the system of inspection. He was the last man to say a word against the efficiency as Inspectors of ex-officers of Dragoons, as he happened to be an ex-officer of Dragoons himself; but he could quite understand the hon. and gallant Admiral when he said that future sailors should be inspected by expert seamen rather than by officers of Dragoons or even by schoolmasters. Anybody who had ever inspected any of these training ships must have been struck by the extraordinary smartness and efficiency which always characterised the boys on board the Ibis. This was especially noticeable in the case of the training ship Shaftesbury, which was kept going by the School Board of London. In his opinion, the sailor-like conduct, smartness, and discipline which characterised all on board these ships were due to the supervision of the Naval officers who commanded them, and to the system of inspection which his hon. and gallant Friend objected to, but which be, for his part, hoped would not be altered.

  THE PAMIRS.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESrose to call attention to the persistent withholding by Her Majesty's Government from the House of the Papers containing the official information and correspondence respecting the armed occupation by Russia of territories in the Pamirs in the neighbourhood of the northern frontiers of India, and to move—
  "That it is desirable that full information of the correspondence and negotiations, whether with the Russian Government, the Chinese Government, or the Afghan Government, respecting the armed occupation by Russian forces in July last of the Pamirs, should be laid before this House before any binding agreement or final settlement in regard to the matter is entered into by Her Majesty's Government."
  He said many of them had become aware that history was now being made in these regions which would have an immediate effect on India, and which must ultimately have an influence on the final history of this country itself. It was in no spirit of hostility to the Govern-
  1776
  ment, and still less to the Foreign Secretary, that he rose to call attention to the matter. In his opinion, the Foreign Secretary could hardly be matched in the present circumstances by any other statesman they could appoint to that post, and he did not believe, at any rate, that he could be surpassed. His belief was that the noble Lord would be rather pleased than otherwise to have his elbow jogged in pursuing that course of policy which he believed would be identical with that which he (Mr. Bowles) would also pursue. It was not against the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he should make any complaint; but it was against the system which delivered the Foreign Secretary bound hand and foot to the Prime Minister and to the Permanent Clerk. To the Prime Minister to be utilised and guided in the interests of Party exigencies, and to the Permanent Clerk to be controlled and guided according to the requirements and spirit of a bureaucracy which was not always animated by the supremest wisdom. The Pamir region was a large table-laud lying on the northern side of our Indian Frontier; it was a table-land measuring some 300 miles from north to south, broadly speaking—for it was difficult to find out what were its exact boundaries — and some 200 miles from east to west. It lay at an altitude of from 10,000 to 15,000 feet. It had been likened to a square mile of Sirius, and spoken of as both sterile and unproductive. That was a libel on the Pamirs. It was, as he should proceed to show, one of the most interesting countries in every respect on the face of the globe. Indeed, it was called, as many of them know, the roof of the world. The traditions of the inhabitants assigned to it the honour of having been the original cradle of our race; but the locality of the home of our first parents had, however, been as much a matter of doubt and dispute as the birthplace of Homer or the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The history of this Pamir region was altogether interesting, and at a given moment he should call the attention of the House to it; for the present he would deal with the political aspect of this region. It lay on the northern frontier of India; the sovereign rights of it had hitherto, undoubtedly, been always considered to

  1777
  belong either to China, by right of the conquest of Kashgar, or to Afghanistan. Across what he would call the middle of the Pamir region there runs from east to west the River Murghab. North of this river Russia could, with some plausibility, claim certain rights by reason of having conquered tribes inhabiting that region; but south of the river the only rights of sovereignty appertained to China and Afghanistan. It was perfectly true that the line of demarcation between these sovereignties had been a matter of dispute—and, indeed, was still a matter of dispute — but we had no right to settle what part of the country belonged to Afghanistan and what part to Russia or China. Just about a year ago a Chinese post was in occupation of Somatash, which was a small town on the west side of the Pamir region—for "pamir" meant "valley." The Pamirs were nothing more nor less than a series of broad valleys closed in by low hills. At Somatash, as he had said, there was found in the spring of last year a Chinese post. The Afghans, prompted, as he believed, from India, tried to annex as much of the Pamirs as they could. The Afghans attacked the Chinese post and drove it out, and at the same time it was alleged (though he did not know with what truth) that other cruelties were inflicted, and that certain of the inhabitants and chief men were sold into slavery. The Chinese, as might be expected, remonstrated with us in consequence of the acts of the Afghans, for whom they hold us properly to be responsible. We entertained their remonstrance, and thereby, as he contended, we admitted, or at any rate give a strong colour to, the Chinese claim to sovereignty over the Pamirs as far west as Somatash. If they had any right of sovereignty at all at Somatash, it must have extended thence to the east, where the Kashgar joined the Pamirs. We entertained the Representatives of the Chinese Government, and negotiations, he believed, wore still going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of China with reference to this subject. But, as in April of last year the Chinese were driven out by a superior Afghan force, so in July the Afghans were, in their turn, attacked and driven out of Somatash by a superior Russian force; and, as far as
  1778
  he could see and judge from the Russian Official Gazette, 15 Afghans were killed and the rest were taken prisoners. The Russian force occupied the place, and had continued in occupation of it from that day to this. In addition to that, the Russian occupation had been extended to territories to the south-east and southwest of Somatash. It was inevitable that we should take much interest in the future welfare of India, and we were determined—whatever else we might doubt about—to maintain English authority in India. The Russian Government had extended far from the centre of their operations. It was impossible to overlook the fact that Russia was, on the east, encroaching on China, and, through the southern extremity of her Asiatic Empire, encroaching upon the Pamir territory which belonged either to China or Afghanistan. Now, what was the explanation? There was no doubt as to what the explanation was. It was impossible to have read any extract from a Russian paper dealing with the territorial policy of Russia in Asia without coming to the conclusion —the positive, absolute, undeniable conclusion—that the reason of Russia's approach to the confines of India was, that she might have the power of attacking England in Asia whenever England ceased to be sufficiently complaisant to Russia in Europe. Having come to that conclusion, it naturally must suggest itself to all Members of the House—as it had suggested itself, he ventured to say, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and to his Under Secretary—that we should in some way endeavour to stem this persistent and indefatigable advance of Russia towards our Indian Frontier. The difficulty in the Pamir ease lay in the fact that the encroachment was upon no territory of ours. It was either upon Afghan or Chinese territory. If we were to resist we could only do so by supporting the rights of China and Afghanistan, and seeing those rights were duly maintained. He was aware it had been often said that the Pamirs were of no importance to us or anybody else— that it was a sterile region where men found it difficult to exist; where troops could not march, and that, therefore, whatever action Russia might take there we might leave the action disregarded

  1779
  inasmuch as the region was unproductive, sterile, and impossible to live in The contention had been made that the sterility of the region supplied us with sufficient protection. He wished once for all, to put an end to any notion of the kind, and to show the House by undoubted testimony that the Pamirs were entitled to a very different character than was given to them by some politicians who wished to evade their responsibility. In the first place, the whole of this Pamir region from north to south was travelled through by Captain Littledale, accompanied by his wife. Mrs. Little-dale found no difficulty whatever in getting what was required, and a successful journey of that kind would hardly be possible in a barren, sterile legion. He would quote a description of the Pamirs given in January, 1891, before the imperial Geographical Society at St. Petersburg, by Captain Grombtchefski, who said—
  "The Pamirs are far from being deserts There are permanent populations living there summer and winter. The nomads of Central Asia, not being at all fastidious and thoroughly accustomed to severe conditions of life in the Pamirs, and having pastures for their cattle, would reconcile themselves to circumstances if the natural growth of population were not continually checked by the predatory raids of neighbouring and semi-independent Khanates."
  Another traveller, M. Ximènes, who was despatched last year by the Paris Commercial Geographical Society to Central Asia, to study the best routes leading into Thibet by way of Turkestan, had lately returned and delivered a, lectures on the subject of his explorations. He said—
  "This country is by no means so wild and miserable as has been asserted, and without certainly being a terrestrial paradise, it in not wanting in natural beauties and wealth. Its magnificent pasture-lands afford nourishment to herds of superb cattle and excellent mountain horses, and nature here offers many charming aspects, with its clear sky, majestic mountains, mighty glaciers, rapid torrents, azure lakes, and green plains."
  Mr. Ivan of said of this region—
  "As we advance westwards across the Pamirs, descending, say, from a height of 9,000 ft. on the north and from one of 12,000 ft. on the south, we at once enter the region of forest growth, beginning with the creeper. With this we find the reed, and a little lower the rose, willow, birch, mountain poplar, and the bramble, which here attains the dimensions of a tree, invariably decorated with clematis; the liquorice root, honeysuckle, spurge, and black currant. Side by side with this forest growth we find the cultivation of corn; first barley next wheat."
  1780
  He had read these extracts because he was anxious once for all to get rid of the notion that this region was one which we should consider as being uninhabited, sterile, bleak, and deserted. This region began to be occupied by Russia in July last. The occupation had continued throughout the winter, and this spring they were told by the newspapers the occupation was to be very largely increased. It was a fact that during the winter there had been 1,200 troops in the Pamirs. Two more battalions of Infantry and two batteries of Artillery had been despatched from the north-west to increase the Army of Occupation, and they were told that the advance guard of these reinforcements was to start last mouth. It might be assumed that at this moment large Russian forces were crossing the Pamir steppes. In taking measures to resist this Russian advance towards India, he hoped the Government would not fall into the mistake which bad too often characterised our policy in the past. In 1838, and again in 1878, when resisting similar advances, we quarrelled, not with Russia, but with Afghanistan. What was our duty towards Afghanistan? In 1876 Lord Lytton said—
  "The moment we cease to regard Afghanistan as a friendly and princely allied State, what is there to prevent us from providing for the security of our frontiers by an understanding with Russia, which might have the effect of wiping Afghanistan out of the map altogether?"
  The suggestion contained in that was one that ought never to have entered the mind of a British statesman. As Lord Roberts had again and again pointed out, there was but one safe and sound and statesmanlike way of dealing with Afghanistan. It was by regarding it as the bulwark of India, and dealing with it as an independent State, always respecting the independence of the country, and always being prepared, if necessary, to defend that independence against all comers. It was necessary also that they should pay due regard to the increasing importance of China—the most interesting country in the world, and one which had its political and social system completed centuries before other countries. China was the only country which had yet succeeded, by the recovery from Russia of Kuldja, to use a somewhat vulgar figure, in getting a piece of butter

  1781
  out of the Russian dog's mouth, and China, therefore, was not a country to be despised. What he was afraid of was that the Foreign Secretary would be induced, unless he had a strong protest against it by Russia, to agree to a Delimitation Commission which should settle the boundaries of territories in which we had no authority. If there was to be such a Commission, he hoped it would be one in which would be represented not only England and Russia, but also the equally independent, States of Afghanistan and China. He was inclined, however, to think it would be better to have no Delimitation Commission at all, and to leave the matter to be settled between China and Russia. He could not agree that this was a matter which ought to be left entirely to the Foreign Office, because the Foreign Office had occasionally made strange and startling mistakes, notably in translation. In 1872 Lord Granville wrote in the Despatch embodying the Convention with Russia of 1872–3 and laid down the frontier of Afghanistan in these words—
  "For your Excellency's more complete information I state the territories and boundaries which Her Majesty's Government consider us fully belonging to the Ameer of Cabul, viz.: (1) Badakshan, with its dependent district Wakhan from the Sarikal (Wood's lake) on the East to the junction of the Kokcha river with the Oxus (or Penjah) forming the northern boundary of this Afghan province throughout its entire extent."
  It was impossible to understand this paragraph, and the reason was that there was a line omitted in it, which should have been there. In this paragraph which assumed to lay down the boundary between Afghanistan and Russia the only essential point, the line of boundary, the line of the Oxus, was omitted. They know that omissions were constantly made in Foreign Office despatches as presented to the House. They had usually to take such information as the Foreign Office gave; but in this instance he complained that they had no information at all. This system amounted, in fact, to a request to the House to continue to rely on secret diplomacy. But it was through relying on secret diplomacy that the first Afghan War arose. He did not see why they should rely on that method any longer. He could understand its advantages to countries that had conspiracies to carry through and that
  1782
  desired to take other men's land; but for them it was not only not required, but was mischievous. He believed it was not only possible but desirable to keep the British people informed of the conduct of their own affairs; for then, and then only, would they be found behind the Foreign Minister when the day of stress came. He hoped the Under Secretary would be disposed to give the House some further information before any absolute and binding engagement was entered into on this subject.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The hon. Member has complained of the method of presenting Foreign Office despatches. I do not propose to follow him into ancient history. As I have stated in answer to questions, it is sometimes necessary for the Foreign Office to make omissions in despatches. If everything that is received were published it would be necessary for the Foreign Office to receive much less information than it does. I have also slated already that it is not the practice to make alterations in despatches, and it is certainly not the practice in making any omissions to do anything to invalidate the sense of the papers, or to make any omission which would tend to mislead the House either as to the facts of the case or the intentions of the Secretary of State.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It has been done.
  *SIR E. GREY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the past. I am speaking of the present state of the case. I need not follow the hon. Gentleman in his statement as to the natural history and character of the Pamir. He gave us a very flowery description of the country; but I would remind the House that that is a description of the country in summer. The hon. Member did not say what it is like in winter, nor how long the winter lasts. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as regards the interests of both China and Afghanistan every care will be taken by the Government to give them full attention in any negotiations that may take place. There is not the slightest intention to leave out of sight any claim which these countries may put forward, nor in the least degree to ignore the fact that they

  1783
  have great interest in the question of any frontier on the Pamir. But this country has very great interests in any delimitation of boundary there also. I venture to say at the present stage of the question the House will be unanimous in feeling that, as Russia is the Power that has lately been moving in that part of the world, negotiation with Russia is the proper method of seeking a settlement of any difficulties. At the present moment negotiations with Russia are proceeding. If Papers were to be laid, as the hon. Member asks should he done, at the present time they would undoubtedly tend to interfere with those negotiations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not suggest that they should be immediately laid, but before any final settlement was arrived at.
  *SIR E. GREY: The question of laying Papers is one about which it is impossible to make any definite promise until negotiations have arrived at a certain stage. According to the Motion on the Paper, the hon. Member asks for information as to the "armed occupation by Russian forces in July last." At the present time, as I have said, negotiations with Russia are proceeding in a satisfactory manner, and nothing would be more calculated to delay the peaceful issue of those negotiations than to furnish the information asked for in his Motion. If we were to publish them it might be regarded as an unfriendly act. The negotiations cover a long period of time, because it is necessary that we should obtain accurate information not only of the geographical, but of the ethnographical circumstances of these regions. If you are going to make hard-and-fast Treaties you must have a perfect knowledge of the details, not only of the geography of the place, but also of the tribes and populations occupying the different districts. Every means will be taken to arrive at a perfect knowledge of these details, and I hope that when we have arrived at that knowledge a binding agreement will result through the joint action of all the parties interested. The House will naturally feel that assurances should be given on one point. While we are arranging the bases for a Commission of Inquiry to take place on the spot, we ought to have some assurance that the Russians will not use the interval for
  1784
  further operations. Russia has, it is true, left a detachment in the country; but the force is very small, falling far short, I think, of the number stated by the hon. Member. It is a mere detachment or post for the winter, and the British Government have been assured that no members of the detachment will go out in parties of more than two or three, and that no active operations will be undertaken. So far as our information goes, the force is certainly not one to be used for any effective purpose, and, as I say, we have received a solemn promise that it will not be so used. We have also been assured in the most explicit manner that during this year, while negotiations are pending, no further expedition or reinforcements will be sent to the Pamirs. I must ask the House to rest content with that assurance, and I can only say that there is every prospect that while there will be no further active operations or advance in the Pamirs, the negotiations, of a perfectly friendly character, will be brought to a, satisfactory conclusion. I must, therefore, ask the House not, at the present time, to press any demands or requests which are in any way likely to endanger the safety of the negotiations. It is the object of the Government to preserve and protect in every way the peaceful and satisfactory character of the negotiations which, we hope, will lead to a solution satisfactory to the interests of this country, of Russia, of China, and of Afghanistan.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The House will have been very glad to hear the statement made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I understand him to say this—that negotiations are in an advanced state of progress for a, Commission, not in the character of a Delimitation Commission, but in the character of a Commission of Inquiry, which would acquire geographical, historical and ethnological knowledge with regard to this very little known region of the Pamirs, and, pending that arrangement, that the Russian Government have given a promise that no further troops will be moved into the Pamirs. If that is the state of affairs, I think that my hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson Bowles) may rest well satisfied with the assurance which he has received and the House also

  1785
  But, at the same time, I think it is well to remind the House what I think the House is already acquainted with—namely, that an assurance was given last year by the Russian Government to this Government that no expedition was contemplated in the Pamirs in that year. Well, I do not know by what means, but there seems to have arisen some misunderstanding, I suppose either on our part when we had received the assurance, or on the part of the Russian Government in giving it. Some misunderstanding, I presume, took place; but, at all events, what happened was this—that a considerable force of Russians did go into the Pamirs, their numbers being estimated at from 300 or 400 to as many as 1,200. We have reason to believe that a certain number of that force remained in the Pamirs during the whole of the summer and part of the winter; but, however that may be, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will on this occasion have satisfied himself fully that the assurance given by the Russian Government is sufficient; and if that be so, then I think it would be undesirable to press Her Majesty's Government, in the present state of negotiations, to produce any Papers upon the matter. I have no doubt that the Foreign Office could produce a considerable number of Papers which would give information relating to past events in the Pamirs which have occurred during the last few years. But this, I do not think, would satisfy either my hon. Friend or the House; they would be ancient history. As to the production of Papers as they arrive, of course I think my hon. Friend must see that it is perfectly impossible to carry on any negotiations if from day to day, or from week to week, or even from mouth to month, Papers as received by the Foreign Office are produced and laid upon the Table of this House. It is the Foreign Office which is negotiating, and with them rests the responsibility of negotiating. It would not be right in any sense that that responsibility should be divided by the constant production of Papers in this House. The House is not in a position to carry on negotiations. Should disputes arise the Foreign Office would say—"We have laid all our materials before you. If there is any cause of complaint the responsibility rests with you, the House of
  1786
  Commons, because at the time you were able to lay your finger upon it you did not call attention to this particular question." These matters are left with Her Majesty's Government, and my hon. Friend knows as well as anybody else that it is impossible to raise questions upon negotiations as they proceed. I would like also to bear out what the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said was the practice of the Foreign Office with regard to the production of despatches. During the short time I was at the Foreign Office the practice was this—that, of course, certain parts of despatches were omitted in presentation to the House. It would be obviously impossible to lay the whole of every despatch before the House. Whenever that occurred, in the Blue Book the despatch was always headed "Extract," so that the House and the country was informed that the despatch was not the whole despatch as received, but only a part. I can say that, certainly during the time I was at the Foreign Office, on no occasion was any despatch altered in such a way as to in any degree whatever alter the sense of the despatch. I do not say that there were not at times the omission from certain sentences of words which had become unnecessary, such as "and," "therefore," etc., and some other words to make the sense run properly. But in no despatch that I can remember—and I think I can say that was the general practice—in no despatch was the alteration of a substantial character, so as to alter in any degree the meaning of any despatch. Then my hon. Friend drew attention to the very remarkable circumstance of a despatch as it stands in the Blue Book of the 17th October, 1872, in which Lord Granville wrote to Lord Augustus Loftus, defining at that time what Her Majesty's Government considered to be the proper limits to Afghanistan. I believe my hon. Friend is perfectly light in the conclusion which he has drawn with regard to that particular despatch. In the printing of the despatch one line has been dropped out. I do not think it ever came to my knowledge, but it is clear that the mistake arose in the printing; that I think is a very probable explanation. Certainly it is a curious circumstance; but it, is clear upon reading the despatch that one line has dropped out, although, I confess, it does not seem to

  1787
  me to make very much difference to the sense. The grammar is not as good as might have been expected from Lord Granville; hut, on the whole, I think it is perfectly clear what was meant by the despatch even as it stands in the Blue Book at the present time. After the assurance we have had, and the statement which has been made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I think the House may rest content and leave the matter as it now stands.
  *SIR. R. TEMPLEsaid, he did not wish to ask for any Papers, and he did not mean to give the slightest trouble to the Government in this case. He heartily joined in the commendations the lion. Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had bestowed on the Foreign Department of the present Government. There had been remarkable instances lately in Eastern Africa of the admirable character of he foreign policy of the Government; and, with all respect, he might say that, they had had a signal proof of it in the speech of the Prime Minister last night. If further proof were needed it would be found in the excellent reply which had just been given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. As he (Sir R. Temple) had known and studied the country of the Pamirs very closely as a high Indian official for many years, he felt that as this subject had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis he could not altogether remain silent. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Member into his geographical disquisitions, nor would he deal with the historical facts touched on; but he would endeavour to give the House some idea of the geographical condition of tills important tract, negotiations as to which he was happy to learn were now pending. What was the country of the Pamirs? The Pamirs consisted of a great central upland tract, the boss of the shield of the Asiatic Continent, so to speak. It was one of the loftiest tableland or plateaux in the world, and had been termed, familiarly, "the roof of the world." It was the "no man's land" of Asia, and in itself it was not a very desirable posses-
  1788
  sion. The question, however, to-day was, by what nations was it surrounded? Might he explain to the House what its surroundings are? This "no man's land "was bounded on the west and northwest by the Russian dominions in Asia, on the north-east and cast by the Chinese Empire, and on the South partly by India or Cashmir and partly by Afghanistan. Hence it followed that this "no man's land" thus situated between four ambitious neighbours—or, if Afghanistan were regarded as British or within the British Protectorate, three ambitious neighbours—would be from time to time enroached upon by each of the three. Russia had begun that process, and now some kind of partition by delimitation was necessary. But before he touched upon the Russian or British interests he would say a word as to the physical geography of the place. This was a very vast tract, of various altitudes and various zones of fertility or of barrenness. It was, as a rule, an uninhabited and comparatively barren tract, as had been already stated by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, it was subjected to a very long and severe winter. But during the three or four summer months when the snow cleared away it afforded splendid pasturage such as that which was known in Switzerland as a perfect Alp. Of course it was sparsely populated; though it had some fruitful places, as mentioned by the Member for Lynn Regis. But though, as a rule, it was not traversed by formed roads fit for the passage of an army, yet it was quite possible for skilful military leaders to arrange for the passage of their troops through or round some portion of it. So much for the physical character of the country. Now, what were the respective interests of Russia and England in this extraordinary territory. If he might say so without au undue disregard of the susceptibilities of a friendly Power, Russia had no interest whatever in the Pamirs except as a possible passage to Afghanistan, and it might be said that every step which she took in that direction was a step towards India, and was meant to be a menace to England. It was a menace to England through India, or, more indirectly, perhaps, through Afghanistan, and that being the case we were bound to guard against the advance of Russia in that quarter. Russia was

  1789
  gradually approaching bit by bit from the north and north-west, and every step she so took was so much ground made good in her possible advance towards India—and this had relation not to any Asiatic advantage, as the country was not worth taking or keeping, but to possible complications in Europe and other parts of the world. Now, what exactly was the interest of England? This region was bounded on the south and south-east, or rather the eastern half of the southern boundary of the Pamirs adjoined territories belonging to England, and the western half of this southern boundary belonged to Afghanistan. The south-east frontier consisted of a tract of territory belonging to the Maharajah of Cashmir that was the most difficult in the world for the passage of troops, the lowest pass over the mountains being 16,000 ft. above the level of the sea, or higher than the top of any mountain in Europe, while there were one or two of the passes which went up to 17,000 ft. or 18,000 ft. These passes were well known to the military leaders of India, and the well-known officer, Sir Douglas Forsyth, traversed them on his mission to Kashgar. We might be quite sure that no Russian force would ever advance in that particular direction; but, on the other hand, the House must not suppose that there was no danger in that direction, because the appearance of Russian forces descending from those passes from the southern part of the Pamirs would give rise to great alarm in Cashmir. But, as regarded the western half of the southern boundary of the Pamirs, which directly touched Afghanistan, the most danger was there to be apprehended, because the Pamirs were there at their lowest. The most traversible passes wore found in the western parts of the Pamirs, and this country touched on Balkh, the Bactria of the ancients, and reached as far as the Oxus. Then the passes dividing the Oxus Valley from Afghanistan had been traversed by military forces hundreds of times, and Alexander the Great had marched through them. A descent on Cabul in this direction would be easy, and there would be nothing more calculated to alarm and to terrify Afghanistan than the establishment of Russian military posts in the south-western corner of the Pamirs. He must say, therefore, on behalf of the country and the Empire
  1790
  to which he belonged, that he earnestly hoped—nay, he was sure—that in the negotiations that were about to be entered into by such able men as our present Foreign Secretary and his Representative in the House of Commons we should insist that that part of the Pamirs should by strict delimitations be kept out of the Russian sphere of influence, and within that of Afghanistan. With the view to the protection of Afghanistan, and consequently of India, Afghanistan being our bulwark against the advance of Russia, we must insist upon the delimitation of the Pamirs. These, he submitted, were the considerations which should guide us in our negotiations for this delimitation. He desired to say nothing about details. He merely wished to state these general principles, because the people of England ought to understand them, and because it was important that Russians should know that Englishmen did know them, and that Russia should be aware of the fact that her advances were well observed and understood by the British public and by the House of Commons. He earnestly hoped that the delimitation to which he had referred would be speedily carried out. He could not join in the opinion that we ought to leave either China or Afghanistan to negotiate separately with Russia, for that would be leaving the lambs to negotiate with the wolves. Nobody supposed that we should take a single inch of the Pamirs for ourselves; but we were bound to guard the interests of our Allies —China whom we thought we could trust—and Afghanistan. He was afraid that it was too late to prevent Russia taking, at least, a portion of this tract. The House would bear in mind that this question was quite separate from that of the delimitation of the frontier between Afghanistan and the Merv dominions, which had been carried out with some success, but with little regard for the rights of England, and which would result in giving Russia a great advantage if ever war were to break out between the two Empires, which God forbid! Let them all breathe the aspiration that a good Providence might, in the delimitation of the Pamirs, protect the interests of England for the benefit of the hundreds of millions of human beings under her rule.

  PURCHASE DEPARTMENT OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    *MR. T. W.RUSSELLsaid, he wished to call attention to the arrears of business in the Purchase Department of the Irish Land Commission, and the method adopted of disposing of business. The Chief Secretary for Ireland would, doubtless, admit that the question of the Land Commission was one of great importance, and he (Mr. T. W. Russell) could not possibly let slip this opportunity which had fallen to him of referring to it. He did not intend in any way to discuss the policy of land purchase itself. He desired for a few moments to call attention to the delay in the Court of the Laud Commission in carrying out the manifest intentions of Parliament. He wished to bring to the attention of the House two cases which had come under his own personal cognizance. As soon as he had placed his Notice on the Paper he had received a letter, dated from Ballinasloe, stating that the writer inherited in 1887, on the death of a relative, a small estate some 12 miles from that town. In 1888 he effected a sale of the whole property to the occupying tenant on easy terms, adding to the holding a large grazing farm. The sale was, in due course, approved by the Laud Commissioners. Now, after five years had come and gone, the purchase money had not been lodged. he was resident in the Province of Quebec, and was, at the present time, paying his second visit to this country for the purpose of winding-Tip his affairs, and he could see little prospect of an early release from his difficulties. This was an example of a state of things which existed in hundreds of cases. He did not blame the Land Purchase Acts, but the real difficulty lay in the red tape that bound the office and the officials of the Land Commission. The second case to which he referred was with reference to an agreement dated December 1, 1888, for the purchase of land on the estate of Sir William Verner, in County Tyrone. There were some 1,300 or 1,400 tenants on the estate, and though an agreement had been arrived at, the lauds had not yet been vested in the tenants. To his own knowledge, an enormous amount of
    1792
    friction and difficulty was taking place on this estate. The two instances he had quoted were sample cases. He would now call attention to the official Return obtained from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) when Chief Secretary, up to May, 1892. He would separate the figures under the Ashbourne Acts from the figures referring to the Act of 1891, because the delay he complained of had been entirely under the Ashbourne Acts, there not having as yet been time for much delay under the Act of 1891. The applications received up to December 31, 1891, were 25,869 in number, and £ 10,000,000 in amount. He found that up to the same date the amount issued to 18,263 applicants had been £7,466,619. There were then pending 7,606 applications for £2,533,381. The estates not inspected by the valuers were only eight in number, showing that the delay was not occasioned by inspection. The numbers not sanctioned were 2,445. The numbers sanctioned but not vested in the tenant purchasers were 6,356. The applications in respect of which the advances had not yet been issued were:—In 1886, 13; in 1887, 77; in 1888, 267; in 1889, 1,107; in 1890,1,593; and in 1891, 1,937, making a total of 4,994. Now, as only eight estates had not been inspected by the valuer, the House would see that the delay had occurred in the office of the Land Commission. He knew the answer that would be made. It would be said that the rules of the Court had not been observed by the vendors—that was to say, the landlords who were anxious to sell had not properly proved their title, and the Commission had not had time to examine into the titles. Well, if the Commission wanted further legal assistance to enable the titles to be looked into they could easily appoint one or two temporary examiners. There were plenty of lawyers doing nothing in Dublin—the Four Courts were full of them. As to landlords not being able to prove their titles, he thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask that a time should be fixed by the Land Commission by which the landlord must prove his title. The real cause for the delay in the proceedings of the Commission was, however, not to be found in the examination of title, but in the fact that the Laud Commissions had constituted themselves

    1793
    Judges. Everything had now to be done by counsel or solicitors. No doubt counsel and solicitors were very estimable men, but this work was never intended for them. Parliament had never meant that every vendor or purchaser should be mulcted in costs for motions at every stop in the progress of a transaction under the Act. In his opinion, the lawyers had got more out of these Land Acts than anyone else. Many of the matters which now came before the Commission in the form of motions could easily be dealt with by letters without the intervention of counsel and solicitors at all. As regarded the Act passed in 1891, the procedure was getting into the same rut as that under the Ashbourne Acts, only more so, because it was a, much more complicated Act to administer. Up to the 31st January, 1893, there had been 2,948 applications for loans under the Act of 1891 for an aggregate amount of £991,195. Of these, 1,257 applications for £482,082 had been provisionally sanctioned, whilst only 447 for £159,570 had been issued. His desire was not to embarrass the Government or to take up the time of the House, but to get au expression of opinion that the wheels of this institution must go round more quickly; that the intentions of Parliament must not be frustrated by red tape; and that the Commissioners must relinquish the dignity of Judges and go back into the position of heads of Departments.
    *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I do not find any fault whatever with the hon. Member for calling the attention of the House to this subject, and I am glad that he has not attempted to widen the area of discussion by commenting upon the policy of purchases generally or the provisions of the Act of 1891, or attempting to show why that Act is not more largely and generally operative than it is at the present time. I am as strongly in favour as is the hon. Member of the rapid facilitation of purchase operations. As the House knows, the Land Commission is not a Department under the Irish Government, but a Department with a large—almost an entire—measure of independence; and although the Representative of the Irish Government in this House has to answer for it and to convey to the House informa-
    1794
    tion from the Commission, the Irish Government are not themselves responsible for anything done or not done by the Commission. They themselves very properly claim a large measure of independence, and I, for one, have no intention of interfering with it. At the same time, I feel that there is no harm, but good, in a Representative of the Irish Executive expressing any opinion he may have formed upon the success or failure which marks the operation of the Commission. Whether the two cases which have been brought forward by the hon. Member as sample eases are really samples I do not know. Of course, he will not expect me to be acquainted with the particulars of individual cases. I will, however, lay the facts he has mentioned before the Commission, and I daresay they will have some explanation to offer. As to the proposition laid down by the hon. Member—namely, that the proceedings of the Laud Commission have been characterised by the airs of a Judicial Court, I cannot, with all my respect for the Commissioners and all my appreciation of the energy with which they have discharged their duties, conceal the fact that I am entirely of the same mind as the hon. Member. I have some reason to believe that even within the Land Commission itself, a feeling has grown up latterly that the judicial character which has been attached to its proceedings has, on the whole, been carried, perhaps, rather too far; and I believe that the Commissioners are, at present, engaged in doing their best to discover methods which will make the Department that which, in my opinion, it was distinctly the intention of Parliament to make it—namely, mainly and largely an administrative body. At the same time we must allow that the Commissioners have considerable difficulties to encounter, and that no rough and ready and summary method of proceeding would be desirable if it led to the summary disposal of cases which ought not to be dismissed without a long and patient inquiry. We must take care that in urging on the Land Commissioners an acceleration of their rate of progress we do not hurry them into impatient and, it may be, random disposal of cases merely for the sake of avoiding the appearance of delay. The hon. Member has, I think, fairly enough described the reasons the Commissioners gave for the enormous interval of time

    1795
    which elapses before the making of an agreement and the filing of an application on the one hand and the ultimate allocation of the funds on the other. The Commissioners urge that the delay does not take place on inspection, and the hon. Member very candidly assents to that proposition. The explanation, according to the Commission, is that agreements are constantly brought before them which are badly, carelessly, and informally prepared. Such agreements have to be put into order, and that is a process which takes time. Then the Commissioners have to make necessary inquiries into evidence of title and to make requisitions as to title. These are processes which, as any Member of the House who has had anything to do with conveyances of property must be aware, are processes which take time, although the counsel and solicitors engaged may do their best to accelerate the operation. The Commissioners also have many disputes on agrarian questions and difficulties with regard to turbary. Another allegation is that the non-payment of interest is a frequent cause of delay. How far all this may be an adequate and satisfactory explanation I am not now called upon to decide; but I am bound to say, and I am glad to be able to say, that the Commissioners recognised that there has been a tardiness, although they contend that it has been inevitable, in carrying out these operations. They assure me that they are doing their very best, by resorting to quicker methods, to extend the administrative character of their proceedings as far as possible, and to diminish the Court formalities which the hon. Member has described. I confess, as the subject has been raised by the hon. Member, that I believe, when all this has been done, the Land Commission has work cast upon it which, as far as I am able to gather from not a very long experience of Irish government, it was not, originally meant by Parliament to do, and which I am sure must interfere to some extent with that which is, undoubtedly, the proper and peculiar work of the Commissioners. I am not going into details now, but I want to call attention to what I consider two interruptions of the work proper of the Land Commission. In the first place, an Agricultural Department has been constituted by the Commission. I should be the last, person in the world to say a word
    1796
    in disparagement of the excellent work which has been done by that Department. The survey which the very able officer who is at the head of that Department is continually making is one of the greatest value, and I believe the whole of the work done by the Department is extremely valuable; but I am a little doubtful whether the constitution of the Department was within the powers conferred by the Statute. I do not, wish, as I have said, to undervalue the work of the Department, but I believe the time will come when it will be found desirable to concentrate the work of the Land Commission, and I believe the tendency of things must be more and more to show that an Agricultural Department ought, to be constituted in Ireland on the same lines as the Department which has been constituted in England. There is, however, a second interruption of the work proper of the Land Commission. I refer to the relations established by the Act of 1891 between the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board. As more than one hon. Gentleman in the House is aware, those relations are exceedingly close; and, whether we look at it from the point of view of the Land Commission or from that of the Congested Districts Board, I do not believe such relations can be regarded as perfectly satisfactory. The Land Commissioners, who hold their office by a judicial tenure, in the first place do the work of an Administrative Department indoors, and, in the second place, are told off to be an agency ancillary to an Administrative Department out-of-doors. I do not believe that that can possibly be a permanent arrangement; and I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson), or the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who had so much to do with the making of that arrangement, which may be said to have been the best arrangement possible at, the time, will consent to its being regarded as permanent. I am not inclined to throw on the Congested Districts Board work that properly belongs to the Agricultural Department. It has a sphere of its own. It is too soon yet to appraise the operations of that Board, though it is not too soon to appraise the devotion and energy with which the gentlemen composing it give

    1797
    themselves to its work. I feel that to make a total change in the character of that Board, by taking it away from all relations with the Land Commission, and by turning it into a Castle Board under the Irish Government and the Treasury, the time is not ripe, even if events ultimately shape themselves in that direction as the most convenient method of doing that work—which I am inclined to believe will ultimately be found to be the case. It would be better, both for that Board and the Land Commission, that the relations between the two bodies should be less close and dependent than they are. In the reorganisation of Irish administration—which, whatever may happen to projects now before Parliament, cannot, I believe, be very long-delayed—it will be found expedient and even indispensable to relieve the Land Commission of its extraneous work, both of the Congested Districts Board and of the Agricultural Department within its own walls, and to constitute a General Agricultural Department; leaving the Land Commission free for its own special work, which must for a long time to come, under whatever system Ireland may be governed, be of supreme and paramount importance in the government of Ireland.
    *MR. JACKSON: The reference which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the organisation of the Department under discussion renders it necessary that I should say one or two words. First, I would deal with the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone, who has always taken a great interest in the progress of everything that tends to facilitate the progress of the Land Commission. The accurate and interesting Return he has referred to keeps hon. Members of the House conversant with the work from time to time. I anticipated that there would be a marked progress seen in the Returns. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary knows that there was up to a, certain time—and perhaps there has been even up to now—some delay, because the Commissioners dealing with land purchase were not interchangeable with those Commissioners dealing with land appeals. There was a certain date prescribed by the Act—I think it was June——
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There was no date. It was on the hearing of a certain number of appeals then pending.
    MR. JACKSON: There was a date, because I remember a phrase used with reference to these cases. They were called "The Pre-Junian Appeals."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Oh, yes!
    *MR. JACKSON: I anticipated that these cases would be about now completed. Therefore the Commissioners, who have hitherto been limited in dealing with these cases, will be to that extent liberated, and will be able to take their share in dealing with land purchase;, therefore we must expect that there will now he marked progress made. I am sure the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for South Tyrone have accurately expressed the feeling of the House that the intention of Parliament is that the most rapid progress that can be made should be made with these cases, and land purchase facilitated as much as possible. The Chief Secretary has referred to the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, and I think, without expressing any opinion on the point raised—namely, that whether the time has arrived for the separation of the Agricultural Department from the Land Commission proper, the Chief Secretary will himself probably agree that in beginning the work, as it were, of the Agricultural Department in Ireland, there were obvious advantages in utilising the services of the persons connected with the Land Commissioners and with their Department, because they possessed the information, they were in touch with all the agricultural details, and it certainly was not known to what extent the work undertaken by the Commission would be of advantage in Ireland. No-doubt one of the Land Commissioners has given great attention, and I must add has shown great devotion to the work connected not only with the Agricultural Department of his own Commission, but also with the Congested Districts Board, and no will grudge the due meed of praise that ought to be given to the Commissioner for the valuable service he has rendered in both those Departments. I had a feeling that the large amount of work he was taking in connection with the new Department might interfere with his more direct duty; but I have never heard that that has

    1799
    been the case. It was thought that at some date, more or loss distant, it might be desirable to set up au Agricultural Department in Ireland, such as exists for England. I would only point out that that is rather a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Chief Secretary.
    An hon. MEMBER: For the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. JACKSON: We have not au Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer yet, and I am afraid if the hon. Gentleman wishes to postpone his case till that date he will hardly give an immediate advantage to agriculture in Ireland. Up to the present the arrangement has saved duplicating a great deal of the work. As to the Congested Districts Board, no doubt the work has been of a tentative character. We have been feeling our way to see whether it was possible, by the aid of experts that have been placed at the disposal of the Board, to see whether it would be possible to make some changes for the improvement of agriculture in Ireland. No doubt the Congested Districts Board has been doing valuable work in connection with the improvement of agriculture generally, and I hope that work may be carried on in its present form for some time to come in order that they may test whether it is practicable to carry on work by means of that Board or not. I should like to mention another subject here. I am afraid if I do not take this opportunity I shall lose the only chance I shall have for some time. I do not see the Postmaster General in his place—[The POSTMASTER GENERAL subsequently attended]—but I desire to bring forward a question which is of some importance. I do so for two reasons—firstly, because I have been pressed to do so; and, secondly, because I think there is considerable danger from the system at present in operation of postmasters or sub-postmasters in different parts of the country——
    *SIR J. GOLDSMID: The right hon. Gentleman has a Notice on the Paper dealing with the subject upon which he is proceeding to speak. As a question of Order, can the right hon. Gentleman interrupt the present discussion?
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is very inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman
    1800
    to open a new subject, but he is perfectly within his right.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether it would shut out hon. Gentlemen who desired to speak later on this particular question?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not.
    *MR. JACKSON: There prevails a system which allows our postmasters and sub-postmasters—especially the latter— in different parts of the country to act as agents for other societies and for other businesses besides the Post Office. I need hardly dwell on the question of the importance to the people of this country of encouraging, as far as possible, the habits of saving and thrift which have been so much encouraged and developed by the Post Office Savings Banks, and I think the House will agree that when it is shown that the agencies carried on by sub-postmasters tend in any way to conflict with what is their duty to the Post Office, or in any way to divert the moneys of the thrifty poor from safe and reliable securities to securities which are otherwise than safe and reliable, it is the duty of the House to express its opinion and to bring to au end a system which has already been fraught with very great injury to a very large number of poor people whose savings have been lost. And therefore the House ought to express its opinion that this system ought to be put an end to at the earliest possible date. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House more than a few minutes, and I should like at once to say that I am very much obliged to the Postmaster General for the prompt manner in which he dealt with the cases which I thought it my duty to bring before him, and for causing an exhaustive and searching inquiry to be made, and in going further and entering very largely into the question to ascertain the extent to which this practice prevails throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to grant me a Return, which I am sorry has not yet been circulated to hon. Members of the House, showing in detail all the cases in which sub-postmasters of post offices act as agents for Building Societies, Investment Societies, Banks, or other institutions that are more or less competitive with the Post Office Savings Bank. I do not think, so far as I am able to ascertain, there is very much difference, in principle, or, perhaps, any

    1801
    difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as regards the desirability of separating, as far as it is possible to separate, the business of the Post Office from the businesses which compete with it, or businesses which conflict with it, and the duty which postmasters owe to him as their employer. Therefore, I do not think it will be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to concede that which I propose to ask him to concede. In the course of my observations I do not desire to attack individuals; it is a system which I propose to attack, but it is necessary for me for that purpose to illustrate the system by examples of the extent to which these agency businesses may be carried, and which, I think, tend to prove conclusively that men acting in the position of postmasters or sub-postmasters take, not, as in some eases, one agency, but in other cases as many as eight or ten agencies, some of them, unfortunately, not only of a very doubtful character, but disastrous to them who put their money in them. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself has taken a very active part in the very philanthropic work of endeavouring to raise money to try to meet the suffering and the distress of some of these societies, and I am sure he will agree that it would be a little inconsistent that, he should be at the same time collecting subscriptions to relieve the terrible distress caused to these victims, and that the postmasters throughout the country should be taking steps which may tend to multiply those victims. I do not propose to go into any details as regards those particular societies, but I say this— we have experience of postmasters acting for such societies as the Liberator and the House and Land Investment Company. The result of these has been that the savings of a number of poor people have been absolutely lost, and I think it is our duty as far as we can to prevent a repetition of that. The Postmaster General will agree that no postmaster should act as an agent of an insolvent or gambling institution. My point is this. The Postmaster General cannot discriminate, and I do not think he ought to be called upon to discriminate, because it is not in his power to say beforehand which of these societies is solvent or which is insolvent; and, therefore, the only safe course for the Postmaster General to
    1802
    take is to lay down an absolute rule that his postmasters shall not take business which conflicts either with their duty to him or his servants, or conflicts with the interests of the Post Office Savings Banks which are committed to their charge. In one case that occurred at Thirsk a circular was issued by the postmaster, and I only mention this to illustrate the point which I wish to bring before the House, and it is this—It is easy to understand that the promoters of speculative and doubtful companies will very gladly seek out postmasters—knowing they must be valuable to them—in different parts of the country, in order to induce them to act as their agents. It is perfectly obvious that a postmaster, especially in a country district, who knows the transactions of the Post Office Savings Bank, is in a position, possibly better than any other man in the district, to know who are the people who are saving money, and, therefore, most likely to invest in these societies. We ought not to allow our postmasters to be used by these speculative promoters in any such way in order to divert the moneys of the thrifty poor people from a real and safe security into very doubtful ones on the plea that they are giving actually more interest and more safety. In this particular case the postmaster of Thirsk, in April, 1891, issued a circular from the, post office, stating—
    "The safest and best investments at the present day are the House and Land Investment Trust (Limited), London, and the Liberator Building Society, where either small or large investments can be made, and 5 or 6 per cent. eventually received on the sum half-yearly, Mr. Jaques, postmaster of Thirsk, can safely recommend the above societies to his friends fur investment, having been connected with them, both as shareholder and depositor, for 10 years. J. R. has no hesitation in saying that the House and Land Trust has been unrivalled both as regards its management and security and its permanent success, and J. R, therefore, recommends it to you as one of the most lucrative and safe investments of the present day."
    With our subsequent knowledge of the safety of the security offered by these two investments, of course we know there was a little exaggeration in this. But I have only mentioned it because I thought it due to the postmaster of Thirsk to say that, wrong as he was, in my opinion, in issuing such a circular at all in his capacity and in his position as postmaster, wrong as he was in inducing—as

    1803
    unquestionably he did induce—people who were saving and putting their money in the Post Office Savings Bank to put it into securities of that kind, I do not charge him for one moment with having done that with any knowledge of the facts; and the best proof of that is that the man himself was a large loser by these securities. Therefore it is I say I do not attack individuals, and that my desire and object is to attack the system. The people in the district of Thirsk, I believe, have lost £12,000 by these two societies alone; and there are in this country, according to the Return which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me, I think, some 60 or 70 post offices where postmasters act as agents, and some of these act for a large number of these societies, and my object is to obtain from the Postmaster General a declaration of his opinion that these should be put a stop to, and to learn from him the steps he proposes to adopt to try and put a stop to these agencies. These agencies not only result in such transactions as I have described, but they also, I think, in some districts, and certainly in some post offices, seriously interfere with the business of the office. It is not unatural that the postmaster, having several agencies, possibly bringing him in a larger income than the Postmaster General gives him, does rather favour that kind of business, to the exclusion, or, any rate, to the delay of the business of the Post Office proper. I do not think it is difficult for the Postmaster General to deal with this question, and I venture to submit, in conclusion, that the Postmaster General ought to take steps at once to put a stop to those agencies in every case in which it can be done; that he ought to take steps to deal with the remaining cases. I would venture to submit that it is possible for him to do this. He should say that in each case of all further appointments the postmaster should not be allowed to take any agencies of that kind. He might, in the second place, forbid these agencies in the case of all existing postmasters who are not agents already, and in regard to the case of those who have already some existing agencies, the postmaster ought to take steps to terminate them at the earliest possible moment. I believe the Postmaster General is not unwilling to
    1804
    do that. I can quite understand that he desires to deal fairly and equitably with possible interests that have grown up. But the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he speaks out plainly on the subject, that his difficulties will disappear. He has many levers by which he can bring existing agencies to an end without delay. For instance, he is not bound to continue the post office in any particular house, or to continue any particular postmaster who does not give all his time to the service of the Post Office. But even if the right hon. Gentleman does find any difficulty in dealing with the matter, I think he should not allow even an expenditure of money to stand in his way, because I believe he will effect a great improvement in the Service, and will prevent a repetition of the terrible disasters which have occurred in these different districts through the failure of these financial societies, if he will lay down rules which will prevent postmasters and sub-postmasters from acting as agents for such societies.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I do not object at all to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this matter. I think he has done very good service in calling the attention of the House to the incident which took place at Thirsk, which was the first case that brought the matter under public notice. But my attention had been called to the subject by previous cases, and I certainly was astonished, on investigating these cases, to find that these were governed by no definite rule on the subject. On the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, a Return has been laid on the Table giving some details as to the postmasters who are acting as agents for these societies; but I have thought it necessary to call for further and more detailed information about the 60 or 70 towns mentioned in that Return. As regards the future policy of the Post Office in the matter, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in saying that there are difficulties in dealing with cases in which postmasters have been acting for years as agents for those societies, because there was no rule prohibiting them. I know of a case in which a postmaster, acting as agent for one of these societies, advertised the fact, and stated that the society gave a high rate of interest to

    1805
    Post Office Savings Bank depositors, thereby holding out an inducement to the people of his district to divert their savings from the Post Office Bank to the society for which he was agent. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman now what decision may be arrived at; but, at any rate, that decision will clearly define the positions in this matter of new postmasters and of all postmasters who are not agents for these societies, and I shall be glad to consult with him as to the best way of testing the cases of Postmasters who have been acting as agents for these societies for years.
    MR. DANEsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for South Tyrone with reference to the delay which had taken place in the office of the Land Purchase Commission in Dublin. If there was one matter which Irishmen of all classes and creeds were agreed upon, it was in reference to that scandalous delay. The hon. Member had cited eases which he had no doubt would be borne out when the facts came to be inquired into; but those cases were only typical of many thousands of others in Ireland where delay had taken place, to the great detriment of both parties concerned, the detriment of the landlords, and also the serious detriment of the tenants who were desirous, in many parts of the country, of settling down and enjoying themselves on the farms. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, as far as he could gather, stated that the delay was due, in some measure, to the Land Purchase Commissioners assuming judicial functions which the hon. Member said wore entirely out or keeping with the office they occupied: and, as far as he could judge, the hon. Members remarks received the approbation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. As a member of the Irish Bar, who had practised in the Laud Parchase Department, he could say that the hon. Member had rather exaggerated his case, because he thought that any professional man who had practised in the Courts of either the late Mr. M'Carthy, whose loss they all deplored, or the present Mr. Commissioner Lynch, certainly could not ascribe to either of those gentlemen an assumption of judicial functions. But he quite endorsed every word the hon. Member had said as
    1806
    regarded the delay which had taken place in the Office. He did not know whether that delay was duo entirely to what the hon. Member called red tapeism; but he knew the opinion of solicitors and members of the Irish Bar who had practised in those Courts, and that opinion was that the delay was caused entirely by the stinginess of the English Treasury.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear!
    MR. DANEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that those most interested in the carrying out of the work of the Land Purchase Department firmly believed that the cause of the delay was the under-manning of the Office. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a costly Department. He had no doubt it was, and he could only say that the opinion of many of those who were brought into contact with the Department was that it was by reason of the Examiners of title being entirely undermanned that these delays had arisen. He hoped the Chief Secretary would endeavour to ascertain what were the real causes of this outrageous delay, and that he would set himself to remedy it in conjunction with the Treasury. There was one other matter referred to by the Chief Secretary in which he heartily concurred, and that was with reference to what he said regarding a Minister of Agriculture for Ireland. That was a matter which had been engaging the attention of the Irish people a good deal of late, and he knew that in the North of Ireland not a few representative Boards had passed resolutions advocating the establishment in Ireland of an independent Agricultural Department. No Department was more wanted in Ireland, and no Department would do more good.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: In accordance with the pledge I gave early in the evening, I beg leave now to move the Adjournment of this Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Sir W. Harcourt.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. (No. 327.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    *MR. BROOKFIELD*MR. BROOKFIELD (Sussex, Eye), in moving—
    "That this House is unwilling to sanction a Bill which involves the continuance for another year of a tax upon tea,"
    said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) very sincerely for his kindness in affording him facilities for bringing forward that Motion. He should not have intruded on the place usually occupied by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Allanson Picton) if the hon. Member, for some reason best known to himself, had not shown a desire to abstain from controversy on that occasion. He was only now following the course which the hon. Member himself took in 1889, when he moved a Resolution. He had the pleasure of supporting the hon. Member on that occasion, and he had no doubt that the hon. Member would return the compliment now. He had long been opposed to the Tea Duties, and it was not from any sudden interest in the subject or from any unworthy motive that he now brought the subject forward. He opposed the Tea Tax on three grounds—firstly, because he thought it an objectionable tax in itself; secondly, he thought that under present circumstances it was a hypocritical tax; and, thirdly, he thought it was a tax based upon unsound principles. It might, of course be very well said that all taxes were objectionable from some point of view or other; but there was a general agreement that some taxes were a good deal more objectionable than others. Most people had agreed of late years that objectionable taxes were such taxes as those imposed upon light and air, like the Window Tax of evil memory; taxes upon knowledge, or supposed sources of knowledge, like the Paper Tax; and also taxes upon food. Hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side had certainly surpassed themselves in denouncing all attempts to impose or re-impose
    1808
    anything of the nature of a tax upon food. He believed that, to do hon. Members justice, if it were in the power of the House to re-establish the whole system of taxation and start on some new basis the Tea Duties would not be included in the programme of any Government; for the principles on which they were originally imposed had no application whatever to present circumstances. At the time the Tea Tax was first imposed, in 1660, tea was a luxury. The new China drink, as it was called, was misunderstood; now it was a common article of food used by the humblest and poorest classes. In 1660 the duty imposed was 8d. per gallon of the tea actually made; they treated it as if it were wine. They charged on the gallon that was sold in the public-house. It was not till 1689 that this duty was repealed and the Customs Duty of 5s. a pound was substituted. Now it was of some little interest to notice that as far back as 1692 this high Customs Duty was brought down to 1s. a pound. Long after that, in 1784, after various vicissitudes, it got up as high as 119 per cent. It was Mr. Pitt, he believed, who reduced it to 12½, when the yield became about half what it was when at 119 per cent. In 1834 an experiment was tried which was interesting in connection with the agreement expressed between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Prime Minister— that it was impossible to put differential duties on the various kinds of tea, for Souchong was taxed at 3s., Bohea 1s. 6d., and so on, though the arrangement was not maintained. To come down to more recent times, in 1853 the late Mr. Disraeli and the present Prime Minister, by successive stages, brought the Tea Duty back again to 1s., as in 1692. Then came the Crimean War, in which it was raised again; but in 1863–4 the present Prime Minister brought it down once more to 1s. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman told the House with unusual solemnity that, so far as he could look into the future, the reduction was a positively final measure. Hon. Members best acquainted with the right hon. Gentleman's usual course of action would not be very greatly surprised to learn that in the following year he himself reduced

    1809
    the duty to 6d. a pound. There it remained till two or three years ago, when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced it to 4d. a pound, where it now remained. He hoped to see the day when that 4d. would be also removed. He would now ask what had been the effect of those successive alterations in the import duties on tea? The effect had been to change tea from being an article of luxury, the use of which was restricted to the few, into a common article of food in general use amongst the many. He thought that he might add, without being accused of preaching, or, if he might say it without offence, of adopting the methods of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the poor who were the largest patrons of tea as consumers were also the most deserving of the poor, and those whom it should be a matter of public policy to encourage. It appeared to him impossible to defend the imposition of this particular tax on the grounds of justice, and difficult even to do so on the grounds of expediency; but for hon. Members opposite, for the great Liberal Party, to defend this tax at all, ought to be, it appeared to him, almost impossible. It would be generally admitted that if there wore two things that hon. Gentlemen opposite asserted more than anything else before the country, those were that they were the friends, the staunch advocates of temperance, and the stern guardians of what was called cheap food. He should like to ask for whom they were now doing a service—was it the Temperance Party or the consumers of cheap foods?—when they systematically made or when they continued to make tea much dearer than it ought to be? That he should lay stress on this point was natural, remembering the utterances of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen at the last General Election, when in various quarters of the country the Tory Party were denounced for their supposed tendency towards the encouragement of drunkenness and the taxation of the food of the working classes. They could now, at least, point to the fact that it was to the Liberal Party that the country owed the re-imposition of this tax. He assumed that when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had to prepare the Budget a question naturally arose how those
    1810
    £3,500,000 that were required were to be raised. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman felt that it would be a serious matter to propose any change of the large Revenue Duties raised on tobacco, though, so far as public policy went, something might be said for that. But hon. Gentlemen opposite were claiming many virtues, and, in fact, at the last Election took all virtue in the abstract under their special protection; and surely it was within the scope of their ingenuity to devise some tax a little less objectionable and a little less in sharp conflict with their own principles. He was not going to say that the working classes should not pay taxes; they ought to pay their share of the taxation of the country when they wore so largely represented in the Parliament of the country; but it was remarkable that in deciding how to raise this portion of their Revenue the right hon. Gentleman and his friends seemed to have said—"Let us tax the working man, and not only the working man, but the most deserving of his class. Do not let us catch him at the public-house and tax any of those deleterious compounds which we have been denouncing; we shall only get into further difficulties if we attempt legislation of that kind. Let us pay him a visit at the cottage, at his breakfast table and his tea table—
    And while the bubbling and loud-hissing urn
    Throws up a steamy column, and the cups
    That cheer but not inebriate, wait on each,'
    —let us read him a lesson as to the vanity of human wishes, and explain to him the difference between our professions at the time of a General Election and our actual practice when we are in the enjoyment of place and power." It was these reflections which had led him to stigmatise this tax as hypocritical and inconsistent. But he would lay more stress on the argument as to the principle on which this tax was based. He believed the principle to be entirely unsound. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on general matters of taxation held, he believed, almost identical views with the present occupant of the Office, in a speech delivered a few years ago, said that the basis of our taxation was very narrow. He thought that was a remarkable utterance, which might well be laid to heart, and he thought that until the present system was changed many Chancellors

    1811
    of the Exchequer would have to admit that our basis of taxation was extremely narrow. But he would go further, and, using the word "narrow" in a different sense, he would say that the principle upon which our taxation was based was also extremely narrow. What was that principle? It was not only that no Protective Duties should be imposed upon foreign competing products for fear of injuring the foreigner, and not only that no Revenue Duties should be imposed on competing foreign products for fear of benefiting the Englishman, but that when by sheer stress of circumstances we were obliged to impose a tax of some sort on non-competing foreign products, special steps should be taken to see that it did not either injure the foreigner or benefit the Englishman. That appeared to him to be illogical and rather overdoing it, but it was the principle on which our taxation was based. Hon. Gentleman opposite often gloried in it, though he sometimes thought that their enthusiasm grew a little fainter with the advance, possibly, of education, and the still more rapid advance of Trades Unionism, and with the general march of events throughout what was called the civilised world. The civilised world took very singular and obstinate views of this question of taxation—views which were supposed to be confined to the stupidest of the Party to which he had the honour to belong. Now we actually allowed £65,000,000 worth of competing foreign manufactures to come into this country without paying any duty whatever. He did not see that that was particularly reasonable. They did impose a tax for Revenue purposes on certain non-competing products that came into this country, but he thought that it was a singular comment on freedom of trade, or what was called freedom of trade, that if the free-born Englishman in this free country —the home of Cobden and Bright—in this 19th century said that he would try to produce the same thing that was sent to us, and which we taxed for Revenue purposes, he would either be heavily mulcted, or, if he persisted in the practice, positively dragged to prison. What was passing in his mind was the ill-starred attempt of a few agriculturists in Kent a short time ago to produce tobacco. He was inclined to think it would have
    1812
    been better policy on the part of the Excise authorities of that day if they had allowed these enterprising gentlemen to proceed, for, to do them justice, the commodity which was produced was not of that kind and quality to encourage the public in investing largely in it. But he objected very much to the principle of their being fined for the benefit of the foreigner, and, in fact, to foreigners enjoying protection at the expense of the people of this country, at all events, to that small extent. The answer to all this kind of argument, which would first occur to anyone in a responsible position would be this—"How are you going to raise the Revenue? We must have this money, or it will upset our arrangements. If it is not voted we must have a change of Government." He was so sorry the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) was still conspicuous by his absence, though they sometimes caught glimpses of him outside the doors of the Chamber. With great humility, he (Mr. Brookfield) would point attention to this fact: there were £65,000,000 worth of untaxed labour-competing foreign manufactured articles imported into this country at the present time. He mentioned that merely as an illustration, and as offering a fruitful source for experiments of the kind he had ventured to suggest in the interest of temperance and cheap food. Had hon. Members of that House examined recent Returns? They would find it was as he had said, that £65,440,000 worth of foreign manufactured goods were annually imported; and did the House realise that out of this large sum as much as £11,000,000 worth of silk was imported every year? What objection was there in the thing itself, or in the ordinary nature of things, or on political grounds, why silk should not contribute to the Revenue just as well as tea? Would it not be difficult to prove to an audience like the one which would assemble shortly at the Imperial Institute, tinged with a considerable Colonial element, that it was a sacred duty to tax tea but a crime to tax silk? He could not understand the extraordinary narrowness of mind which made politicians at the present time allow their fellow-men every conceivable latitude on religious, political,

    1813
    and other questions; but when they ventured to suggest a 10 per cent. duty on many millions of foreign manufactured goods, including silk, gloves, jewellery, and artificial flowers, they were regarded as outside the pale of rational society. He who ventured to hint at such a duty was looked upon, not only as eccentric, but as a sort of social leper, and was considered to be partially deranged. But such a man would only be doing what the largo majority of the human race were in the habit of doing. He would not trouble the House with a complete list of the articles which might be taxed, but would only say that if he were asked for an alternative suggestion he should point to the fact that to raise £3,500,000 they had only to put a tax of 10 per cent. on £35,000,000 of the foreign manufactured goods to which he had referred. Of course, there were many other alternatives. If there should ever be a Ministry which should include himself and several of his friends who sat near him, with sound agricultural views, he dared say they would astonish the world by the things they would propose in the way of taxation. He had purposely abstained from mentioning cereals; if he had mentioned anything with regard to cereals the old accusation about the loaf and cherished notions about cheap food for the people would all have been trotted out as if he had never dealt with all this as he had done. He could not help, however, reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the duty, or registration foe, or whatever it was called—the old wheat registration fee of 1s. per quarter —was taken off for no good reason whatever by the late Lord Sherbrooke. It did no one any harm whilst it was imposed, and it did no one any good when it was taken off. That tax at the present time would yield the respectable sum of £2,000,000, which could be deducted from the £3,500,000 Tea Duty. It was worth considering whether the reason which the late Mr. Lowe gave for taking off that tax—namely, that it tore away the last rag of Protection, was not a rather puerile and unbusiness-like reason. In connection with this question he ventured to hope—perhaps it was a vain hope on his part, but still he cherished the hope—that he might receive the support of some of the
    1814
    hon. Members opposite. Knowing most of them to be men of remarkable candour and consistency, he was only able to assume what they would do in the future by what they had done in the past; and some researches he had made into the pages of Hansard enabled him to see the course that some of them had taken. For instance, he found that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said a short time ago in the House of Commons—
    "The question is whether this is in itself a fair tax. I deny that the Tea Duty is a fair tax."
    The hon. Member for Northampton was not in his place to repeat his denial, and it was much to be doubted whether he would have repeated it if he had been. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) on a former occasion worked himself up into a state almost of frenzy, a state of religious enthusiasm, upon the iniquity of this tax upon the people's tea, and the hon. Member's peroration was of the most glowing kind, almost a model of eloquence. He concluded by saying—
    "I invite all friends of temperance who do not think it fair that beer and tea should be taxed almost alike or much too nearly alike; I invite all genuine Radicals and all those prudent Conservatives who agree with me that a kindly Socialism is the best preventative of a fierce and destructive Communism, to vote with me on this question."
    There were the "prudent Conservatives" who had followed the hon. Member's advice; and if the hon. Member did not stick to his principles on the present occasion, they would be forced to the conclusion that he preferred his "fierce and destructive communism" to that "kindly socialism" which he used to patronise in his more youthful days. On the former occasion, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a sort of benevolent countenance to this Motion against the Tea Duty, but he was then sitting on the Opposition side of the House. In commenting upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
    "I feel in sympathy with a great deal that has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester "—
    that, of course, any Minister or ex-Minister would say—but the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying—

    1815
    "The Government hereafter will have to reconsider our whole system of taxation, and a good deal will have to be done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Leicester."
    He (Mr. Brookfield) should listen with great interest and respect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say in defence of his taxation proposals, and he should watch with still greater interest the course which some of his followers would take upon it. Nevertheless, he should always adhere to the opinion that, apart from electioneering phrases and all that, to remove this taxation would be a sincere boon to the cause of temperance and to the general advantage of the working man. He had said that, before sitting down, he hoped to make it clear to the House that he was not one of those who thought the working man should pay nothing at all towards the taxation of the country. In his opinion, the tendency of the present day was to pamper the working man a great deal too much. It used to be said that taxation without representation was tyranny; he thought that representation without taxation was also tyranny, and that the working man with the great share of political power he now enjoyed should be asked to pay his fair share in maintaining the apparatus of civilised government. But he appealed to the Government for a less objectionable tax than this one on tea, and whatever the result of this discussion, he hoped that in the future they would see this tax entirely removed by the general consent of Parliament.
    MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONhad great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. Among other reasons for being desirous to second this Amendment was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, expressed the opinion that he anticipated a small increase from the Tea Duties in the present year. He, himself, was interested in the Tea Duties, and he was very much struck with that expression of opinion by the right hon. Gentleman, because, in the last financial year, the amount of tea consumed showed a considerable decrease upon the amount consumed in the previous financial year.
    1816
    He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must know that during the first three months of this year—that was to say, January, February, and March—the amount of tea consumed in this country decreased by nearly 3,000,000 pounds. He observed the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented, but he had to state to the right hon. Gentleman that he had obtained these figures from the Board of Trade Returns. The deliveries of tea for the first three months of 1892 were 52,158,000 odd pounds, and for the first three months of this year 49,300,000 odd pounds, being a decrease of 2,750,000 pounds, representing a loss of something like £50,000. He contended that under no system of finance could these Tea Duties be supported or even defended. If they were to have Import Duties at all, there were two plain principles upon which they should be founded. First and foremost, they should insist, as far as they were able, that the foreigner should contribute as much as possible of that Import Duty, and they should so arrange the Import Duties that they should really be an encouragement to British industries. But this Import Duty on tea fulfilled neither condition. On the contrary, it was so arranged that every penny of the £3,500,000, that was raised by this tax was drawn from the consumers of this country, and it certainly afforded no encouragement to any single British industry. He would venture to make a suggestion by which they could obviate this duty on tea. Supposing they transferred the Tea Duty to some article that competed with a British-grown article—say even upon wheat and wheat meal imported into this country, what would be the result? Last year the amount of wheat and wheat meal imported into this country was about £37,000,000 worth, and a 10 per cent. duty on that would put them in possession of the £3,500,000 produced by the Tea Duty. Let them suppose that the imposition of such a duty raised the price of wheat in this country by £3,500,000, where would the people of this country be worse off? They would, it was true, have to pay £3,500,000 more for wheat, but they would pay £3,500,000 less for tea, so that they could not possibly be worse off than they were before. They would be merely paying the same, but at

    1817
    the same time they would have a more prosperous agriculture, and consequently a more prosperous country. There was another important reason why they should consider this matter from the standpoint which he put before them. A great deal had been heard about Imperial Federation — even the Prime Minister, he believed, had expressed himself favourable to it—but how was it to be brought about? If there was one thing more certain than another it was that if it was desired to establish Federation between England and the Colonies —at all events, in matters of trade—they must treat the Colonies at least as well as they now treated foreign countries. But this was precisely what they did not do. Silks, satins, furs, and feathers were imported from abroad without paying a penny of duty, but tea from the Colonies paid an exorbitant—an almost vindictive—tax. The question had become one of Imperial interest within the past few years. In 1886 scarcely 30 per cent. of the tea imported was British-grown tea; but in 1890 70 per cent. was British-grown tea, in 1891 74 per cent., and in 1892 84 per cent. This tea did not come from China or the self-governing Colonies of Australia, which were quite able to look after themselves, but from India and Ceylon. India sent 112,000,000 lb. of tea, which had to pay a duty of something like £2,000,000. Was this fair to India, which they obliged to take their cotton free? It could not be contended that it was. Ceylon sent last year 62,000,000 lb. of tea, and the ships which carried the tea picked up en route fruit and silks and other articles of produce from foreign countries. The tea from Ceylon before it reached the consumer had to pay a duty approaching £1,000,000, while the foreign products came into this country free. These were strong reasons for the abolition of the Tea Duty. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rise in his place, sacrifice his Budget, and save his patriotism.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is unwilling to sanction a Bill which involves the continuance for another year of a tax upon Tea."—(MR. Brookfield.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I should be extremely happy to sacrifice my Budget if I could deal with the Tea Duty and many other duties besides; but I am afraid that, in sacrificing the Budget, I should have to sacrifice things very much more important than the Budget. The hon. Member for the Rye Division has challenged me to defend the Tea Duty, but it is not my business at all to defend that duty, and I do not propose to do so. If I had the means of now repealing the Tea Duty nothing would please me more than to repeal it. But the hon. Member must remember that the condition of things is not favourable to such a repeal. It might be done where there is a surplus and not a deficit. The hon. Member for West Dorsetshire, who seconded the Motion, says that his great objection to the Tea Duty is that it is a protective duty. Well, I confess that is not the ground upon which I myself would oppose the Tea Duty. On this occasion there has been more courage on the part of the Seconder than on the part of the principal, who has shrunk from proposing a duty upon corn. The Seconder has not shrunk at all, but at once proposes to substitute a duty upon wheat. I confess I am not prepared to throw over the Budget in order to propose a duty on wheat as a substitute for a duty on tea. Both hon. Members, with true orthodox faith in Protection, say that a duty ought to be put upon articles coming from abroad which were produced at home, and not on articles which were not produced at home. When they referred to the duty which is raised by putting 1s. or so upon corn they forgot to observe that the price of the commodity is only raised to the extent that the Exchequer is benefited, and that where a protective duty is put upon commodities produced at home all that is got is the money on the commodity that comes from abroad, and that no money is got from raising the price of the articles produced at home;

    1819
    but the consumer would have to pay infinitely more than the grain to the Exchequer by the tax put upon the imported article. I am not really endeavouring to convert the hon. Member for the Rye Division, for I know it is as impossible to convert the hon. Member as it would be for the hon. Member to convert me. Therefore, I think it is possible for us to agree to differ upon this question. Can the hon. Member seriously suppose that upon this occasion the House is going to repeal the Tea Duty or any other duty, and that the Government will undertake to impose either a duty of 10 per cent. on all commodities imported from abroad or, in deference to the bolder and larger view of the hon. Member for West Dorsetshire, a duty upon wheat? Those are the only substitutes which are suggested for the Tea Duty. As I have said, it is not at all necessary for me to defend the Tea Duty, or to say that I think it is a good duty to retain if there were any other duty to take its place. I must ask the hon. Members not to persist in this Motion, for they must see and feel that it is an impracticable proposal at the present time.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he was surprised that the Motion had not come from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. J. A. Picton). He had spoken and voted with him several times on similar Motions; and it was to be regretted that the hon. Member had no longer the courage of his convictions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to act not according to the merits of the subject under discussion, but according to which political Party was in power. The Liberal Party at the last Election won seat after seat in the agricultural constituencies by accusing their opponents of a desire to tax the food of the people, and by advocating a free breakfast table for the poor man. He looked forward now to Radical Members flocking into the Division Lobby on this question to redeem their pledges and vote against the Government. He protested against the attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it appear that a tax on wheat was the alternative to a tax on tea. There were plenty of sources from which the revenue from tea
    1820
    could be derived. He should vote for the Motion as a protest against the mistaken fiscal policy of the Government. Those articles which did not compete with home industries should be admitted free, and the Exchequer should be recouped by taxes on articles which did compete with home industries.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that the hon. Member suggested a tax on the food of the people.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Only on manufactured luxuries, such as silks and feathers.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that if a tax were imposed on silk, the agricultural industry, which was one of the largest in the country, would soon demand a tax on flour and wheat. He would rather have a tax on tea than on the food of the people. If they would show him how they could do without it at the present time he should be very glad to join in having the tax abolished. The only way to raise the Revenue which the Tea Duty supplied was to reduce Expenditure. Would the agricultural Members vote for a reduction of, say, £3,500,000 in the bloated Expenditure of the country? If they did—if they went with him in cutting down the Estimates—he would vote with them against the Tea Duty. To ask the House to vote against Her Majesty's Government simply for the sake of Protection was very absurd, and a thing Radical Members were not likely to be deceived by. They were pledged to a free breakfast table, and the duty on tea would be abolished directly a sufficient amount of money to compensate for the loss of the tax could be secured—and that might be secured, almost at once, by the exercise of judicious economy. As to the proposal to tax silk and other articles of foreign manufacture, he would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, "If you are honest in your desire to protect British manufactures, protect them yourselves by refusing to buy or use any others. Buy silks of British manufacture—buy British wine; you will find it cheaper; it will not do you any harm, and you will be putting a stop to expenditure on goods

    1821
    of foreign manufacture." It was absurd for Tory Members to talk of Protection in the House when they had not even dared to mention it to their constituents at the General Election. And then they spoke of a "prosperous agriculture." If they wished to bring prosperity to that languishing industry let them get rid of the landlords, and hand the land over to the workers on the soil on fair terms. They would make it pay. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members were willing to allow 95 per cent. of the time of the House to be taken up with discussing Irish affairs; but they were unwilling to allow matters that concerned 35,000,000 of the people of England and Scotland to be discussed even for a short time. As this was a Motion not for the purpose of doing away with the Tea Duty on its merits, but for doing away with it for the purpose of Protection and taxing the food of the people, the hon. Member could not expect the support of the Radical Party. If a Motion were made to get rid of the duly and to replace it with some tax upon the wealthy classes, or to make up for its loss by a reduction in the bloated Expenditure of the country, he should be glad to support it. Let them, as advised by the late Mr. Cobden, give the Government a reduceed sum, and compel them to carry on the affairs of the country with it. He had no doubt they would be able to carry on those affairs efficiently even if the Revenue were reduced by £3,500,000.
    Amendment negatived.
    *MR. BARTLEYsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment; but as that was no longer in his power, he would explain the object of it. The notice he had given was—
    "That no system of taxation can be accepted by this House which does not secure that the larger incomes shall contribute at least an equal amount in the pound to the Revenue to that contributed by smaller incomes, and which does not impose a smaller rate of Income Tax on incomes derived from present industry to that imposed on incomes derived from realised capital."
    He had on many occasions during the past six or seven years brought forward this question on the Budget. He had done so, and had divided the House when his own Party was in Office. Therefore, he supposed he was fully entitled to
    1822
    bring the matter forward now that the Conservative Party was in Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides had agreed with the principle of his Amendment on several occasions, but he had not succeeded in hitting off the exact point. Sometimes his Amendment was considered to be too sweeping. Sometimes it was said that the principle was good, but meant a great deal of change; sometimes the proposal was criticised as only taking up one branch of the subject; and somehow or other there had always been a reason found for not voting for it, but he believed the real reason why hon. Members had not supported him in large numbers was that they did not wish to embarrass the Government. Well, this evening it would be an advantage that they could not go to a Division, and consequently could not embarrass the Government. His points were two. If adopted, they would strike very deeply at the roots of our fiscal system. They would so seriously affect the Budget and the present system of taxation, that he acknowledged they would lead to considerable difficulty and change in our fiscal system. He urged, first, that by our present system the larger the income the less that income paid in the £1 towards the Imperial Exchequer. That; was a proposition which was quite clear and distinct, and he rather gathered from some remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day concerning the Budget that he did not altogether dissent from the proposition. The second point was that our system of Income Tax, by being the same in rate in incomes derived from realised capital as that derived from industry, was unjust and impolitic to all classes of workers in the country. If these two propositions were correct he would, he thought, have proved sufficient to show that the present general outline of our fiscal system was faulty; and that being so, however great the difficulty it might involve, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not shrink from rectifying the evil at the earliest possible moment. To prove his first assertion—namely, that the larger the income the less it paid in the £1 to the Imperial Revenue. This country raised, roughly speaking, for Imperial purposes about £75,000,000 a year. Taking the

    1823
    whole income of the country from the highest authorities, such as Mr. Giffen, the late Professor Leone Levi, and others, it was computed that from earnings and professional salaries the amount received was about £1,300,000,000. Taking those figures, it followed that if the whole taxation for Imperial purposes were raised by Income Tax alone, every £1 would have to pay 1s. 2d. a year. He did not say that that was absolutely microscopically exact, but it was so near the mark that he did not think it would be disputed. It would be acknowledged that 1s. 2d. in the £1 was a larger sum to take from the man earning only £1 a week than from the man earning £3, £4, or a larger sum a week. But his contention was that they were taking, under the present system, more than 1s. 2d. from poor men, and less than 1s. 2d. from rich men with large incomes. If he could establish that, he would have shown that the present system was inequitable. Take two or three typical families. A family of five members, earning £1 a week, who drank and smoked in moderation, would pay about £3 18s. 9d. a year towards the Imperial Revenue, or a little over 1s. 6d. in the £1. This family, earning £1 per week, would pay to the Revenue 4d. in the £1 above the average if every person paid alike. This seemed to him a very startling result. He had estimated that a certain amount would be expended in alcohol, and teetotalers would say that this was a foolish way of spending money. He acknowledged that money could be better spent, but that was not the point they were arguing. They had to deal with the habits of the people, on which the fiscal system of the country was based. It might be said that the total abstainer did not pay anything like £3 18s. 9d. a year towards the Revenue. That was true. A family of five, all total abstainers and non-smokers, earning £1 a week, would probably only contribute about 4d. in the £1 towards the Revenue. Such families as these, no doubt, existed, and much had been done to promote their welfare; but if the total abstainers had their own way, and induced every family to adopt that system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would of necessity have to put some other tax on these virtuous people. But
    1824
    he thought they might leave total abstainers out of consideration altogether, because they were so few. Taking the case of a family earning £2 a week, they would contribute something like £6 0s. 5d. to the Imperial Exchequer, or just about 1s. 2d. in the £1. The man with £3 a week, if a moderate man, would contribute rather less; therefore, the £1 a week man would pay to the Exchequer more per £1 out of his £1 than the £2 a week man, and the £2 a week man would pay more than the £3 a week man. Of course, if they went below £1 a week they would come to an even greater anomaly. It seemed to him that these facts showed that the system was not a correct one, but when they came to the family earning £500 a year, the anomaly continued. Assuming that moderate amounts of beer, wine, tobacco, and so forth were consumed, the family would pay to the Exchequer £28 17s. 6d., or exactly 1s. 2½d. in the £1. If the amount he calculated was too little, of course the anomaly became greater. It was said that in the case of a family of this class allowance ought to be made for servants and for guests entertained. He did not think they ought to consider them at all. because if the servants lived in the house their housing and keep were part of their wages, and they contributed their share to the Revenue. In the same way, if a man entertained guests one day they entertained him another, and thus the effect was neutralised. Then take the case of a man with £10,000 a year. If he paid 1s. 2d. in the £1, it would amount to £583; but on the most liberal estimate all he contributed to the Imperial Exchequer was £400 a year, which would be 10d. in the £1 as compared with the man who earned £1 per week, and who contributed 1s. 6d. in the £1. If they went above this and took a man with £100,000 a year, the anomaly was still greater, but of course there were very few indeed of those persons. Looking at these matters in the most superficial manner, it was clear that the man who earned something like £1 a week paid, roughly speaking 1s. 6d. out of that £1 to. the State; the man who earned £2 paid 1s. 2d.; the man who earned £500 paid 1s. 2½d.; the man who received £l0,000 paid 10d.; and the man receiving

    1825
    between £10,000 and £100,000 paid something a little more, but nearly equivalent only to the present Income Tax—6d. or 7d. in the £1. If his calculations were correct—and he should watch with some interest to see if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could refute them—it was clear that the present basis of taxation was wrong. The richer a man got the less in the £l he would pay to the Exchequer, and of course it was immensely harder for the man who earned £1 a week to pay 1s. out of that £1 than for the man who earned £10 a week to pay 10s. It therefore seemed to him that, although the labour of altering the system would be very great and serious, still he thought every impartial person would acknowledge that somehow or other the present system did work out in this way, and that the richer people did not pay as much as they should. No doubt that House, as a rule, was composed of rich men; therefore they ought to be scrupulously careful to see that there was no cause or complaint in regard to this taxation. His second point was that the man who derived his income from his own industry, and the man who derived his income from invested capital, stood on a different footing. He had often called attention to the anomaly which existed in regard to these two classes of taxpayers. The person who earned his income by his daily labour had to provide for many things which the other need not provide for. He had to provide for illness and accidents and for his family in the event of his death. The individual who had money in the Funds or in securities had not to do that, therefore he was saved that amount of practical taxation. He was sure there was a general feeling in the House that some change should he made in the system which taxed these men equally. Something should be done to alter the system by which the industrial class now paid exactly the same as the class deriving their income from spontaneous sources. He had been accused of advocating a graduated Income Tax. He objected to that—not from theory, but because he was convinced that it was impossible to calculate it or work it out. It was attempted in America, but he thought it was a bad system there. Every man declared him-
    1826
    self to be a so many thousand dollar man, and he was rated at the amount at which he returned himself. In America the names of the taxpayers and the incomes they professed to have were published, but people in this country would object to that. Such a system would lead to misstatements and awkwardness, and, to his mind, it would be better to have an Income Tax on a different scale for those persons who derived their incomes from industry and those who derived them from capital. He would not deal with the question of the large number of persons earning small amounts who paid Income Tax, for that they had gone into the other day, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed with him in his remarks. What he was driving at was this: that the House should recognise that the time had come when it should be distinctly laid down that there should be two scales of Income Tax for the two great sources of income. Years ago the amount derived from incomes from investments was comparatively small, land being the only source of income. But now, with the enormous accretions of savings in all parts of the world, incomes derived from securities of all sorts—Railways, Colonial Investments, and Companies—amounted to several hundreds of millions, that the time had come when they should separate the two great branches of taxable incomes. He did not wish to lay claim to this suggestion as a novelty. It was not a novelty in any sense; it was an old story. No doubt there were difficulties in the way; but he thought that at the end of the 19th century we ought not to be prevented from doing what was right simply because it was difficult. Lord Brougham, when the Income Tax was introduced, spoke in favour of this distinction, and in 1842 an Amendment was moved to omit from the tax professional or trade employments or avocations, which Amendment was supported by Lord John Russell and Mr. Hume. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that the thing was difficult to do in 1842, and it had been as difficult to do it over since, and that a great number of persons had turned their attention to it without avail. Still, he did assert that it was obviously so fair

    1827
    and just that there should be a difference made between those two classes of income, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should finally take it in hand. As regarded the very poor payers of Income Tax from capital, some relaxation might be made at the bottom of the scale, as was done now, in fact, in regard to all incomes. When objection was made to dividing incomes into two classes, it should not be forgotten that there were several scales at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that Schedule B was not the same as the others, nor was it always the same in different parts of the country. When the Income Tax was 6d. in the £l, England paid 3d. and Scotland and Ireland 2¼d. under that Schedule; and all they wanted was a fresh scale, chiefly in Schedule D, so that there should be two scales corresponding to the two branches. He had dealt with this question in a very hasty way, as he did not wish to delay the House, but he had desired to put these facts before the House as he had done in former years. The matter was well worthy of consideration. The taxation of the country must become larger and larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that the tendency was for it to increase. We were increasing our Expenditure in many directions, and were talking about giving pensions to this class and the other. He did not say he objected to that, but the fact remained that we were increasing our Expenditure. The richer people were, at the same time, paying less than the poorer, which showed that there was something wrong in our fiscal system. He thought, also, when he had shown that those persons who had to work for their living, and had nothing to depend upon but their own health and strength, were taxed for the Income Tax exactly the same as those who could properly spend every penny of their income, as it continued after their death, he had demonstrated that two serious anomalies ought to be taken in hand. Although he fully acknowledged that a period when there was a deficiency in the Revenue was not a very happy one for making a large change in taxation, he thought the House should, year by year, try to educate public opinion on the subject with which he had been dealing. If the basis he had advocated
    1828
    were adopted, he believed it would tend largely to the stability of the country because any injustice in taxation, especially in these days of a widely extended public Press, was very apt to lead to universal discontent.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the House has listened with interest and instruction to the speech of the hon. Member, who, as we all know, has taken a great and intelligent interest in these questions of taxation. He has raised two points to-night. Upon the first I can only express my entire concurrence in the view he has stated. I have not had the opportunity of examining the figures upon which he bases his conclusion, but I have arrived at the same opinion as he has expressed— namely, that the richer people in this country pay less in proportion than the poorer people towards taxation. That is a very important proposition, and the fact that it has come from the other side of the House is, I think, of good augury for financial reform in this country. There is no doubt whatever that the larger percentage of the Revenue of this country is raised by indirect taxation, and the great burden of indirect taxation must necessarily fall on the poorer and humbler classes of the community. On the second point I am afraid I cannot go with the hon. Member altogether so completely. As he said, it is a very old story—a story as old as the Income Tax itself. The subject was raised in the days of Pitt and also in the time of Sir Robert Peel, and the hon. Member referred to a statement made regarding it by Lord Brougham. It was also the subject of a memorable Parliamentary conflict in 1853. Mr. Disraeli, in his celebrated Budget of that year, introduced the principle of a distinction between the incidence of Income Tax upon capital and that upon what are called industrial earnings. On that occasion the present Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) delivered a speech which was memorable in the history of finance, and since that time the principle of making such a distinction has been practically abandoned by all responsible financiers in

    1829
    this country. It has never been revived by any responsible Government or any responsible Opposition since 1853, and that, I think, is a strong argument for saying that the principle has been found incapable of practical application. The hon. Member opposite, however, had a predecessor who made the question his own. The late Mr. Hubbard, a most respected Member of this House, constantly brought the question forward, and one occasion he moved the Adjournment of the House, and discussed it at great length as a matter of pressing and urgent importance. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bartley) brought the subject forward in 1891, and was answered by the late Mr. W. H. Smith in a speech replete with that commonsense which was one of marked characteristics. I have really very little to say, except to concur in the arguments used in that speech. The hon. Member said truly the other night that the persons affected by the Income Tax who increase in numbers are those at the bottom of the scale. But that shows not that the persons at the lower end of the scale are descending in social position, but that they are rising. Numbers of people who have not been affected by the Income Tax are rising into the regions of the tax. The hon. Member has spoken to-night of taxing people who have only £3 a week, but no man with that income is touched by the tax.
    MR. BARTLEY: I merely referred to those persons in connection with smaller incomes paying a larger sum in the £1 than larger incomes.
    SIR. W. HARCOURT: Certainly, but I wish to point out that a man must receive more than £3 a week, or £150 a year, before he is affected by the tax. And that is not all, because the man with £200 a year does not pay on the whole sum, but only on £80 a year, and the man with £300 a year pays only on £180. If relief is to be given under the Income Tax, which always has been, and always must be, a very unequal tax, it ought, in my opinion, to be given in the direction in which it has hitherto been given — that is to
    1830
    say, by raising the point of exemption or, at all events, by raising the point of abatement, which is now £400 a year. I think that in a flourishing condition of finance it would be possible to raise that point. There are many reasons why the suggested distinction between incomes derived from capital and those derived from industrial sources cannot be made. The matter was referred to a very powerful Committee in 1861, and the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Hubbard, brought forward a plan for dealing with the distinction. That Committee included the present Prime Minister, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Lowe, Sir S. Northcote, and many other experienced men; and after dealing fully with that plan for differentiating between the two classes of income, they reported that it presented no basis for a practicable and equitable readjustment of the incidence of the tax. The Committee added that they—
    "Felt so strongly the danger and ill-consequences to be apprehended from any attempt to unsettle the present basis of the tax without a clear conception of the mode in which it is to be reconstructed, that we are not prepared to offer the House any suggestion for its amendment."
    That is now more than 30 years ago, and since the Report of that Committee no one who has had the responsibility of dealing with the matter has thought it possible to carry out the proposal which is now made by the hon. Member. There is a preliminary objection to making that distinction which I think all responsible financiers regard as almost fatal. You cannot make the funded interests of the country subject to such an exception. It is a necessary consequence of the obligations of public credit that the Funded Debt should not be made a subject of exceptional taxation. The result is, that you would have to except the Funded Debt from the operation of the differentiated tax, and it will be seen that this could not be practically carried out. There is another objection to the proposal. It is no doubt very seductive to say that a man who derives his income from industry and trade ought to be taxed at a lower rate than one who derives it from what are called spontaneous sources. You may take a person deriving a small income from industry and a person

    1831
    deriving a very large income from capital, and you may say it is very unfair that both should be taxed on the same basis. But just reverse the process. Supposing you were to say that a business like Guinness's ought to be taxed at a lower rate than the income of the half-pay officer or the widow with £300 a year derived from invested capital? Then, again, there is another difficulty. How much of the income of a business is industrial, and how much is due to capital? In a large concern in which a great capital is invested how are you going to distinguish between the profit which is due to the personal industry and intelligence of the proprietor and that which is due to the invested capital? You would have to analyse the profit and tax part on one scale and part on another. I do not see how we are to overcome that difficulty. I have already pointed out that by means of the abatement the difficulty which the hon. Member is seeking to put an end to is already met to a certain degree. Mr. W. H. Smith, in the speech I have referred to, pointed out that there is another compensation. He said, speaking of the Death Duties—
    "An impression obtains that this realised capital is in the possession of the rich people. I am perfectly ready to acknowledge that there are a great many rich people who possess a large amount of realised capital, but in dealing with it we must bear in mind that the enormous majority of owners of realised capital are poor people."
    If that is so, the hon. Member will see that it is absolutely carried out by both the duties on realised capital. Then he goes on to say—
    "If you lay down the principle that you are to tax realised capital at the rate exceeding 1s. in the £1, at which realised capital is now paying, you must consider the ease of those who are dependent upon very small incomes derived from realised capital, and I will venture to suggest that there is hardly any class in the community who deserve more consideration, and, I may say, commiseration, than the class of poor persons with a small income only derived from realised capital."
    There is another compensation to which I should like to call hon. Members' attention. I have here some extraordinary figures, and hearing in mind the importance of this question, I think I ought to read them. I do not for a moment maintain that the Income Tax
    1832
    is, or could be made, an equal tax in its incidence, and I want to point out the difficulties lying in the way of redressing its inequalities. The net amounts upon which Income Tax is levied are—under Schedule A, £177,000,000; under Schedule 15, £25,000,000; under Schedule C, £41,000,000; under Schedule D, £306,000,000; under Schedule E, £36,000,000. Schedule A, generally speaking, is concerned with realised income or realised property. Schedule C is the Schedule relating to incomes derived from the funds and other sources of that character; Schedule E is the Schedule of salaries and incomes of that kind, and Schedule D relates to incomes derived from trades and professions and from the profits of public companies and foreign investments. It is a curious fact that under Schedule D more than half of the tax is paid on what may be called spontaneous incomes, and is money derived from investments in public companies and from foreign investments; and of the money appearing as derived from trades and professions a very large amount comes from great industrial enterprises, such as Guinness's. It is impossible in cases of that kind to determine which are properly to be regarded as industrial incomes and which as incomes derived from capital. Under Schedule D, speaking roughly, two-thirds of the whole tax are really a charge upon capital and not upon earnings. With regard to the abatements that are allowed, the figures of the different Schedules show, when examined, that there is a greater indulgence in the case of industrial incomes than in the case of incomes derived from capital. In the one case there is an abatement of £40,000,000, as against an abatement in the other case of £85,000,000 on a very much smaller amount. There is a good deal done in the direction suggested by the hon. Member in the relief of men at the lower part of the scale, there being an indulgence in favour of industrial incomes, as compared with what are termed spontaneous incomes derived from capital, but I am not at all prepared to say that there is not more that could be done and ought to be done in that direction, when the finances of the country allow. I hope the hon. Member will see that I have endeavoured to appreciate his argument

    1833
    and to give my reasons for the policy being adopted in regard to this question.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that inasmuch as no amount of investigation could make the Income Tax a fair tax, the country had a right to complain that in a time of perfect peace, and when there was no special pressure upon the taxation of the country, the Government proposed to raise the Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the deductions made in favour of industrial incomes; but he would like to point out that no deductions were made on property of a perishable kind. There were many industries carried on for a limited number of years, in the course of which the source of income was completely worked. If a man invested his capital in a business of that kind, he i ought to be allowed a reduction from the gross profits, in order to recoup himself for his capital outlay; hut, with the exception of the case of machinery, no such deduction was allowed. He hoped the time would come when some Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to remove the hardship which was caused by no deductions being made on profits diminishing in the process of trade. In conclusion, he could only again express his regret that enterprise should be encouraged by an increase of the Income! Tax at a time when trade was had and depression had set in.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
    MR. GOSCHEN: When will the Committee be taken?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: On Thursday.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 118.)
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. COLLLNGS: I thought there was an understanding that this Bill should not be taken till Thursday; I know that many hon. Members are under that impression.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Prime Minister certainly told us that at Question time.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think there was any such understanding given by the Prime Minister. He said it ought to be taken when the opportunity occurred. I think the House may very well be asked to dispose of it now. It is not a Party question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I think passed at Question time was—I asked the Prime Minister what business would be taken on Thursday. He said "Supply." He was then further questioned about the Employers' Liability Bill. I understood, and the House understood, that it would be put down on Thursday, as certain gentlemen wished to speak on it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I suggested to the Prime Minister that, if we had not got it through before, it should be put down on Thursday. It was not suggested that any discussion was necessary. I prompted the Prime Minister.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that is perfectly accurate, and I do not think any prolonged discussion need take place. I know, however, that certain gentlemen desire to put before the Government the advantage of considering the questions involved in this Bill, not in a Grand Committee, but in a Select Committee, and afterwards in Committee of the whole House. There is a great deal to be said for that course of procedure. If any large section of the House are not satisfied with the proceedings in a Grand Committee it is in their power to raise on the Report all the questions that can be raised in Committee of the whole House. Therefore, if a reference to a Grand Committee does not meet with general assent as not being suited to a Bill, no real saving of

  1835
  time is effected in attempting to avoid the Committee stage. I am disposed to think this Bill is not one that can be properly sent before a Grand Committee, where Party considerations sometimes prevail. We are all desirous a Bill on this subject should be passed. When I remember that the Government have taken the whole time of the House for their Home Rule Bill, and that most hon. Members will desire to attend the Committee on the Bill, I think it will be almost impossible to carry on a Grand Committee simultaneously. I would, therefore, suggest to the Government whether it would not be desirable, in their own interests, to send the Bill to a Select Committee, where evidence can be taken, instead of to a Grand Committee, which has got into the habit of working on Party lines, and whose verdict, therefore, may not command general assent? To send the Bill to a Select Committee might, therefore, result in a saving of Parliamentary time. I think these arguments are not unworthy the attention of the Government.
  SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped the House would not send this Bill to the Grand Committee. Certain imputations had been made which he and other Members desired to contradict in Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Beithrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, saying that he thought that Motion should come from a Minister of the Crown, when he would consider it.
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. Secretary Asquith rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  While the House was being cleared for the challenged Division.
  MR. TOMLINSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether the Motion for the Closure on the Order to commit the Bill to the Grand Committee does not necessarily preclude the possibility of discussing any of the Instructions to the Committee that stand on the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: None of the Instructions on the Paper is in Order.
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," relating to the town of Granard, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Sir John Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 334.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Samuel Hoare; and had appointed in substitution: Major Rasch.

  MAGISTRATES' QUALIFICATION BILL. (No. 13.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 17th May read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRAR).
  The Select Committee on Nonconformist Marriages (Attendance of Registrar) was nominated of,— Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Jordan, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. Perks, Mr. Picton, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Carvell Williams, Mr. Powell Williams, and Mr. Waddy.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.—(No. 29.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [22nd February] this day read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 30.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PURCHASERS OF LAND (IRELAND).
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Motion for a Select Committee deferred from Friday till Friday 19th May.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1178 (Buenos Ayres), 1179 (Adrianople), 1180 (Algiers), 1181 (Boston), 1182 (Marseilles), 1183 (Warsaw), 1184 (Piraeus), 1185 (Callao), and 1186 (Jerusalem) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented,—of Statute made by the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford, on the 7th December. 1892, amending Statute XXII., Clause 9 of the Statutes of the House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Burt.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 200.]

  LOCAL TAXATION (PROGRESSIVE INCREASE).
  Ordered, That the Report of the Right Honourable George J. Goschen, M.P., President of the Poor Law Board, to the Eight Honourable the Lords Commis-
  1838
  sioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, on the Progressive Increase of Local Taxation, with especial reference to the Proportion of Local and Imperial Burdens borne by the different Classes of Real Property in the United Kingdom, as compared with the Burdens imposed upon the same Classes of Property in other European Countries, which was presented and ordered to be printed on the 10th August, 1870, be reprinted.— (Mr. Henry H. Fowler.) [No. 201.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Amendments to — Manchester Corporation (Ship Canal) Bill [Lords]; Mid-Lothian County Buildings Bill [Lords].
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the construction of a railway, with a pier and breakwater in connection therewith, at Fishguard Bay, in the county of Pembroke; and for other purposes." [Fishguard Bay Railway and Pier Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to revive and extend the powers for the purchase of lands for and to extend the time for the completion of the Brighton, Rottingdean, and Newhaven Direct Railway." [Brighton, Rottingdean, and Newhaven Direct Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the payment, under certain conditions, of a legacy bequeathed by Louisa Anne Ryland to the General Hospital, Birmingham." [Ryland's Estate Bill [Lords.]

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES (TIMBER) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Railway Rates and Charges (Timber) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills. —(Mr. Furness.)
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

  THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  SIR T. LEAcomplained that the course taken by the Government with regard to the Employers' Liability Bill shut out several hon. Members who had intended to move Amendments. The hon. Member for the Partick Division (Mr. Parker Smith), who had an Amendment on the Paper, had gone home under the impression and according to the promise made that the Bill would not come on before Thursday. The right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) had an Amendment proposing that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade instead of the Standing Committee on Law, and the hon. Gentleman who was on his feet speaking when the Closure was moved had an Amendment to the same effect. Under those circumstances, it seemed to him that the action of the Government in closuring the Debate——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Closure was the act of the House, and the hon. Member is not in Order in going back on that.
  SIR T. LEAcontended that in reading the Bill before 12 o'clock the Government had contravened the arrangement arrived at early in the evening.
  MR. SPEAKER: As I have said, the hon. Member is not in Order in going back. That is contrary to all Order.
  SIR T. LEAasked what chance they would have of making any remarks on the Bill after the action taken by the Government? He had an Instruction down on going into Committee, but he should have no chance of saying a word on the Bill now.
  MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, this was a very serious matter, as it affected a largo number of his constituents. He would like to have the evidence of his constituents on the point whether contracting
  1840
  out was good or bad. If the Amendment which the hon. Member for Wigan was moving—and which he (Mr. Collings) had also put on the Paper in order that he might move it in case the hon. Member were absent—had been adopted, such evidence could have been taken, and the House would have been informed of the feeling of the great bulk of the employés in the matter. It seemed to him that they were now shut out from giving evidence. He should like to get from the Government some indication of the manner in which they could now get that information.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, they were given to understand by the Prime Minister himself at Question time that the Bill would be taken on Thursday next. Was that not so?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): No; this Bill was the third Order, and the pledge given by the Prime Minister was that if they did not reach the Bill to-night it would be taken on Thursday.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this was simply a question of breach of faith by the Government in regard to the Bill. What took place was this: A question was asked as to what would be the course of the Employers' Liability Bill. ["No, no!"] Yes; the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer was that the Bill would be put down for Thursday. The hon. Member for Partick, who had an Amendment on the Paper, and several other hon. Members, went home under the impression that that course would have been followed. He desired to say that it was a piece of very sharp practice indeed on the part of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order in using that language. The House has taken the matter into its own hands, and it ought now to be allowed to drop.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.