Commons Sitting of 7 September 1893

QUESTIONS.

  SHEFFIELD UNION.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has any objection to communicating to the Guardians, or the Sheffield Press, the Report of the Inspector as to the division of the township into wards for the election of Guardians of the Poor, for the satisfaction of the ratepayers concerned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The Reports made to the Local Government Board by their Inspectors in cases such as that referred to are confidential, and I cannot furnish copies to the Guardians or the Press. The responsibility for the decision in cases like the present one rests exclusively with the Local Government Board.

  CUSTOMS BOATMEN.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in announcing to the Customs boatmen the promised information of the decision of the Treasury as to their improved pay; whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the employment of some of their number for over 100 hours a week, taking into account the time necessary for clearing, leaving for the night, or being relieved; and is it the fact that a man entering the service at 20 years of age cannot attain 30s. a-week until he is 45 years of age?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The delay is due to some necessary correspondence between the Treasury and the Board of Customs as to minor details; but the delay will not affect the men prejudicially, as the improvements now sanctioned will take effect retrospectively
  454
  from 1st April, 1891. The second paragraph is assumed to refer to boatmen in London assigned to boarding duty. I am informed that no such officer has been employed for over 100 hours per week; the average attendance per week is from 80 to 90 hours, but for 20 to 25 hours of this time the men are only kept within call, and may devote the time to reading, sleeping, or recreation, as they please. The statement in the last paragraph is not correct even at the old rate of increment, and under the new rate of increment a boatman will reach 30s. a week still earlier than at present.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that, despite the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, the vaccination officer of the Uppingham Union is again instituting proceedings against persons who have already been convicted and punished for not having their children vaccinated; and if he will direct such officers in the Uppingham and other Unions to discontinue prosecuting persons who have previously suffered the penalties for the same offence in regard to the same children?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Local Government Board have no information as to the case referred to. The opinion which the Board have held as to repeated prosecutions was expressed in what is known as the Evesham letter, and they still hold the same view. I am not empowered to give the directions which my hon. Friend suggests.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Ernest Ambrose Adams, residing at Binghurst, in the Harborough Division of Leicestershire, was in October last proceeded against for not having his three children vaccinated, and then paid fines and costs amounting to 30s. or thereabouts; and was on Tuesday the 5th instant again prosecuted before the Uppingham Justices on account of the same offence in regard to the same children, and, although not fined, was again ordered to pay costs amounting to 10s. 6d.; and if, having regard to the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination,

  455
  he will order the costs in this case to be remitted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): As I have frequently been obliged to say in answer to similar questions, I cannot give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission until Parliament sees fit to alter the law.

  THE GWYLWYR SETT QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary' to the Treasury whether the Crown Quarry, called the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Carnarvonshire, is being worked by the lessee; and, if not, will he explain why; whether there is any, and, if so, what provision in the lease to compel the lessee to work it; and why that provision is not enforced?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Gwylwyr Sett Quarry is being worked, and there are five men at present employed there. The provisions in the lease for compelling the lessees to work are a certain or dead rent of £50 per annum, and a covenant requiring the lessees to work continuously with at least two able-bodied quarry-men. These provisions are being complied with.

  THE WATERFORD AND LIMERICK RAILWAY.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed at the last half-yearly meeting of the shareholders of the Water-ford and Limerick Railway Company on 31st ultimo, stating that they considered the action of the Board of Trade, in limiting the number of mixed trains on their service, as interfering with the interests of the company, the convenience of the public, and the progress of local business; and whether he can advise that this resolution will be favourably considered?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Board of Trade have not received the resolution referred to; but while I can promise that such a Memorial would have careful consideration, I must remind the hon. Member that the Legislature has imposed statutory duties on the Board of Trade, in the interest of public safety, which it is not possible for me to disregard.

  TORY ISLAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been made to him by the Committee of Lloyds with regard to the maintenance of cable communication between Tory Island and the mainland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; my attention has been called to this matter by the Committee of Lloyds, whose letters on the subject have been referred for the consideration of the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on Supply.

  EXAMINATION IN SEAMANSHIP.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, during the examinations in seamanship on the Britannia, the instructors in seamanship are allowed to be present; and whether he will consider the advisability of excluding the instructors from these examinations, and leaving the cadets alone with the examining officers?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WOBTH,): The answer to the first paragraph is that it is under orders of the examiners that the instructors attend during the examination; and to the second paragraph, that no reason is known for their exclusion.

  LIGHT VESSELS AND LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what light vessels have been or are being connected with the land by telegraph or telephone; whether all the shore, island, and pile lighthouses recommended by the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication have been so connected; and whether the experiment of connecting the Fastnet lighthouse with Crookhaven by a non-continuous cable has yet been carried out?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The work of connecting the Kentish Knock light vessel with the shore by telephone is now in progress. Lundy Island has been connected. Either the Tuskar or Gunfleet lighthouse will be put in hand at once, and my right hon. Friend the

  457
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has also authorised the connection of the Goodwin (North Sand Head) light vessel; all the shore lighthouses recommended except that at the Needles, which is now in hand, have been already telephonically connected with the land. The experiment of connecting the Fastnet lighthouse with Crookhaven by a non-continuous cable has not yet been carried out.

  POSTMEN'S VACANCIES.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can state approximately the number of vacancies for established postmen which occurred in the Metropolitan district and in the Provinces respectively in the years 1892-3, and the number of telegraph messengers who were eligible for such vacancies; and whether the preference of soldiers over telegraph messengers and outsiders had come into operation within the Metropolitan District in the said year?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have the figures for the year ended August, 1892, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be satisfied with those. They are as follows:—Number of postmen's vacancies filled in London during the year, 522; in the rest of the United Kingdom, 1,478. For these vacancies, there were in London 245 telegraph messengers eligible, and in the rest of the Kingdom 543. The policy of giving preference to soldiers over telegraph messengers has never come into operation, because the list of those with claims was not exhausted when the rule was altered. The preference to soldiers over outsiders in those cases in which there are no telegraph messengers with claims was made effective in November, 1891, and is still in force.

  ABERDARE JUNCTION STATION.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that General Hutchinson, in a Report dated 17th June, 1893, to the Board of Trade, stated that to enter the Aberdare Junction Station by the existing approach is a most dangerous proceeding and one that ought to be put a stop to without unnecessary loss of time, will he
  458
  explain why no steps have been taken to render the approach to the station such as could be used with safety?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Railway Company have constructed a footbridge over the main line, and they contend that an improved access to the station should be constructed by the property owners or the inhabitants at large. General Hutchinson reported that it was reasonable that a fair share of the expense of improving the means of access should be borne by the property owners and the Local Authority, and the Board of Trade will be glad to use their best endeavours to arrange a settlement. The hon. Member will, however, understand that the Board have no power to use compulsion in the matter.

  WALNEY LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the charges now made on all shipping entering the Port of Barrow for the Walney Lighthouse dues, a light which is reported by shipmasters entering that port as useless and not required, he will take steps to enforce the powers the Board of Trade possess, and call upon the proper authorities to inspect this light and report if the light is required, and whether it should not be abolished; and whether he will obtain a Return of the receipts and expenditure of the Walney Light, and the application of the surplus revenue reported to amount to several thousand pounds yearly, which, contrary to the Local Lighthouse Act, is applied by the Lancaster Harbour Commissioners and Furness Railway Company to other purposes than maintenance of the light?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Walney Island Light was not established merely as a harbour light leading vessels to the Port of Barrow, but for the benefit of all vessels navigating Morecambe Bay. Light dues in connection with it are chargeable under Statute on all vessels trading to the several ports in the district. No complaint has reached the Board of Trade as to its inefficiency for the purpose for which it was instituted. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, the Board are already engaged in collecting the information asked for from the different authorities concerned.

  PAYMENTS FOR MAIL SERVICES.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what sums were paid in the last financial year for mail services or otherwise by the Post Office to each of the following Companies:—Cunard Company, Royal Mail Company, Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, New Zealand Shipping Company, Union Company (African), Castle Packets Company, Orient Steam Navigation Company, and Pacific Mail Steam Ship Company; and whether any subsidies or payments for mail services were received by the same companies from any Colonial or Foreign Governments; and, if so, how much?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The amounts paid by the Post Office in the last financial year to the Companies named were as follows:—Cunard Company, £49,399; Royal Mail Company, £92,855; Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, £49; New Zealand Shipping Company, £99; Union Company, £424; Castle Packets Company, £528; Orient Steam Navigation Company, £85,738; Pacific Steam Navigation Company, £20,114. I am not in a position to say what subsidies or payments for mail services were made to these Companies by Colonial or Foreign Governments.

  MONEY LENDING IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the County Court Judge at Sheerness as to money-lending in the dockyards; and whether he will put a stop to such practices, in the interest of the men and officers in the employment of the Government?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): My hon. Friend has not supplied me with a report of the learned Judge's observations, and I have not been able to obtain one. I am informed that the money-lending transaction in question took place outside the yard, and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the superintendent. In such a case, I do not see how the authorities could interfere without unduly trenching upon the personal freedom of the men.

  NAVAL OFFICERS' LEAVE.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there has been any exceptional advantage, as regards leave granted to the men, as compared with the officers engaged in the past Naval Manœuvres; and, if so, why?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No such comparison as the question suggests can fairly be made. I informed the hon. Gentleman on Friday last what leave had, in the usual course, been granted to officers who served in the Naval Manœuvres. To the men seven days' leave has been given.

  LARNE AND STRANRAER MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that there is no mail boat service on Sundays between Larne and Stranraer, although the line is subsidised by Government; and will he take steps to remedy this state of things in the interest of the public?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware that the mail boats between Stranraer and Larne do not run on Sundays. The improved service on weekdays not long since afforded involved a very large additional expenditure, and further outlay for the purpose of establishing a Sunday service would not be warranted.

  VOLUNTEER EQUIPMENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the heavy expense entailed upon Volunteer corps, and especially upon the officers, to provide the equipment necessary to earn the capitation grant, if by their exertions the strength of a battalion largely increases, it is possible to make a grant per head in respect of such equipment as was done two years ago for the Volunteers then serving?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The special issue of 1890–1 was made under exceptional circumstances, and it is not proposed to further supplement the regulated allowances of Volunteer corps. For an explanation of the practice in this matter, I

  461
  would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answers to him on February 27, 1893, and to the hon. Member for Preston on May 1, 1893.

  VOLUNTEER DECORATIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH (: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Volunteer Decoration is still conferred by Parcel Post; and whether he will consider the advisability of conferring this decoration in some more formal manner?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Volunteer Officers' Decoration is usually presented at a parade or other suitable assembly of Volunteers; but in cases where officers, owing to ill-health or on account of distance, are unable to attend such parade, the post is obviously the best means of transmitting the decoration. I may add that officers of the Regular Army, under similar circumstances, receive their "orders" and medals in the same way.

  THE QUEEN'S BUCKHOUNDS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to do away with the Royal Buckhounds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): My hon. Friend has asked me a very difficult question indeed; but, of course, I do not know whether he is aware of the difficulties of it. The Government have had the matter in view; but they found so many difficulties surrounding it that they have not been able to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it. I hope that on more mature deliberation I shall be able to give my hon. Friend a more satisfactory answer.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: In the Autumn Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid that this can scarcely be regarded as a "non-controversial subject."
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will in this case adopt the process which has been followed with regard to the Welsh Suspensory Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a matter that will require consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether,
  462
  instead of doing away with the Royal Buckhounds by a suspensory process, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of poisoning them?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No.

  THE IMPORTATION OF RAGS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether cholera is now prevalent in Smyrna; and whether he is aware that one of the largest importers of rags in England has received a telegram, dated September 2, offering 800 bales of cotton rags to be delivered forthwith in Liverpool; and, if this be so, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent so serious a risk and danger to the lives of so largely a populated place as Liverpool?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am aware that cholera is prevalent in Smyrna. The Medical Officer of Health of Liverpool has informed the Medical Department of the Local Government Board that no difficulty has arisen there in connection with the regulations as to the importation of rags packed in bales and imported as merchandise, and no difficulty is anticipated by him. The hon. Member, on September 1, asked me whether I was aware that there were lying in the wharves at London Bridge over 300 tons of rags imported from cholera-stricken places in Europe which the rag merchants in London refused to touch or take from the fear of introducing cholera. As I was unable to obtain any information which supported this statement in the question, the hon. Member subsequently informed me that the 300 tons of rags were then lying at Cotton's Wharf, London Bridge. An Inspector of the Local Government Board immediately visited that wharf; he found no rags there, and he was assured by the superintendent that there had not been any rags at the wharf which the merchants had refused to take.
  MR. MACDONAasked whether it was true, as stated in The Globe of yesterday, that 400 bales of rags, weighing 200 tons, were despatched from St. Katherine's Dock, the destination of the greater part being Yorkshire, and thousands of tons of rags, which had been imported from Turkey and the Eastern ports of Europe were stored in the different docks and warehouses on the

  463
  Thames, and that these rags were in a foul and filthy condition?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot answer for the accuracy of a newspaper paragraph. I have already explained that the importation of filthy and infected rags is absolutely prohibited. What were described at the recent Congress at Dresden as "rags of merchandise" which have been collected over a long series of years, packed by hydraulic pressure, bound round by iron bands, and having the name of the place of origin marked upon them, are held by medical authorities at home and abroad to be rags that ought not to be prohibited. Under these circumstances, acting upon the advice of the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, and with the full knowledge that by prohibiting the importation of these rags I should be putting a stop to many important industries and putting a large number of people out of employment, I have not felt justified in prohibiting the importation of these rags, and in acting in direct violation of the Resolutions that were passed by the Dresden Congress, and which were signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It is the opinion of the Government that no risk or danger will be incurred through the importation of these rags of merchandise.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board has lately issued any instructions to rural Boards of Guardians with respect to the course to be adopted in case cholera should break out; if the Local Government Board possesses any temporary hospitals or huts which can be at once furnished on an outburst of cholera to any locality; and has it made any provisions for an immediate supply of nurses for first cases?
  MR. ASQUITH (who replied)said: The Local Government Board have issued full instructions to all Sanitary Authorities, including Boards of Guardians, as to the course to be adopted in case cholera should break out in Ireland; and during the present year the Board have been in frequent communication with Sanitary Authorities on the subject, both by correspondence and by personal
  464
  conference between the Authorities and the Board's Inspectors. It is believed the Authorities are now fully alive to their duties and responsibilities in the matter. The Board have no hospitals or huts which could be furnished for the use of Local Authorities, but they have prepared plans and specifications for an inexpensive form of temporary hospital, particulars of which have been communicated to the Authorities, and will be found in the Board's last Annual Report lately presented to Parliament. I may also observe that an Act has been passed this Session enabling Sanitary Authorities to take possesion of land for the erection of cholera hospitals. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, it is the duty of the Local Authorities to provide nurses; and the Board, through their Medical Inspectors, as well as by a recent Circular Letter, have impressed upon the Local Authorities the importance of this matter, and pointed out how the object in view can be attained.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has succeeded in drafting a clause to deal with sub-contracting; and, if so, whether he will place it upon the Paper in the course of the present Sittings, in order that there may be time for the consideration of it in the country by those interested before the Employers' Liability Bill is brought forward on Report?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I have not been able, up to the present moment, to devise a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. If I am able to do so, there will be no delay in putting down the clause.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do the same in regard to any Amendments which he may have to propose to the new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Crewe in reference to insurance?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government have no intention of proposing any Amendments to that clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has

  465
  been called to the unanimous Resolution passed by the Trades Congress calling upon him and the Government to stand by the clause of the Bill preventing contracting out of the Act?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the proceedings at the Trades Union Congress; but the Government never had any intention of making any alteration in the clause as to "contracting out."

  CAMPS OF EXERCISE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any arrangement has yet been arrived at with regard to the acquisition of the deer park in Antrim Castle demesne as a camp of exercise?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; no arrangement has been arrived between the General Officer commanding in Ireland and Lord Massereene as to the use of the deer park of Antrim Castle.

  THE IRISH EVICTED TENANTS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state, with any degree of definition, when he intends to introduce his promised Bill with regard to the evicted tenants?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government will not be in a position to make any statement on this subject before the Adjournment, nor until they have viewed the legislative business of next Session as a whole.

  THE CONVICT DALY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Daly, a convict, is being punished for statements alleged to have been made without his knowledge at a distance of some hundred miles from his prison; and whether Daly is now prevented from receiving visits?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to both questions is in the negative. Daly will, in the course of a few days, be visited by a relative.

  FOLKESTONE CASUALS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the
  466
  Elham Guardians to increase the existing accommodation for casuals at the Union workhouse, instead of providing a casual ward at Folkestone, from which a large number of casuals have to walk; and whether, in view of the fact that Elham Union is over five miles distant from Folkestone, it is intended, during the coming winter, to subject applicants for relief in Folkestone, men, women, and children, to the necessity of walking over five miles before they obtain that relief?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that the Guardians of the Elham Union have had under consideration the provision of additional casual wards, and that they resolved that these wards should be erected at Elham, and not at Folkestone. I have not, however, as yet received any application from the Guardians on the subject. When that is received it will be my duty to give the proposals of the Guardians my most careful consideration. Since the previous question of the hon. Member as to the casual ward arrangements of the Union was put to me, the Local Government Board directed the Inspector of the district to visit the wards and report fully on the subject. The facts are these:—The casual wards of the Union were erected in 1886, and are about the best wards in the County of Kent. They are built on the cellular system, and accommodate 20 men and 10 women. Each cell is warmed by a hot-water pipe and fitted with a bell. The beds are straw mattresses and rugs on a wooden platform. There are day rooms, and a disinfecting and drying room. This is the only building which has been certified by the Local Government Board as the casual wards for the Union. There have, however, during the present year frequently been a larger number of male casuals than could be accommodated in the certified wards. Temporary accommodation has in these cases been provided in a building containing two rooms, which, prior to the erection of the new wards, was used as the casual ward. This building is used once a fortnight as a temporary stable. To provide sleeping berths on the occasions when there has been an overflow wooden platforms raised from the ground have been fixed, the bedding being a straw mattress with two rugs. The provision for women and children in the certified casual ward is

  467
  four single and six double cells. When the number of women has exceeded the accommodation in the certified wards it is the practice to provide for the surplus in the receiving ward. On three occasions during the year when there was a small excess in the number of women the receiving wards happened to be occupied by cases which had not been examined by the Medical Officer, and then the overflow was provided for in one of the two rooms of the old building, but, of course, not in one which was occupied by men. As to the situation of the proposed new wards, I may observe that casual wards are not intended for residents in Folkestone, but for vagrants moving across the county, and that as regards several workhouses a casual ward at Elham is on a more direct route than wards at Folkestone would be. As I have already stated, the Guardians have informed me that the relieving officer has instructions to make provision for the conveyance by train of persons who, in consequence of age or infirmity, should not be subjected to a journey on foot to Elham, and in cases of illness he is also instructed to find the applicant a home at one of the common lodging-houses at Folkestone. With reference to a statement which I believe has been made that tramps of both sexes have been put into one room, I can only say that if any workhouse master is guilty of such a course he will be instantly dismissed.

  EXTRA CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is in contemplation by the Government to improve in any way the pay or position of extra outdoor officers of Customs in the Port of London?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The pay and conditions of employment of extra outdoor officers of Customs in the Port of London have been recently improved under Treasury authority dated June 16 last.
  MR. DARLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention to further improve the conditions under which those men are employed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The conditions under which these men were employed were very fully considered, and it was felt that a great improvement in their
  468
  behalf was effected by placing a large number on weekly instead of daily employment and wages.

  OUTDOOR DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Treasury Minute of 24th March, 1891, relative to an inquiry into the administration of the Outdoor Department of Customs, states that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been directed to the success which elsewhere in the Public Service has attended Departmental examinations held to gauge the qualifications of officers at certain stages of their career, whether he can say if this statement refers to the Excise Department; and, if not, to which Department of the Public Service it does refer; and whether he can say what is intended to be conveyed by the words certain stages in their career?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Minute was issued before I went to the Exchequer, and I am unable to give a more exact interpretation of the meaning of the passage referred to than that which appears from its wording. If the hon. Member desires more detailed information he should apply to my predecessor.

  THE AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from a firm of merchants in the City, stating that their American correspondence, ex Etruria, was not delivered at their office until after 1 p.m. on Saturday, the 2nd instant; whether these letters reached London ready sorted shortly after 10 a.m. on that day; and whether steps will be taken to insure a speedy delivery of the American mail viâ Queenstown, upon arrival in London?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on Saturday last the American mails, ex Etruria, which left South Kingstown by the 12.57 train, and which reached Holy-head at 4.31 and London 10.17 a.m. with the mails fully sorted and ready for immediate delivery, did not reach leading firms in the City until after 1 o'clock that day; and whether this period of three hours between arrival and delivery

  469
  is within or beyond the average time considered necessary for such delivery?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have seen the letter referred to. The first van conveying from Euston Station the American mails brought by the Etruria reached the General Post Office at 10.41 a.m. on the 2nd instant. The letters, although sorted in the usual manner for the various London districts, had to undergo some further preparation before they could be sent out for delivery by postmen. They just missed the delivery in the City commencing soon after 11, and could not be sent out until noon. Every endeavour will be made to insure a speedy delivery of the letters as far as possible.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General at what hour the Teutonic, which left New York on Wednesday, 30th August, at 10 o'clock a.m., reached Queenstown on Tuesday last, and at what hour the New York, which left at 8.45 a.m. on the same date, arrived at Southampton; and when were the mails conveyed per Teutonic and per New York delivered in London?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Teutonic arrived off Queenstown at 3.10 p.m. on the 5th instant, and the New York arrived at Southampton at 7.20 a.m. on the 6th. The correspondence for the City brought by the Teutonic was sent out by the delivery commencing at 2.5 p.m. p.m. on the 6th. That brought by the New York had already been delivered, having been received in time to be included in the delivery commencing at 11.5 a.m.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Were the mails which arrived by the New York taken on by ordinary or special train?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Not by special train. It was not a case in which a special train was required.
  MR. SEXTON: Was there a special service from Queenstown for the Teutonic?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No; there was not—the full mail came by Southampton.
  MR. SEXTON: If there had been a full mail, would there have been a special service from Queenstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot answer that, but I will make inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: I understand that this was one of the cases where, the mails
  470
  arriving on Tuesday, a special service would be given to insure that merchants in London and other large towns would be enabled to forward their replies by the mails going out to-day.
  MR. A. MORLEY: I believe that is the case, but I will inquire about the matter.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the mails which arrived by the New York at Southampton at 7.20 a.m. were delivered before the specially addressed letters by the Teutonic, these letters having arrived in London between 6 and 7 a.m?
  MR. A. MORLEY: They arrived off Queenstown at 3.10 p.m. on the 5th, and in time to be sent out by the delivery commencing at 2.5 p.m. on the 6th.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will inform the House what steps have been taken with reference to the promised inquiry into the circumstances of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, the nature and scope of the proposed inquiry, and the name of the official who has been appointed to conduct it?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury has written to the Board of Public Works expressing the opinion that an inquiry should be held by an expert as to the actual condition of the Tralee and Dingle Line, and the outlay on alterations and rolling stock necessary for safe working, and asking the Board to suggest an engineer to whom the inquiry might be entrusted. I have not yet received the Board's reply.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will agree to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any Correspondence, or of any facts that may be ascertained by the inquiry?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will consider the matter.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the Board of Works?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have already done so.

  DRUMCONDRA TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  471
  tenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland communicate the results of the examination held in July of candidates for the Training Colleges to them or any other persons; and, if not, whether he can state why not; and whether there is any objection to publishing a Return of the names of the candidates admitted to Drumcondra and the other Training Colleges, with the percentage of their answering as well as that of the rejected candidates?
  MR. ASQUITH(who replied) said: The Chief Secretary is in communication with the Commissioners of National Education with reference to this question, and will be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question next week.

  KILDYSART PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the appointment of Head Constable Crosby as Petty Sessions Clerk at Kildysart; whether Constable Crosby has yet served his time for a pension; and whether, as he was not retired, he is eligible for the appointment?
  MR. ASQUITH (who replied)said: The name of the Head Constable is Cromley, not Crosby. He received the permission of the Inspector General to become a candidate for the post, and was appointed by the Magistrate. He was entitled to a pension on his retirement from the force. The matter is now under the consideration of the Irish Government.

  THE COAL CRISIS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information as to the serious rioting in various colliery districts?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have telegraphed to the Chief Constable of the West Riding for a full Report. I regret to say that very serious disturbances are reported to have taken place at Knottingley; but I am not able to give the House any information.

  SUSPICIOUS DEATH.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is
  472
  true that one of the female cleaners on the establishment of the House of Commons was taken ill on Tuesday last and died this morning of Asiatic cholera?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member has not given me notice of the question. I am aware that a fatal case of a very suspicious character has taken place this morning of one of the cleaners of this House. The question is receiving the most complete examination by the Medical Department of the Local Government Board; and, although I am sorry to say that all the indications are very suspicious, I am not prepared to say that it is a case of Asiatic cholera.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): A promise was given recently that a statement should be made on behalf of the Government with regard to the future progress of business. I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I were to mention, in the first instance, that the Army Estimates will be taken on Monday next.
  MR. HANBURY: The War Office Votes first?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes. With regard to the Bills the Government desire to keep on the Paper, I prefer to mention the names of those which we hope may live rather than those which we fear may die. I would divide those Bills into several sections. The first section I would call Bills that we must pass, I think. These necessary Bills are three—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and I must also reserve power to bring in occasioned Financial Bills that may arise out of the circumstances of the time. Then I come to the second class, which are Bills of an extremely useful and non-contentious character, mostly Consolidation Bills, which are of immense convenience to all classes of the community. They have been prepared with great care, and, as they merely re-enact the present law, I hope the House will allow them to be taken in the interstices of business. They are the Sale of Goods Bill, the Trustee Consolidation Bill, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and one that does not belong entirely to this category

  473
  —namely, the Public Authorities Protection Bill. Then I come to the third and last class of what class of what the Government hope may be regarded and accepted by both sides of the House as non-controversial. The first is the Naval Defence Amendment Bill, which is necessary in consequence of certain difficulties that have arisen in the winding up of the Naval Defence Act. Then there is a Bill mentioned the other day by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, and there is the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill. Then I come to another Bill, which I hope will be accepted as non-controversial, the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. That has been agreed to in all its main particulars by the Scotch Members, and is identical in principle and similar in its provisions to the Bill introduced by the late Government. Its provisions have been recommended by a unanimous Report on Sea Fisheries this Session. Then there is the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Pistols Bill. I hope that Bill may be accepted as non-controversial. [Mr. HOPWOOD: No.] I understand that my hon. Friend is the only opponent of the measure, and I hope that he will withdraw his opposition, in order that the very general sense of the House may be carried out. Though it is difficult to call a Pistols Bill a non-controversial Bill, I hope it may so be treated. Then there is a Bill which comes down from the Lords, called the Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I hope that may be put in the same category. Another Bill of great importance is the Savings Bank Bill; and although the banking interest is offering considerable opposition to it, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General that negotiations are taking place with a view to a compromise. I should, therefore, hope that the Bill would be kept on the Paper. Coming to the last Bill upon which a good deal was said the other day—I mean the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill—I would make a very earnest appeal to gentlemen on both sides of the House to allow this measure to be placed in the non-controversial category. The opinion of London is very strong in favour of this measure, the London Members are almost unanimous upon the
  474
  subject, and there is no opposition to the principle involved. I hope the late Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the Bill to be kept upon the Paper, and to be treated as a non-controversial one. If great conflict of opinion should be found with regard to it, it could then be dropped. It is a great disappointment to the Government that the circumstances will not permit of these Bills being more numerous. I hardly think it necessary to state that the Employers' Liability Bill and the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill will be kept upon the Paper as the principal Bills to be dealt with during the Autumn Sittings; and I should hope, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to state that he agrees with the list I have mentioned, that the proceedings may be shortened, and we may have an early holiday.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the House will agree that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a most conciliatory speech, the list of Bills which are still to be retained on the Order Paper, and which he hopes will be discussed, is rather a long one. There are 14, which the right hon. Gentleman has divided into three categories—the necessary Bills, the Consolidation Bills, and other Bills. With regard to the necessary Bills—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the Occasional Finance Bill—I have only two remarks to make. Of course they are necessary Bills, but I am under the impression that there are matters in connection with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which will lead to some discussion. That has to be taken into consideration when we are discussing the distribution of the time of the House. About the Statute Law Revision Bill I presume there will be no difficulty. As to the Consolidation Bills, I have no authority to say how they will be dealt with by the House; and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that it would be impossible for me to give a definite answer without consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and Members interested. I see no objection to the Naval Defence Act Amendment Bill passing; but I can give no answer to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, the Pistols Bill, or the

  475
  Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I believe the Savings Bank Bill is the same measure as was introduced by the predecessor of the present Postmaster General, with this difference—that the limit of the amount of deposits is raised from £50 to £100. I understand that there is a possibility of a compromise with the bankers, and if the latter are contented we shall be prepared to see the Bill pass. Of course, I cannot speak for the bankers without consultation, but I can undertake that there will be no Party objection to the Bill. Then I come to the last Bill mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the London Equalisation of Rates Bill. I must say I was rather astonished at the manner in which it was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman; and I think it is scarcely fair, after the previous declarations which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made, to re-introduce this question. The right hon. Gentleman has been, no, doubt, under considerable pressure, but with that the House really has nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it was treated as controversial it would be dropped. Certainly, there are large questions of controversy in the Bill; it is not, however, a question of the Members of this House only, but of the Local Authorities in London, and it would be unfair to the Local Authorities to call upon them at this period of the Session to present their case before the House. The Bill involves considerable difference of opinion, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adhere to the declaration with regard to it that he made upon a previous occasion. It is highly probable that Members may have left London under the distinct impression that the right hon. Gentleman's decision was final. I do not feel that I am in a position to give any answer as to other Bills, though personally I think the Bombay Army Bill is a good one, and should not be treated as a matter of controversy, and that the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill might be passed.
  SIR C. W. DILKE, on a point of Order, asked whether it would be in Order for anyone to make observations going beyond those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Oppo-
  476
  sition, or whether questions only could be put?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that questions only could be put.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the Government intended to do anything in the way of legislation on behalf of the Highland Crofters?
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked whether, as the Law of Commons Amendment Bill and the Sale of Goods Bill were likely to give rise to protracted discussion, it would not be better to withdraw both Bills?
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked whether the discussion on the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill could be taken at a reasonable hour; and whether the Government, in order to facilitate the passing of the measure, would accept, without debate, all the numerous Amendments which stood on the Paper?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether, in view of the notes on the Bill made by the draftsman, the Merchant Shipping Bill was not more than a consolidation measure?
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked whether Progress would be reported that night at a reasonable hour, to allow the London Equalisation of Rates Bill to be discussed?
  MR. STUARTasked that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Equalisation of Rates Bill might be read a second time?
  COLONEL LOCKWOODinquired whether "the interstices of Public Business" meant Saturday Sittings?
  MR. DARLINGasked that sufficient notice of the Equalisation of Rates Bill coming on might be given, so that Members might be present at the discussion.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland would be brought in during the Autumn Session?
  MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the promised Bill would be introduced for the repeal of the property qualification of Magistrates in England and Wales?
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government intended to

  477
  move Amendments on the Madras and Bombay Armies Bill or not?
  SIR A. ROLLITasked that, in view of the urgent need of such a measure, the Savings Banks Bill might be passed this Session? He intended to support the Equalisation of Rates Bill in favour of which he had presented a Petition from his Vestry, and thought opposition to it might be removed by bringing on any discussion at an earlier hour than 2 in the morning.
  MR. HENEAGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take these Bills after 12 o'clock, or whether he proposed to carry them over to the Autumn Session?
  SIR H. ROSCOE, considering the recurrence of cholera, asked for facilities for passing the Isolation Hospitals Bill.
  MR. NAOROJIasked when the Indian Budget would be taken?
  MR. HOWELLasked that the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill should be pressed forward this Session.
  SIR R. TEMPLEasked whether the Madras and Bombay Army Bill would be taken at some hour when it could be fairly discussed?
  MR. MOREasked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation to enable them to send those Bills which they expected to pass shortly before Christmas to another place?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has divided the Bills which he proposes to take into three classes. As to the first of these, I do not think there can be any objection on any side of the House. As to the second class of Bills, relating to consolidation, I should, for my own part, have no objection to them if the Government give their pledge, which I understand them to do, that they would involve no alteration of the law [cries of" Order!"] Nor can I believe there would be any objection to the third class, provided—[cries of "Order!"] I shall move the adjournment of the House if hon. Members persist in their interruptions.
  MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.) rose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether there was one rule for the right hon. Gentleman and another for other Mem-
  478
  bers of the House, who would like, not simply to put questions, which the right hon. Gentleman was not doing, but to speak?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman was intimating that there was no objection to certain Bills, he thought the progress of Business might be facilitated if he were allowed to proceed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. I cannot understand what the objection was. As regards the third class, there can be no objection to taking them if the Government would undertake to deal with them before 12 o'clock; but if they intend to take advantage of the new Rules I can only say there is the very greatest objection to all these Bills.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thoroughly admit that no Bill ought to be taken as a Consolidation Bill which is not really of that character, and if the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) is at all right in what he said respecting the Merchant Shipping Bill—namely, that there are serious alterations in it—we shall not attempt to proceed with a measure of that volume and magnitude. I will take notice of what the hon. Member has said, and inquiry shall be made into the matter. All we are doing now is keeping these Bills on the Paper. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Mr. Anstruther), as I understand those Burghs are on the East coast of Scotland, coming forward as the principal opponent of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, treating him unfairly, and endeavouring to misrepresent what he had said. All he had done was to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman respecting the Bill. He had said no word against the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that most of the Scotch Members, except the hon. Member, have withdrawn their Amendments; but if there is any serious opposition to the Bill, and it appears that the measure will require considerable time to dispose of it, it will not be taken. As to the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), I forgot to mention that what we propose is that the Merchant Shipping Bill

  479
  should be read a second time for the purpose of referring it to a Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that he objected to the Second Reading of the Bill, on the ground that it was not a Consolidation Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Something was said about the interstices of business. I did not mean by that phrase a fugitive half-hour. It may occur that we may have a spare day, and in that case we shall endeavour to proceed with the least controversial of the Bills, and get them forward. I also meant that these Bills would be taken at any time during the Session. I have always endeavoured to make that clear as well as I could.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I do not know that he has said anything inconsistent with what he says now; but what he says now is distinctly inconsistent with the pledge the Prime Minister gave.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that. These matters have been discussed between the Prime Minister and myself from the commencement, and I am sure if he had said anything of that kind I must have known. My recollection of what he said is that it related to the main business of the Session. It is not our intention to proceed with the Magistrates' Qualification Bill during the present Session.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: The Government gave notice of the Bill early in the Session.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At all events, it would be regarded as a new Bill, and we cannot ask the House to go on with it now. Objection was taken by an hon. Member to the Commons Amendment Act. I think that may be regarded as not a very dangerous or revolutionary measure. I am not acquainted with the Isolation Hospitals Bill, but I will inquire concerning it. If it is a useful and urgent Bill, and no objection be taken to it, it may be disposed of. I am very sorry I cannot mention the date of the Indian Budget, because we have already stated that it is to be taken with the Appropriation Bill. I wish I knew when the Appropriation Bill would be taken. As to the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, I hope to take it in reasonable time.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government proposed to support the Bill, or to move Amendments to it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Generally the Government support the Bill in its present form, but, of course, they do not preclude themselves from introducing Amendments. As to the Scotch Accidents Bill, we are obliged to exclude it from the list of those to be dealt with in this part of the Session, because I understand one of its provisions is very much disputed.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the Crofters Act Amendment Bill was to be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That would be a new Bill, and we cannot undertake to ask the House to consider new Bills now.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSasked what was to be done in relation to the Bills of Sales Bill? He understood that the Attorney General was willing to re-consider the point when he (Mr. Williams) opposed the Bill. As he believed the Bill as a whole was a very useful one, he hoped that it might by arrangement be placed in the category of unopposed measures.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have inquired of the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), and he thinks there is so much opposition to the Bills of Sale Bill that it cannot be included in the list of unopposed Bills.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What is to be done respecting the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill? I presume that, a protest having been made against it, it will not be pressed forward this Session?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There was just now a like controversy between my right hon. Friend and myself, which I think I am now able to clear up—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is displaying a newspaper. It is usual when a newspaper is used in the House to reduce it to the smallest possible compass.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say, Sir, I have no other report of the Debate to which to refer; but it appears that on a previous occasion I asked the Prime Minister whether, supposing that, with the assistance of the Opposition, the Second Reading of the

  481
  two important Bills which had been referred to were got through in a month, the Government were going to introduce other Bills. The Prime Minister replied that he thought I was going a little beyond what he had said, and referred me to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) said—
  "We are asked if we intend to take any other measures. Our object certainly is to promote these two measures, and, although we cannot bind ourselves before the House, it is not our intention to promote other measures than these two in the Autumn Session."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman will see that I stated on another occasion, in reply to the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who asked me what I meant by "other small Bills"—I am speaking from recollection, and cannot say that those were the exact words—that I meant non-controversial measures. I am very sorry that a misunderstanding has arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but the intention of the statement I made was certainly what I have described.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether the question alluded to did not refer entirely to Bills to be dealt with during the present Sitting?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think so, or I should certainly never have bound myself at all. I have always intended to ask for these non-controversial measures. Surely if we have spare time we are not to sacrifice all these Bills. I think our proposal is perfectly reasonable, and it is one which has certainly always been in our minds. With reference to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, I have said, and I am bound by the statement, that, if the responsible Leaders of the Opposition regard it as a controversial measure, we shall not feel at liberty to proceed with it. I understand that my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Goschen) does think it a controversial measure, this opinion is in some degree reinforced by what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton).
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that was not the case.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) spoke hostile to the Bill, but he asked very fairly whether notice would be given, so that Members would
  482
  be able to discuss the Bill if it came on. If that were the only condition I should be able to comply with it, as it is a very fair one. That, however, I do not understand now to be the present state of the case. I understand that the hon. member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) considers that the Bill could not proceed without a good deal of discussion.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I said I was in favour of the Bill and intended to support it, but I thought that early to-morrow morning was not quite the proper time for discussing it.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he had expressed no opinion that the Bill was controversial. He was in favour of the Bill. He had asked merely whether the Government would report Progress at such a time as to afford an opportunity of having some discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, Sir, we cannot in the present state of business stop Supply in order to proceed with this, that, or the other Bill. I had hoped that as far as the Second Reading of the Equalisation of Rates Bill was concerned it would have been agreed to without further discussion. I understand that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) desires a discussion on the Second Reading. Well, that, of course, prevents the progress of the Bill. There is, however, very little use in considering whether there should be a discussion because I understand the Bill is not accepted as non-controversial.
  MR. R. JASPER MOREasked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation for sending these measures to "another place." Would the House of Lords sit between Christmas Day and New Year's Day?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot undertake to answer for what is done in another place. We can only pass our measures here.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: My hon. Friend opposite has asked me, as to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, whether I propose to consider it on Monday as the Army Estimates are down for that day? Unless the Army Estimates are continued until a late hour I propose to take the Bill on Monday. It is necessary that the measure should pass either during the present Sittings or the Autumn Session.

  483
  I know that some hon. Friends of mine opposite take objection to certain Acts which are included in the Bill, but I do not think their opposition can be serious, because it will be impossible for them to take any portions out of the Bill. The Bill continues 52 Acts of Parliament, all of them, with the exception of two, having been continued from 20 to 40 years. As nearly all of those Acts expire on the 31st December, I think I can show a good case why the Bill should be allowed to proceed on every opportunity.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to take tonight any of the Bills mentioned, and, if so, at what time he proposes to report Progress?
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland during the Autumn Session?
  MR. ANSTRUTHERinquired whether it was not the case that, on the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill to which he (Mr. Anstruther) had an Amendment extending the operation of the measure, the Secretary for Scotland had stated that he would accept the Amendment, whether the Debate was not very much restricted in consequence, and whether the right hon. Gentleman now considered it was fair to ask Members to forego all discussion of the very important branch of the subject to which the Amendment related?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I may say that the Government have prepared not a Parish Councils Bill, but a Local Government Bill for Scotland. This measure would give to Scotland everything that will be given by the Local Government Bill for England, but of course it would be adapted to Scotland and drawn on Scotch lines. Whether or not it would be in accordance with the engagements made by the Government that this Bill should be introduced during the Autumn Session I will not discuss, because I do not think there will be any need to introduce it and have it before this House. The Bill is prepared, and I have no doubt that the
  484
  English Bill will be a pledge and a prelude to the introduction of the Scotch Bill. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Anstruther), the Government would have been extremely glad to introduce the Amendment relating to the salmon fisheries which he proposed, and no doubt it is true that if the Government had not expressed that willingness my hon. Friend would have occupied, and would have been justified in occupying, for a longer period the time of the House. But, as the matter now stands, the only chance of passing the Bill is to pass it without the salmon Amendments. The Government believe that the Bill in its present shape is unanimously approved by Scottish Members, except with regard to some omissions from the financial clauses which the Government are prepared to make. I am afraid if my hon. Friend insists on salmon Amendments being inserted there will be no chance of passing the Bill this Session.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked whether the Government had any intention of proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill before Monday? He wished to have an opportunity of considering whether it was possible to adopt the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HOZIERinquired whether there were not certain Amendments with regard to the payment of fishermen's expenses, and so on, which were important?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government propose, in deference to what I believe to be the pretty general opinion of the Scottish Members, to leave out Clause 20—the financial clause. There are also some small Amendments which the Government are prepared to accept, and I believe we shall be able to meet all the objections taken to the Bill by Scottish Members, though I cannot say we shall be able to introduce all the Amendments they wish to make. I earnestly hope that between this and Monday my hon. Friend (Mr. Anstruther) will consider the position, and that he will agree to the course I suggest.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we are to definitely understand that he feels himself unable to proceed with the Equalisation of

  485
  Rates Bill for London in consequence of the hostile attitude of the Opposition?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; that is not right. I stated some time ago that with the exception of the two Bills mentioned, we did not intend to take controversial measures, and therefore I endeavoured to ascertain as far as I could what the opinion of the House was as to what was controversial business. I am satisfied that a considerable portion of the House regard this as a controversial Bill. We therefore have decided not to go on with it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was intended to go on with the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill that evening, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake not to proceed with the Second Reading until his (Mr. Bowles's) objection had been fully considered?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member must be satisfied with the declaration that we will not take it to-night.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was aware that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill contained the Ballot Act, and that as that Act was a controversial measure, as shown by the discussion which took place last Session, he would allow it to be discussed separately?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, does not seem to understand that no Amendment could be made in any Act included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. An Act can be omitted, but not amended. Hon. Members should bear this simple fact in mind in connection with my statement that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is a measure of a non-controversial character.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £45,471, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
      486
      necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to continue the statement which he was making on the previous evening in regard to Siam. He was at a little disadvantage in beginning afresh, but he hoped the Under Secretary would have the points before the House—the delimination of the country within the bend of the river; the fate of Luang Prabang; the neutral zone effective if it were broad, ineffective if it were narrow; and most of all the true definition of integrity and independence of Siam not only according to French ideas, but according to English ideas. He would remark, in the first place, that, as the friend and ally of that country, it might be well if some assistance could be afforded, perhaps indirectly, to Siam in raising the amount of the indemnity which had been imposed by France, so that no excuse could be given for prolonged occupation. At all events, he wished to know how the matter was progressing. The river which ran through the district in which Chantaboon was situated came from the hills, in which were situated mines of precious stones and possibly minerals; and in those mines British capital and British mining engineers were employed. The Great Lake was also a very important point, as also were the islands in the Gulf of Siam. He wished to be informed as to the position on the western shore of the Great Lake, as to whether the islands in the gulf were still occupied by the French, and, if so, were they going to be evacuated, and when? Were the Government without reliable and definite information as to the French works round Chantaboon? A still more menacing matter was the nature of the proceedings of the French Special Envoy, who was now at Bangkok, and as to whom he had addressed several questions to the Government. Possibly the answers given to those questions merely indicated that the Foreign Office did not know of any arrangements between France and Siam which would have the effect of excluding British interests in the latter country. He further wished to ask the Government whether any commercial arrangements were being

      487
      negotiated at Bangkok which would have an unfavourable effect upon England as compared with France. He should also like to know whether the British Government would object if Siam showed any tendency in the negotiations with the French Envoy to infringe the existing Treaties which secured to England the most-favoured-nation clause. The answers previously given on these points could not be regarded as satisfactory, and there was undoubtedly considerable apprehension existing that something of this kind was now going on between the French Envoy at Bangkok and the Siamese authorities—that some concessions were being made, and that commercial conditions were being entered into which would have a tendency to exclude British commerce. He had had a letter from one who was well informed, part of which he would read to the House, as it showed how, by making separate arrangements, France might drive a coach and four through the Most-Favoured Nation Clauses. So he could say that he thought there was reason for his demand for information. He believed that unless the British Government exercised considerable watchfulness and firmness it would be perfectly possible, despite all influences to the contrary, for negotiations to be entered into at Bangkok which would prove to the disadvantage of British commerce, and which would be discovered when it was too late to effectively safeguard British interests. That some secret negotiations were going on seemed to be very probable, for what else was the French Envoy doing at Bangkok? He could not be there to settle the details of the ultimatum, for they had already been unreservedly accepted. There was reason to believe that France was engaged in negotiations with some ulterior object, and it was of great importance to England to provide against those negotiations affecting the integrity and independence of Siam. He would simply say that, notwithstanding any promises or assurances that had been made on the point, the Government should not hesitate to question the French Government on the matter—not with reference to old matters which had already been practically settled, but with regard to the future integrity and independence of Siam. On the one hand they should
      488
      warn Siam that they should object to any arrangement with France which might prejudicially affect their treaty and commercial rights; and, on the other, should intimate to France in a friendly manner, though with a proper degree of firmness, that they should strongly object to any arrangement which affected the independence of Siam. Considering the great interests which England possessed in Siam, and the great importance to her of the integrity and independence of that country being maintained, he wished to urge these points on the attention of the Government as strongly as possible. It might be said that it was too late to take any such steps; but he admitted that many precious interests had been already sacrificed, and he denied that it was too late for the British Government to take steps to prevent Siam from being absorbed into the French Empire, and to insure that she should become a real and solid buffer State between the English and French possessions. He did not wish to say one word hostile to the French. He did not desire to show any unbecoming jealousy of them. On the contrary, he heartily wished them success in the consolidation of the dominions they had acquired in that part of the world. But there must be a limit to French ambition, and that limit should be drawn somewhere in Siam, so as to keep an inviolable zone between our Indian Empire and the French possessions in Eastern Asia. Certain articles had appeared lately in the Press and in the London magazines, in which it was stated that our Indian Empire was coming more and more between the two fires of Russia and France, and, although he was sorry to say he had not written those articles, he could say that the statements in them were perfectly true, and would be confirmed by any Englishman who had resided in the East. In conclusion, he trusted that in his speeches on this subject he had not pressed too hard upon the Government in point of argument, because he had frequently admired the firm, resolute, and forward attitude they had taken up with regard to Egypt and Canada, and other places, and he heartily concurred in the able speeches made by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but the present state of things in Siam was so serious that it

      489
      was necessary to call the Government to account as strictly as the Rules of the House might allow, in the hope that they would be able to give a good account of their stewardship in this matter. He was looking forward to the Blue Book which would inevitably have to be presented, and he hoped that would justify the nation in reposing confidence in the Government as English Ministers acting on behalf of England.
      MR. CURZON: No one in the House, I am sure, will be disposed to blame the hon. Baronet for raising this important question, which he has discussed in so interesting and authoritative a manner. Not even the most ardent supporter of the Government will say we are doing wrong in taking up a small amount of the time allotted to Supply in calling the attention of the House to so grave a question as British interests in the far East. Throughout this Session of Parliament I venture to say that the Opposition have shown more than ordinary forbearance towards the Government in respect of their foreign policy, mainly, no doubt, due to the confidence which has been hitherto reposed in the administration of Lord Rosebery. Before proceeding farther, I would say that the importance of this subject must not be gauged for a moment by the depleted state of the Benches I see around me. It is unfortunately, but undoubtedly the case, that there are considerable sources of attraction in a sometimes much derided place elsewhere, where the Foreign Secretary is speaking on a subject on which his views to most of us are at least of as much interest as his views upon matters connected with his own Department. But though those of us who speak on this question here have but a scant audience, much greater importance is attached to our words elsewhere than is perhaps apparent to the minds of our colleagues. That which is said in this House is not only printed and circulated in the newspapers at home, but is telegraphed and published in every country in the far East. I do not desire on this occasion to repeat what I said last time this matter came before the House, but this I would venture to say, that there is not a single criticism in which I then indulged or a single anticipation I then hazarded that has not been
      490
      justified by what has since transpired. I adhere to the opinion previously expressed that if in March last the noble Earl had found it compatible with his duty to address a perfectly friendly letter to the French Government pointing out that, while we had no desire to interfere in the frontier dispute between Siam and themselves, we should regard any further encroachment upon the integrity and independence of Siam with disfavour and as unfriendly on their part, recent occurrences would never have been seen or heard of. In my travels in Tonkin and Cochin China last November and December I discussed this matter with French officials, and gathered from them that it had never entered into their heads that Great Britain would acquiesce in the French demands, which will result in the virtual dismemberment and extinction of the independence of the Kingdom of Siam. But at an early stage of these proceedings Lord Rosebery, carrying to an extreme limit diplomatic courtesy, assured the French that we had no concern in their quarrel in that part of the world, and the French Government forthwith, interpreting these assurances in the most liberal and most agreeable sense to themselves, proceeded step by step at a rate of progression which can only be described as geometrical, and presented first one ultimatum, then a second, and now, we understand, a third to Siam, expecting at each moment to be pulled up, and as much astonished at our forbearance—I might almost say our weakness—as they were gratified at their own success. Meanwhile, we have been assured by the representatives of the Foreign Office that the French Government is still respecting the pledges it gave. But one of the terms is that the Siamese are not to keep any troops within 16 miles of the right bank of the River Mekong, although they are to be allowed to retain a police force there. The only police, however, in Siam are the military—and I doubt very much whether they would be called military in any other country in the world. To say that Siam is not to maintain military in this district, but is yet to be allowed to keep police there for the maintenance of order, is, therefore, to perpetrate a joke at the expense of that country. It may be suggested that it is from fear of future collision that this precaution has

      491
      been insisted upon. But have the French themselves withdrawn, or consented to withdraw, their troops from a space of 16 miles on their side of the river? Not a bit. The French are at present concentrating their forces there, and have sent two gunboats up the river. There can be no doubt that this particular condition has been introduced into the ultimatum, and is being enforced by France: firstly, to cut off communication with the territory which will still be left to Siam on the left bank of the Mekong, and, secondly, to facilitate that to which we must look forward in the future as certainly as I am now addressing the House of Commons—namely, the carrying out of further French ambition and aspirations on the right bank of the river. With regard to Chantaboon, the hon. Baronet seems to think we have no interest in it, and says he had no official information about it because we have no Diplomatic Agent there; but he is nevertheless able to state that the 300 or 400 French troops in Chantaboon are in a state of alarm because of the contiguity of 3,000 or 4,000 Siamese troops. In my opinion the hon. Baronet entirely underrates the importance of Chantaboon in connection with the recovery by the French of the two provinces which a hundred years ago belonged to Cambodia. The French have occupied the river, and have advanced eight miles inland, have seized the town of Chantaboon, have thrown up earthworks, and have telegraphed for additional forces. I do not share in the matter of Chantaboon the sanguine anticipations expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey), and I respectfully invite him to keep an eye on Chantaboon during the course of the next few weeks, and to pause until it has been evacuated before he congratulates the Government and the House upon having saved those provinces for the Siamese Government, and upon the fact that the French and Siamese question has been satisfactorily settled. I will leave that point, and turn to what is the most important question to us—the question of British interests in Siam. What are British interests in Siam? They have been more than once stated and restated in the course of our discussions, and in reply to a question from myself they were defined by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) himself in terms
      492
      on which no one can improve. He defined British interests in Siam as being four in number. The first, he said, was the protection of the life and property of British subjects residing there; the second is the continued preservation of a neutral zone between the British and French territories; the third, the protection of British trade; and the fourth, the continued independence and integrity of the Siamese Kingdom itself. I will venture to say a few words on each of these interests. As regards the protection of the life and property of British subjects in Siam, I think Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the alacrity with which, the moment there was any fear of those interests at Bangkok being jeopardised, they despatched British war vessels to the scene of operations, although it is a pity that they did not inform the French Government of the object with which those ships were sent, since the French Government made the despatch of the ships an excuse for forcing the passage of the river, and menacing the capital itself. As regards the second British interest—the continued preservation of a neutral zone between ourselves and the French—we understand that negotiations are proceeding at Paris with the view of carving out from the body of the unhappy victim a more or less narrow slice of territory—possibly some hundred miles in width—the object being to prevent the frontiers of Great Britain and France from coming into perilous contact in the far East. I presume that this neutral zone, about which I do not desire for a moment to press for information prematurely, will be constructed out of territory which lies to the West of the trans-Mekong part of Luang Prabang, and that it will consist partly of the former Burmese State of Chieng Kheng, which we ceded to Siam. Whether my anticipations be correct or not, I should like to know to whom is this neutral zone, when constructed, to belong, and by whom is it to be administered? If it is to belong to and to be administered by Siam, are the Siamese to be allowed to keep their soldiers there, or are we once more to have raised this farcical plea of a police that has never existed? Again, what guarantees are you going to obtain for the preservation of its integrity? Supposing that its integrity is

      493
      in the future violated by French troops, or supposing that the wild tribes who inhabit it appeal to the French to come over the border, how are you going to carry out any guarantee you may have previously given or exacted? There is another point. The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) has more than once talked about this neutral zone as if it were identical with a "buffer State." There is the greatest possible difference between the two things. A neutral zone is the merest apology, the palest simulacrum, of a buffer State that can possibly be conceived. A buffer State implies the creation or existence of a third or intervening State between two Powers whose territories would otherwise come in contact with each other. It implies the exercise by the third State of the rights of sovereignty and the possession by it of a certain stability, and it implies the respect of its territories by the two important neighbours who are situated on either side of it. Of such a character is the buffer State of Afghanistan, and of such a character, though perhaps in a modified degree, was, until recently, the Kingdom of Siam itself. As long as the independence and integrity of Siam were something more than a mere name, so long did it preserve the character of a buffer State. But both that integrity and independence have now been fatally impaired, and unless the Government are able to procure guarantees from the French that they will respect the integrity of the Siam that is left, and will give similar guarantees themselves, the buffer State, in so far as relates to Siam, will have totally disappeared. In any case it is certain that the neutral zone you are going to construct in the north-west will in no respect take its place. Your neutral zone, as I understand, is to be a mere strip of territory, which you are going to mark out with white paint, much as you might mark a crease upon a cricket pitch, and within which I do not suppose the French position will be more effective than would be the position of a somewhat weak batsman standing at the wickets exposed to the attack of a formidable bowler at the other end. The tendency to argue that if this neutral zone is constructed we may hold our peace and thank God that we have got a Government that has done so much for us shows the existence of a mere
      494
      vain delusion. If we are to come out of this lamentable affair with no better result than that, it will be regarded, if not by ourselves, by everyone else, as a painful exhibition of weakness. I come next to the protection of British trade and British traders in Siam. That interest is not one that is capable of being satisfied by the mere protection of British property or British subjects at Bangkok, or by the mere defence of British shipping in the river. The Committee must remember that, if Siam is considered as a commercial factor, far and away above any other interest is that of the trade of Great Britain. Of the whole export and import trade of Siam 93 per cent. is British, and the French portion is less than 1 per cent. Only one French steamer has plied between Saigon and Bangkok, and that was sunk the other day. At Bangkok itself, where you read in the papers of the passing of resolutions at enthusiastic meetings of French tradesmen, there are only two French tradesmen, one being a barber and the other a keeper of a knick-knack store. The entire export of the main products of Siam—its rice, its teak, and its pepper—is in British hands. The great commercial emporium of Singapore is to a large extent sustained by Bangkok, and the 200,000 Chinamen who live at Singapore in contented subjection to British rule depend for their sustenance on the rice which is floated down the Menam and shipped at Bangkok. The mines of Siam are for the most part in course of British exploitation, whilst the one considerable railway enterprise in which the Siamese Government have been led to embark—from Bangkok in a northeasterly direction to Korat—has been given to a firm of British engineers. These are no doubt somewhat tedious details, but it is necessary to give them in order to convey to the Committee the character of not merely the important but the overwhelming interest, nay, the monopoly of British trade which exists in Siam. When we hear that this interest is to be jeopardised and thrown away out of consideration for a French trade which has never existed and the establishment of which in the future the French national temperament renders impossible, emotions are aroused which cannot be regarded as satisfactory. What is the

      495
      attitude of the French towards the trade of which I am speaking? Wherever you get French and British competition you find that it is French policy, by whatever means in their power, to cripple and crush British trade. The absence of commercial attributes on their own part does not deter them for one moment from endeavouring to injure, and, if possible, to destroy, British trade in those parts of the world with which they are concerned, even if the process of destruction involves injury to themselves. Take the case of Saigon, the capital of French Cochin China. It was for some time a free port, and became a very flourishing and wealthy place; but as soon as the French realised that the bulk of the trade profits were going into the pockets of the British merchants they revolutionised their policy; Free Trade was abandoned, and the normal French barrier of a prohibitive tariff was raised, even though Saigon was drained of its life-blood in carrying out that policy. This will be the policy that will be pursued if the French have a free hand in commercial and fiscal matters in Siam. I hope Her Majesty's Government are already, or, if not, that they will become, fully alive to their responsibility in this matter; that where French Consuls are appointed in the interior of Siam to foster or protect French trade, which does not exist, they will be employed to protect British trade, which does already exist; that the Government will take very good care to maintain on our behalf the Most Favoured Nation Clause in accordance with the Treaty of 1855; that they will allow no tampering whatever within the Malay Peninsula, which distinctly falls within the sphere of British influence, and that they will require the fulfilment by the Siamese of the contract they entered into for the completion of the Korat Railway and other undertakings in which the commercial community is so largely interested. The fourth and last interest is far and away the most important—namely, the independence and integrity of Siam itself. It was in July last that Lord Rosebery said in the House of Lords—and it was repeated by the hon. Baronet—that the integrity and independence of Siam were matters of great importance to the British, and more especially to the British-Indian Empire,
      496
      and that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to their responsibility in the matter; and similar declarations of respect for the integrity and independence of Siam emanated from the French Foreign Minister. Whilst we have been disposed to give full credit to these assurances coming from both quarters, we have been confronted with the very remarkable facts that the French Government and the French Foreign Minister appear to have been engaged, step by step, in violating the very conditions which we believed they undertook to respect, and the British Foreign Minister, almost in the same breath that he declares that the independence and integrity of Siam are British interests, invites us to witness their progressive disappearance with almost Spartan composure on the ground that the minor British interests of which I have been speaking are not at stake. Surely, after all, the main British interest in Siam is the political stability of Siam itself. If you allow the power of Siam and of its King to be crippled, and the country to be under French protection, there will not be the slightest good in going out with your paint-pot to demarcate a neutral zone, or in insisting upon commercial equality for your merchants. I would point out that a Siam under French protection, either actual or nominal, must be an anti-British, anti-English Siam, and the only Siam that can possibly stand on its legs between France and Great Britain is a Siam whose borders are defined and respected, whose Monarch's authority within its borders is not challenged, and which possesses not merely the symbols, but the realities of independence. I hope, therefore, that in conducting negotiations Her Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this far larger question in the background, compared with which the question of a neutral zone is comparatively of very small importance. If we are to attach the credit which we desire both to the declarations of Lord Rosebery and the French Government; if Great Britain desires to maintain the autonomy of Siam, and if the French have no further designs on the independence of that Kingdom, there can be no reason why both countries should not join in a formal guarantee of the integrity and independence of the Siam that is left, which shall be equally

      497
      binding on both Powers, and shall enable Siam, even at this late hour of the day, once again to raise her head and take her place amongst the Kingdoms of the East. I await with interest "what the hon. Baronet will say on the matter; and although, I am sure, I do not desire for one moment to demand from him any relaxation of the diplomatic reserve he has so skilfully maintained up to the present, I hope that he will at once give us some assurance that this larger and Imperial aspect of the question to which I have alluded has not been lost sight of by the Government, and that in addition to counting up the gains and losses of the moment itself the Government will keep an eye upon a matter which intimately and deeply affects the future peace of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula.
      SIR C. W. DILKEreminded the Committee that negotiations were still pending in Paris, but, seeing the scant opportunity they would have in the Autumn Sittings of dealing with the question, he thought that the Government was taking a great responsibility, He was completely in accord with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey and by the late Under Secretary of State for India, as to either a buffer State or a neutral zone in Northern Siam. It was a mockery; but, on the other hand, its creation could hardly be said to be needed in the same way in which it was needed against Russia. France could only get to Siam by the high seas, and on the high seas she was at the mercy of England. She was in this respect in a completely different position from Russia, who was all but our Continental neighbour. The Government could make no statement with regard to Siam, inasmuch as negotiations were pending; neither could they make any statement with regard to a matter which was of high interest to many—Uganda—because they had not yet received Sir Gerald Portal's Report. With regard to Uganda, it was impossible the Government could take any final step until they had consulted the House of Commons. He wished to refer to another case of relations with France, in which, as in the case of Siam, it was possible that the French were trying to make themselves disagreeable to us. He meant the case
      498
      of Madagascar. He had never been able to understand why the late Government had gone so far out of their way in surrendering the independence of Madagascar. It was a country in which our trade was as predominant as in Siam; and it was a country in which British missionary enterprise had been more successful than in any other portion of the world. Fortunately for Madagascar, its capital was not on the coast like the capital of Siam. It was, therefore, difficult to march on the capital, and the French, when they invaded the island, had failed to reach it. A Treaty was signed by which the French recognised the sovereignty of the Hova Government over the whole island. This was a great concession on the part of the French, to gain which the Hovas agreed to entrust their foreign relations, but their foreign relations only, to France. The late Government having come to an agreement with Germany as to Zanzibar, which it was necessary to force on France, with whom we had a self-denying arrangement as to Zanzibar, recognised a French Protectorate over Madagascar. The present Government could not put them back where they stood before the late Government took this step. What he wanted to know was, how far the present Government was going in the same direction? He would ask what they were doing?—nothing, as he hoped. He would not go into the question of the revival of the Slave Trade on the coast of Madagascar in consequence of the Convention recognising a sham Protectorate, because that would arise upon the Slave Trade Vote. But he would point out that they had gained nothing by the concessions they had made. He could not help thinking that their pledges with regard to Egypt had something to do with bringing about bad relations between the French and ourselves, and that the policy pursued in Siam and Madagascar and with regard to Newfoundland was the answer of the French. In regard to our relations with Newfoundland, a matter which would be referred to on the next Vote, he knew nothing to the discredit of the Foreign Office, but thought that it would be an unfortunate thing if from any idea of proceeding with the arbitration to which the Foreign Office were committed by the late Government we should put further pressure on the colonists.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he had great pleasure in bearing his testimony to the admirable and efficient way in which the commercial work in connection with the Foreign Office was carried out, and he acknowledged in very handsome terms the services of Mr. Kennedy, Chief of the Commercial Department, who was about to retire. The Commercial Reports published by the Foreign Office were full of information. Their high value was recognised by the Chambers of Commerce of the country, and the more widely they were read the more they would be appreciated, and the greater would be the service they rendered. The extension and prosperity of commerce now largely depended on the policy and the action of the Foreign Office through the Consular Service; so much so that it had been stated by a high authority that commercial considerations had now become one of the most important features of the duty of a diplomatist. Several foreign countries had recognised this fact, and acted upon it by extending their Consular Service, and he hoped this country would adopt a similar policy. The point applied with special force at the present time to Siam, where their Consular representation might be wisely strengthened. Most of the import and export trade with that country was British and carried in British bottoms, and he desired to impress on the Foreign Office the fact that the Chambers of Commerce in the country were very anxious not only as to the protection of their present commerce in Siam, but also as to the action to be taken with a view to develop British trade in that part of the world. In these days of hostile tariffs and competition they must always look out for new markets, and when Siam was developed it would become a most important commercial centre for the trade of this country. Siam must, however, have a real independence, and there must be no interference with the advantage they derived from the Favoured Nation Clause, for without that clause their commercial position would be seriously embarrassed. He hoped the commercial interests at stake would be kept in view by the Foreign Office.
      MR. HANBURYrose—
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I do not wish, Sir, to exclude discussion on other subjects, but I think I am justified in asking the Committee to allow me to state at once the somewhat narrow limits to which I can go in dealing with this matter. In the course of the Debate some time ago on the Vote on Account I stated that the position of affairs was such that my language had necessarily to be guarded and restrained within narrow limits. I regret that that is still the case, and, while I have to acknowledge the forbearance of the hon. Member for Southport, I regret that it has not been further extended. As to the assurances given by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the French Government, it is true that the British Government took no part in the disputes between the French and Siamese while those disputes were confined to the territorial question South of the 18th parallel and on the far side of the Mekong; but directly the dispute covered a wider area, it was perfectly obvious to the whole world that the Government considered British interests were involved, for they entered upon negotiations with the French Government for the delimitation of a neutral zone. Hon. Members seemed to think that we went too far in relying on the assurances that were given by the French Government as to what the limits of their action would be, but the French Government contended that they were not breaking their pledges by their operations on the left bank of the Mekong.
      COMMANDER BETHELL: Which bank is that?
      SIR E. GREY: The Eastern bank. There is no difference, so far as I am aware, between the two Governments in holding that similar operations on the West bank would break the assurances given. The hon. Member for Southport admits that the Government have been prompt to take measures for the protection of British life and property at Bangkok, so I need say nothing more on that point. As to the question of the neutral zone, that is a matter which now forms the subject of negotiations, and it is consequently impossible for me to enter into details. Then there is the question of British trade at Bangkok, It is said that we

      501
      have a monopoly of the trade of Bangkok, but that is not the only place where Great Britain monopolises a large share of trade. I will only say, in reply to this question, that I read out to the House the other day the provisions of the Treaty between ourselves and Siam. I cannot conceive that more than one interpretation can be placed on the Treaty, and by reading it I did not intend to convey the impression that it was not meant to put it in force. With regard to the independence and integrity of Siam, I will undertake to say that no one can maintain that that independence and integrity have been violated in a way that affects British interests. No one can seriously contend that British interests or trade in Siam have been injured as yet by the action of France. Our trade is untouched, and the negotiations for a neutral territory are proceeding satisfactorily. But hon. Members opposite have been induced to bring forward this subject not so much because of what has happened in the past as because of their apprehensions of what may happen in the future. With regard to the future, I am sorry to say that, inasmuch as negotiations are still proceeding in Paris, I am precluded from saying more upon the subject than that Lord Dufferin has the fullest and most definite instructions for the protection of our rights in Siam, and to express a hope that the Committee will continue to place confidence in the Government. With regard to Madagascar, I have very little to say further than that the relations between the French Government, Madagascar, and the British Government have remained unchanged' since the present Government came into Office. We have conceded no point in reference to that country. The question is left absolutely as it was when the present Government came into Office. I have only, in conclusion, to express the great pleasure with which I heard the hon. Member who preceded me in this Debate refer, in words of the highest praise, to the way in which the Foreign Office is served by all those in its service, especially as to the commercial side of its policy. I endorse every word the hon. Gentleman said. I desire to express my gratitude, which is great in proportion as I am conscious of my own experience, to those gentlemen at the Foreign Office who by their energy, their
      502
      ability, and their industry have given me such invaluable assistance in performing the duties of the position which I hold. We do not in this country, under our present system, follow the example of some other countries in opening up markets by Reciprocity Treaties for our trade and commerce. We rely entirely on the great energy and ability of our commercial classes. We recognise at the Foreign Office that our duty is to clear the channels of communication and keep them open, relying upon the enterprise and energy of our commercial classes. That is the system which has brought to us so enormous a share of the trade and prosperity of the world.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the Committee would agree with the hon. Baronet that it was impossible for him to make public the instructions given to Lord Dufferin in regard to the negotiations which at the present moment were being carried on in Paris in reference to Siam. They on the Opposition side of the House were anxious to make certain that the Government fully recognised the extent to which British interests were involved in the maintenance of the independence and integrity of Siam. He did not think there was much in what had been said by the hon. Baronet in reference to Siam to quarrel with. But he felt bound to draw attention to one observation of the hon. Baronet, and that was that up to this time nothing had been done to impair either the independence or the integrity of Siam. That was an observation that he could not allow to pass without notice.
      SIR E. GREY: The hon. Gentleman has not quite caught my expression. What I said was that up to the present time the independence and integrity of Siam have not been violated in a way that has permanently injured British interests.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that he quite admitted the force of the hon. Baronet's qualification. It put the matter in a different light. He did not think they could fairly admit that the independence and integrity of Siam had been fully maintained, leaving British interests out of the question altogether, when they found that at present this so-called independent State

      503
      was not permitted to have a military force within its frontiers. When they found that some three or four of her islands had been actually seized by a foreign Power, and when they found that her ports were in the occupation of a foreign Power, he admitted at once the great difficulty the hon. Baronet had in making any further statement in the matter, and he would simply say, before passing from the question, that they desired specially to call the attention of the Government to the great extent of British interests in Siam, and to the manner in which these interests might be affected by agreements which might be entered into between France and Siam without our knowledge. He next came to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to Madagascar. The right hon. Baronet had taken the line that the late Government had recognised a Protectorate which had no existence either in fact or in paper. What were the actual facts in regard to the matter? The facts were that after the war between the French and the Hovas in the year 1884 a Treaty was concluded, the first Article of which provided—
      "The Government of the French Republic will represent Madagascar in all its foreign relations. Madagascar abroad will be placed under the protection of France."
      He could conceive nothing wider than those words in the direction of giving a Protectorate to France in the foreign affairs of Madagascar. That Treaty was laid on the Table of the House by Lord Salisbury in March, 1886, and it lay on the Table of the House during the whole of that short Parliament, but, no exception was taken to it. Then, in the year 1890, Lord Salisbury's Government simply recognised the existing state of affairs. They entered into an arrangement with the French Government by which they recognised the Protectorate of France over the Island of Madagascar. His contention then and now was that the Treaty of 1890 did not go one step beyond the Treaty of 1886 between the French and the Hova Governments, and he hoped that the present Government would not go one step beyond the position in which they at present found themselves in relation to Madagascar. So far as his recollection went of the negotiations which had
      504
      taken place in the short time he had had the honour of being at the Foreign Office, he did not think there was anything in the Papers, which could not properly be laid on the Table of the House. The last Papers were laid nearly nine years ago, and as a great deal had happened since then, he thought another instalment of Papers on Malagasy affairs should be furnished by the Government. He was sorry to say he differed from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with reference to the arbitration between the Colonies and France in regard to the Newfoundland fishery disputes. The right hon. Baronet had implored the Government not to go on with the arbitration; but he should be inclined to implore the Government to go on, for it seemed to him that until they got that one point settled it would be impossible to arrive at a solution, satisfactory or otherwise, of this difficult question, which had been pending now for so many years. It was true that the Colonial Government had protested against our going into arbitration on this point. The Colonial Government really desired that the Treaty of Utrecht should be ripped up, and that the whole question as to the right of France on the east and north-east shores of Newfoundland should be re-opened. The Government made such a representation to France, and it was not surprising that the French rejected it. France had its rights upon that particular coast, and whether Newfoundland was a British Colony or whether she was in a position of independence or whether she was joined to the United States, the rights of France would still attach to the particular coast. He said again that until they got this question as to whether lobsters were fish or not settled they could not make any progress in dealing satisfactorily with the cod fisheries, and other points of dispute between the two Governments. In the agreement for arbitration it was provided that it should be in the power of either the British or the French Government to submit further questions for consideration to the arbitrators. He desired to join with the hon. Member for South Islington and the Under Secretary in the tribute which they had paid to the gentleman who had served the Foreign Office with exceptional ability during a great number of years, and whose loss, if

      505
      he ever had to leave the Foreign Office, it would be extremely difficult to replace. During the short time he had been in the Foreign Office he owed a great deal to the assistance which he derived from that distinguished public servant, Mr. Kennedy. A Return might, he thought, be issued as to our position in relation to tariffs of foreign nations. He had received many inquiries from Chambers of Commerce as to the issue of such a Return. The last Return had been issued five or six years ago, many changes had since been made in the foreign tariffs against our goods. The work of preparing the Return would be heavy; but the materials for it must, he believed, be in daily use at the Board of Trade. He trusted that before long they might have the promised Paper in regard to Vitu. He thought that before deciding anything definite in regard to Uganda we should ascertain the position occupied by the British Company in the sphere of influence. The position of affairs in Samoa had gone from bad to worse, and he would like to be informed as to what had been decided in regard to Mataafa, and whether there was any prospect of a settled Government being carried on in Samoa?
      MR. PROVANDsaid, it was only becoming that someone on his side of the House should acknowledge the work which was being done by the Foreign Office, and which had been referred to by the Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit). He remembered that in 1885 and 1886, when Lord Rosebery became Foreign Minister, the delays in obtaining Consular Reports sometimes extended over two or three years, but a change came about during Lord Rosebery's administration, and since then these Reports, or extracts which were likely to be of benefit to the commercial community, had been furnished with commendable rapidity. For the last three or four years the Foreign Office had given them commercial information of a fuller character and with greater promptitude than was furnished by any other Government, and he thought that a Parliamentary Vote of Thanks should be accorded Mr. Kennedy and Lord Rosebery for the good work they had accomplished in this direction, and which, it was to be hoped, would continue and, if possible, be even
      506
      improved in the future. He should like to say a few works in reference to what had been said as to Saigon and the other French possessions. He had been for many years, and was still, connected with the trade of Eastern Asia, and therefore perhaps he might speak with the authority of one who had not only lived there, but had been actually engaged in the trade of that part of the world. France had done enormous work, and at very great cost, in trying to develop trade in Eastern Asia. Between 20 and 30 years ago the French established a line of steamers there to which the French Government gave an enormous subsidy, but these vessels were chiefly employed now in carrying British merchandise. The French trade, with the exception of the silk trade which they had with Shanghai, was a very small and trifling trade indeed. He had been astonished sometimes at the language of French diplomatists, journalists, and politicians. One would think, to read their statements, that the French had an enormous trade out in the far East, but as a matter of fact the most of what was said and written upon the subject was largely mythical, and French trade in the far East, as we understood the word, had practically little existence at all. There could not be any French trade in any ports in the East if trade was free, because it would pass into our hands or into those of the Germans, or would be taken by the Chinese, who were no doubt the dominating trading race of the East, and unless the French prevented us or the Germans or the Chinese from doing trade then it was certain they would get no trade for themselves. This was true of every place the French had in the East. When they obtained possession of any place they immediately sat down and concocted fixed regulations aimed expressly against ourselves, and if the first series of enactments or regulations were insufficient, they concocted a few more, and finally arrived at this state of things: that, whatever little trade could be done or was done, must filter through their hands. They must take a toll for everything done in the place, and unless they made the regulations he spoke of, they might as well leave the place, so far as doing any trade themselves was concerned. He desired to call attention to the position of two places

      507
      in the East which did a large trade with Siam—uamely,Hong Kong and Singapore. They were absolute commercial mysteries to all Frenchmen who had never lived there. These places, 40 years ago, had no existence as trading places at all. What were they to-day? Singapore was an enormous trading entrepôt for Java, Borneo, Siam, and the whole of the places in the Straits, and Hong Kong was an enormous trading port for the whole trade of the seaboard of China. Any person and any country might trade there. But that was not the French idea of trade at all. If the French were to obtain possession of these two places they would immediately concoct fiscal enactments with a view to direct the whole trade into their own pockets. If France were allowed to impose such fiscal regulations as these on Siam the trade of Singapore and Hong Kong would suffer materially. It was not that the trade would be done by France, but it would cease to be done at all; the little that remained passing into French hands, and the trade that we had, at the present time, connected with these places would be very seriously affected. Something like 83 per cent., or about four vessels out of every five coming to the ports of Siam wore under the British flag. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to give us an assurance that our interests would be amply protected in any arrangements that were come to. There was not the smallest doubt we should be able to retain the large trading business he had spoken of unless we were interfered with by France in the regulations which were now being made. He hoped the Foreign Office would see that whatever settlement was come to there should be nothing in it to prevent our continuing our trade relations, both by sea and land, between this country and Siam, and Singapore and Hong Kong.
      MR. HANBURYdesired to support the views which had been stated, more particularly by the Member for South Islington. Looking at this question of Siam almost entirely from a commercial point of view, representing, as he did, a manufacturing constituency very keenly interested in finding new markets for its trade, he should like to say he listened with great pleasure to what the hon. Baronet said as to the deeper
      508
      interest the Foreign Office was now taking in commercial matters. He could assure the hon. Baronet that if the Foreign Office acted firmly and vigorously where the trade of this country was concerned, they would have behind them such a force of popular support—from the industrial population—as perhaps no Foreign Office had ever had before. Referring to the subject of Madagascar, it struck him as a most peculiar fact that there should be this difference of opinion between France and England as to the proper interpretation of the Treaty relative to Madagascar. It seemed to him to be a loosely worded document, and it was quite clear that France, at any rate, did not quite take the view of that rather ambiguous phrase, "the Protectorate of the Island of Madagascar," which our Foreign Office then took, and which he hoped was taken at present. It was really a pity that the language of the Treaty was not less ambiguous, and it would also have been better if the Foreign Office had not lent itself to the French interpretation by withdrawing two Consuls from Madagascar somewhat, it appeared, at the dictation of the French, thereby implying that the French interpretation of that Treaty was the more correct one. As to the question of Siam, he wanted to press the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs for an answer on two points, which he did not think were necessarily confidential, and on which the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) asked for information. They were questions as to matters of fact. The hon. Member for Kingston asked for information as to how the indemnity was being paid by Siam, and whether it was believed that Siam would be able to meet the obligation that France was imposing upon her, and he also asked as to what information had been received with reference to the French entrenchments around Chantaboon. These were two plain questions, which could be answered without any disadvantage to the Public Service. The hon. Member for Kingston told them on the authority of a statesman well known and versed in Eastern affairs that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was really no protection for our interests in Siam against the kind of concessions that it was to be feared the French would be able to wring out of the Siamese. This statesman contended

      509
      that in the face of that Most Favoured Nation Clause the French would be able to treat with the Siamese in this fashion. They would say to the latter—"We shall not require the whole indemnity we are asking for if, in return for our not doing that, you will give us certain monopolies and certain concessions in your own country." It was maintained that it was perfectly within the obligations under which Siam rested towards us and the Most Favoured Nation Clause that she should come to some terms of that kind with France. It would be well to know from the Foreign Office whether, according to the interpretation they put upon the most favoured nation clause it was possible for the Siamese to treat with the French on such terms. In view of the fact that it was possible these concessions and monopolies might be granted to French subjects under French pressure it was important to show how vast were our interests in Siam, and how small was the French interest at the present moment. No less than 87 per cent. of the whole shipping in the trade to Siam was English shipping and of the remainders per cent. was German. The value of the English imports was 93 per cent., German 2 per cent. In value the English exports were 85 per cent., German 8 per cent. But there was something further, and that was that the greater number of the vessels carrying foreign flags were chartered by Englishmen, and the whole of the cargoes carried were English cargoes representing English trade. In contrast with all this, according to the last Foreign Office Report the French cargoes, both imports and exports, only amounted to 03 per cent., which was a perfectly trifling and ludicrous state of trade in comparison with that carried on by England with Siam. The mines in Siam, he understood, were in English hands. Taking the special exports from Siam, rice, which was the principal, was almost wholly in English hands; the tea trade was almost entirely carried on by English firms, and the paper and spice trade was in the hands of two English firms. Coming to the trade of cotton manufacturing, he was told that one-fourth of the whole import trade of Siam consisted of cotton manufactures, and the latest Report stated that the goods now sold were almost entirely of English
      510
      manufacture. This showed the enormous extent to which England was interested in this country, and although it was quite fair for the Under Secretary to say that hitherto English trade had not been much affected by what had been going on, still it was possible that if care was not taken as to concessions to France being outside the Most Favoured Nation Clause it might happen that a great danger would be done to English trade which represented three-fourths of the whole export and import trade of the country. He came to another matter connected with the trade in Siam which, prospectively at any rate, affected Lancashire considerably. He had been speaking hitherto of internal trade, but he wanted to say a word or two about external trade which might be opened up through Siam or Burmah with the South West of China. There was a teeming population there, and great openings for trade. It had been the object and desire of English merchants for a considerable time to get into this corner of China through the Burmese State. He fancied the road for a railway had been surveyed three times—namely, in 1866, 1869, and 1873. Of course, the annexation of Burmah made this route a great deal more possible. Whatever might happen to France in Siam, we could no doubt go a long way in the direction of the southwest corner of China through our own territories; but whether we were able actually to reach that south west corner of China through our own territories would depend a great deal upon what was done in Paris, and in the negotiation as to the Burmese Shan States. It was a question how far portions of these Shan States could be dealt with by Siam, or how far we could claim to have complete control over them. Unless we retained the power to go through certain of the Shan States, about which there was this doubt, the railroad could only be carried to a certain point, because it would then have to pass through a very mountainous district not under our control, and the whole of the trade would then have to be carried on by caravans. This would have the effect of making the carriage about £30 a ton—an almost prohibitory rate. So far as he was able to gather what the French were trying to do was this: Their railroad would run up the east bank of the Mekong,

      511
      and if they were able to run through the neutral zone they would be able to reach North West China by their own railway, and no doubt a good deal of the present difficulty had been caused in Siam by their desire to obtain this railway. He expressed the strong hope that the Foreign Office, in the negotiations that were taking place, would lose no opportunity of peeing that, even if the French did get this communication to the South West of China, that important district, teeming with population and presenting large openings for English trade, should not be shut out from us, and that we should be able to get this communication through the Burmese State which at the present moment there seemed some likelihood of our losing. He wanted to ask one or two other questions as to the closing of the trade in the Soudan, and also as to Nyassaland. With reference to the Soudan, he approached the subject entirely from the point of view of his constituents interested in the trade there. Until 1877 we acted on the idea that the only way of taming the Mahdi and his successor, Osman Digna, was to try and starve out that country. But in 1887 a better system was adopted, and General Grenfell and Sir Charles Hollis Smith, as representing the English Government out there, encouraged trade in every possible way. They had advanced to a station there in the west side of the mountains called, he thought, Boshee. The result was that the tribes were able to pasture on the mountains during the summer; they were bound to us very much by the fact that they received this protection from us, and they also acted as an advance post against raids from the Arabs from Khartoum and that side. But General Grenfell and Sir Charles Hollis Smith had been succeeded by other representatives, a now system was adopted and trade was closed under the somewhat mistaken idea that we should be able to starve out the people of that country, and so, if necessary, be able to clear the Soudan and go back as far as Khartoum; but that, he was told, was a wholly mistaken notion. What occurred was this: We had not been able to starve them out, it was clear, and two things had happened, one of which was very detrimental to the honour of this country. Undoubtedly we did give a pledge to the Arabs, and during the time of Sir
      512
      Charles Hollis Smith we practically contracted that we should protect them in future. Under his successor he believed they were disarmed; Osman Digna came down upon them, raided them, destroyed their crops, carried away their women, and we gave no protection whatever to these disarmed men. If that was true, it was dishonouring to this country. Speaking from the trade point of view, these raids tended to destroy what little civilisation there was in that country; it destroyed the people there, or, at any rate, it destroyed their crops, and consequently the opportunity of purchasing our goods by a people who might be very useful customers. Again, the policy of trying to starve out Osman Digna in the Soudan had entirely failed, for he was able to get supplies from the Masai; and the only result was that the Arabs whom we had disarmed and had pledged ourselves to defend had been raided, and the whole trade with the Soudan had fallen into the hands of Italian merchants. With regard to Nyassaland, he would point out the anomalous position which Mr. Johnston occupied there, being at the same time Portuguese Consul, British Commissioner, and agent for the British South Africa Company within the sphere of influence. He believed Mr. Cecil Rhodes, when he was last in England, spoke very plainly to the shareholders of the British South Africa Company to the effect that he had the reversion of Nyassaland, and that he was actually subsidising it at the present moment by paying for a large force of police there. This matter ought to be cleared up. He had received many complaints that so much power should be put in the hands of ft British Commissioner who was at the same time the servant of a Chartered Company; and he would like to know how far Mr. Johnston, in acting in this double capacity, was paving the way for Nyassaland to fall into the hands of the Chartered Company? He was no great believer in these Chartered Companies, and he was not sure they should find that this one was destined to be somewhat of a failure, as he was sorry to say the British East Africa Company had been. Before they gave extended powers to the British South Africa Company and allowed it to extend its territory so much, they ought to be more careful that it was

      513
      really a company with sufficient means to carry out the work confided to it. The Chartered Company claimed a large jurisdiction over Matabeleland and Mashonaland; but he was told the deeds and documents transferring to the Chartered Company the rights over these territories had not been handed over to the Chartered Company by the United Concessions Company from whom they acquired them; the Directors of the one Company being to a large extent Directors of the other Company. There were many things that required looking into in connection with the British South Africa Company, and he should like to know from the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether Mr. Rhodes was justified in telling the shareholders of the Company when he was last in London that he had the reversion of Nyassaland, and that he was actually subsidising it by finding a large force of police.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to refer to the statement that the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) made with regard to our policy towards Madagascar. The right hon. Baronet appeared in a new capacity. He (Sir Ashmead-Bartlett) remembered him well in the old days, when he represented the Foreign Office, and when he was always the defender and the advocate of France. The right hon. Baronet, according to the belief of the Opposition at that time, was the principal cause of the unfortunate policy of the Government of the day, which was based on the overthrow of the understanding with the great German Monarchies, and upon an alliance with France and Russia. There was no doubt that the Government of 1880 to 1885 was led into that disastrous Egyptian policy more or less by the influence of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet attributed the Protectorate of France over Madagascar to Lord Salisbury's short Administration of 1885–6.
      SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he did not attribute any French Protectorate over Madagascar to Lord Salisbury's Government. What he complained of was the terms of the recognition of the Protectorate. General want of confidence.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the right hon. Baronet was referring to the Treaty of 1890, which recognised the Protectorate of France over Madagascar; but he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) was referring to the Treaty of 1885, which was the result of the policy of the present Prime Minister's then Government. The Treaty of 1890 was practically but the recognition of the Treaty of 1885. What had happened since 1885 was simply the consequence of the ignorance and weakness displayed by the Government of the day. That Government made a great surrender in regard to British interests in Madagascar in allowing the French to do as they pleased. He would say that there was generally a want of confidence felt in a Government which had the present Prime Minister at its head. That want of confidence was nowhere more conspicuous than in the results which had followed upon the administration of foreign affairs by the present Government during the past twelve months. They had at the Foreign Office a man of great ability and patriotism; but, all the same, there was a fatal gloom overshadowing the present Government in their foreign relations. He did not say they were responsible for all the attacks that had been made on British interests in different quarters of the globe; but there was a general feeling abroad that when a Government, of which the present Prime Minister was the head, was in Office, British interests could be attacked with impunity. That feeling had been illustrated in Egypt. The pronouncement of the Leader of the House in 1891 with regard to the embarrassment and injurious character of the British occupation of Egypt led the French to attack that occupation, and to intrigue and manœuvre against us there, and so had necessitated the recent increase of our garrison in that country. The Prime Minister was the cause of all their troubles. Siam was another instance of the same disastrous influence. As the hon. Member for Southport had said, if the Government had before June informed the French Government that a moderate rectification of the frontier on the Mekong would not be objected to, but that anything which would cripple Siam, or would deal a blow at British prestige in the East, would not be permitted, the whole diffi-

      515
      culty with Siam would have at once subsided. What would the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have said had he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), or any hon. Member, got up in the House 10 weeks ago and said that the French would filch 75,000 square miles of territory from Siam; that the Siamese troops would be driven away from both banks of the Mekong; that the revenues of the richest Southern Provinces would be seized by France, and important strategic positions on the Gulf of Siam would be occupied by the French forces; that France would inflict a great blow on British trade, and that they would injure British prestige throughout the East? The Under Secretary and his Colleagues would have poured out the vials of scorn on him, and he would have been laughed out of the House. Yet every one of these things had happened. Questions were repeatedly put to the Government, and assurances were as often given that no danger was threatened to Siamese or British interests; but all these assurances had been falsified. The Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured the country that the independence and integrity of Siam were objects of first-class importance to Her Majesty's Government. He did not know about the independence of Siam, but he thought, unless the present policy was reversed, that independence would exist only in name. With regard to the integrity of the country, there was not the slightest doubt that that integrity had been destroyed by the forcible transfer of the 75,000 square miles of Siamese territory of which he had spoken. Four-fifths of the export trade of Siam was in British hands, and any disturbance with our foreign Imperial trade inflicted an injury on this country, and especially on the working classes of the country. On this subject he should like to read a quotation from The Times' correspondent at Bangkok. He wrote in Tuesday's issue—
      "I must emphasise everything that I have hitherto telegraphed to the effect that it is England that is really attacked through Siam. Great Britain must harbour no illusions, as she has lost prestige in the East up to the present in this Franco-Siamese conflict. The letters which I have received from China and Japan clearly show this, and, as regards Siam itself, so far from British interests being considered as fully protected, I am in a position to state that
      516
      important British enterprises which were con templated here, and which would have given employment to labour and capital, have been abandoned owing to fears for Siam's future."
      That, he thought, was worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to our Indian Empire, he looked upon the influence which the weak and unsuccessful policy of the Government with regard to Siam would have on India as being probably the most serious phase of the whole matter. There was no use in our affecting an ostrich-like security while Russia was advancing on one side of India and France on the other. There was little doubt that France and Russia were combining their aims and their policy in Europe, and it was more than likely that they would also co-operate in Asia. He feared that unless the policy which the Government had pursued in the past was soon and completely reversed with regard to Siam, they would find ere long that the injury which had already been done to Siam, and the blow which had been struck at British prestige, would be very largely increased, and to an extent that might even menace our power in the East. He had desired to say a word with reference to the Pamirs, but at this late period of the evening he would refrain. He would only say that he hoped the Government were correct in the statement they made that the Russian force in occupation had not been increased, and that the promise of the Russian Government not to increase their force, or to fortify important Passes on the road to India, would be carried out.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid that, interrupting the Debate on Siam, he would invite the attention of the Committee for a short time to the subject of the West Coast of Africa. They had heard many encomiums on the efforts and services of officials of the Foreign Office, both at home and abroad, and nothing he intended to say would detract from the value of those services. The action of the permanent officials had, no doubt, been dictated by the general policy that had animated the various Cabinets that had ruled over this country for the last few years. He desired to call attention to the monopoly which the Royal Niger Company had set up against the express words of their Charter granted in 1885.

      517
      This monopoly was exercised in a country comprising something like 500,000 square miles, and said to contain a population of 30,000,000. The district was not an entirely new one, so far as British trade was concerned, like other districts in regard to which Charters had been granted. It had been known to British trade for 50 years, and the British Government itself had been spending money there to the tune of £500,000. It was stated, when the Charter came before the Cabinet of the day, that the interests of all the British traders had been bought up, but that statement was incorrect, because within the last few months they had purchased the business of the African Association, which had all along protested against the Charter, and besides this Association there were about 12 other firms engaged in the trade. The petty native traders who for a large number of years had been trading up and down the river had according to Bishop Crowther, entirely disappeared, and the potash trade, which was at one time entirely in the hands of those native traders, who were agents for British firms, had been monopolised by the Company. Thus a trader writes—
      "We were not permitted by the Agent to leave Lokoja. From February to July, 1885, we were detained there, unable to obtain a passage for us and our potash, while the Company poured into Lagos some hundred tons to take advantage of the 'boom' then existing in that market."
      This was not a Party question, both Parties in the State having been responsible for what had occurred. The fact was that five or six years ago the colonising enterprise of recent years was not so distinctly manifest. Imperial federation was not so much talked about. Cabinet after Cabinet came into power, and while they could not deny the great British interests that existed up the Niger they had not the courage, as they should have had, to send out a representative of their own to organise and civilise the district, but through lack of courage they handed over to this company the duty that they themselves ought to have discharged. The Charter was granted, practically, without public inquiry and behind the backs of the Glasgow, Liverpool, and native traders, who, until it was established, had no knowledge that it was going to be granted. The Charter
      518
      stated that no monopoly should be set up, but the ink of the Charter was hardly dry when, in July, 1886, Lord Aberdare, at the annual meeting, had stated that the Company had set out with the full intention of trying to get a monopoly of the trade in the district. When a monopoly of this kind was set up enormous injustice was done to other traders. He distrusted the policy of handing over a great territory to a limited body of traders, believing that competition was far more civilising. Lord Iddesleigh, in November, 1886, through the Foreign Office, had stated that he considered the terms of the Charter were a sufficient guarantee against any monopoly and differential duty; but the Committee would see how little was the effect of those words. It was clear to everyone that when a person was Governor as well as a trader, he was at a great advantage over other traders. He could collect revenue from the outside trader; he could, and he (Mr. Lawrence) believed he did, in this case, pay backsheesh to some of the black potentates inland in order to induce them to bring down trade to the offices of the Company. It was clear that a monopoly, though protested against on paper, was certain to be set up in practice. A duty of £50 and £60 and up to £100 had to be paid for stations on the Niger. It had, too, to be paid in gold, and if the Committee remembered that at present barter was the sole method of exchange in the district it would be understood what a hardship it was to make these traders bring gold out from England. The Company had imposed very high Import and Export Duties, and a tax upon salt of 20s. per ton, while in the other African States in the neighbourhood it was 5s. a ton, and in the adjoining Niger Protectorate 4s. per ton. The duty on palm oil was 20 per cent. ad valorem, and on palm kernels 30 per cent. ad valorem. These Export Duties, which did not exist in other British territories, had been put on owing to suggestions thrown out at the Berlin Conference, to meet the special expenditure of keeping down slavery. He should like to ask the hon. Baronet to say, when he replied, what was the extra expenditure in putting down slavery that this Export Duty was meant to meet, and whether the expendi-

      519
      ture was as large us the amount received in duties. The result of the duties had been that in two years ending 1888 the export of palm kernels from Lagos dropped from 2,500 tons to 1,000 tons. The Committee would see, therefore, that the Lagos traders had just reason to object to the monopoly which, owing to the action of Cabinets at home, had been set up on the Niger River. If the Government at home had been content merely with having called into existence the Royal Niger Company, and had limited its trading to certain places, say, north of Onitscha, perhaps those he represented would not have asked him to specially draw the attention of the Committee to the matter; but the Cabinet of 1892 improved on the Cabinet of 1885, and had extended the area over which the Company ruled, handing over to them the Mahini country, a large and most fertile portion of the Oil Rivers district—about 90 miles of some of the richest territory in that part of the world. How was it that the Foreign Office permitted this to be done, notwithstanding that they had a most serious representation from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Lagos traders against it—supported, too, by the opinion of Her Majesty's Consul resident in those parts? Those he represented believed that the extension of Sir Claud Macdonald's rule over the whole of that area would be of enormous advantage to the trading community. It would do away with the double system of duties obtaining there. At present, the charging of duties on goods going out of that territory would lead to confusion. The unhappy natives had no idea of customs houses, and would be easily placed in an interminable fog as to whether they were breaking the law or not. The country was riddled with countless streams which were the road ways of the district. Clearly it was expedient that such a district should be under one authority. He should be told that the Niger Company originally came into existence owing to the enterprise of our Gallic neighbours, who were going north, south, east, and west annexing territory; that the Company was chartered in order to secure possession of these territories to the British Crown. But, if so, he hoped the Committee would agree with him as to the reasonableness of the Company leaving the Claud Macdonald
      520
      territory and going farther a field, with all its advantages—its Imperial support and so on. It should leave, under the jurisdiction of Sir Claud Macdonald, the lower part of the river, which had long since been opened up to British trade, and which had been brought under British influence by Treaties made with Her Majesty's Government, direct through its own Consuls, and not in the least owing to the action of the Niger Company. Although this most successful government of the Oil Rivers Protectorate—which had immediately begun to pay its way—had been established, the district had been sliced off and handed over to the Royal Niger Company. He did not think this Company came to them with the cleanest of hands. They all knew that beyond seas many things were done by people who bore our name and sailed from our shores which could not be defended. He did not wish to believe that all the statements which came from these districts were true, but it seemed pretty clear that some very questionable things had been done by agents of the Company; and he should like to know how far they had been made the subjects of inquiry by the Foreign Office in days gone by? He believed there was a great deal open to censure in the early conduct of the Company. There was one thing which had been brought under his notice in 1885 and 1886. A few months before the Charter was granted an agent of the Company captured three children belonging to a certain tribe, and held them as hostages. The Company had written to the Foreign Office saying that the act was an exceptional one under an exceptional state of things. But after the three children were captured, and a white person was taken in retaliation by the natives, and kept in a black hole for some time, an agent of the Company was actually sailing by and taking no measures to secure this person's liberty. There were other stories of a sinister character, which had been narrated in the columns of The Liverpool Daily Post—a journal whose editor had been a well-known man in the House. It was stated in that paper that natives endeavouring to run the gauntlet through the territory of the Company had been shot at. He could not vouch for the truth of that, but this and the other stories to which he referred could easily be verified.

      521
      Then, again, the Company was surrounded with mystery, and its own servants were bound to secrecy as to its action under a penalty of £1,000. The clause in the contracts with their servants ran as follows:—
      "Mr.—agrees that he will not, either during the currency of this agreement or for a period of ten years after its determination, from any cause whatever, without the assent of the Company, communicate to the newspapers of Great Britain or other countries, or to any outside persons, official or private, any facts, whether commercial, industrial, scientific, or political, in connection with the business or administration of the Company, or the district occupied by the Company, or with those who shall have visited or become acquainted with it during his employment in the Company's service, and that he will not publish, or distribute privately, any pamphlet, book, or other paper disclosing any such facts, nor in any way knowingly induce any person, or persons, to carry on any occupation of profit within such districts. … The amount specified is by way of liquidated damages, and not by way of penalty, but any such payment shall not prejudice the right of the Company to restrain a continuance of such breach."
      Sir Claud, when Major Macdonald, had been sent out to inquire into the allegations against the Company, but his Report had never been published. He was afraid that many Foreign Office Reports were for the Foreign Office alone, and could not be published, but he had good reason to believe that many officials—not merely Major Macdonald—had several times brought to the knowledge of the Government facts which showed that the operations of the Royal Niger Company ought to be more carefully looked into than they had hitherto been. To his mind what should be done was this: some Crown Commissioner should be sent to reside in the district. Furthermore, in his opinion, the Company ought to be compelled to publish periodical accounts similar to those which were published by the old East India Company, showing the receipts and expenditure, both administrative and commercial. Administration and trading accounts should be kept rigorously apart. What the British East India Company were compelled to do under Acts of 33 Geo. III., c. 52, and 53 Geo. III., c. 155, he claimed that the Royal Niger Company should be compelled to do, because they had ousted all other traders from their district. This did not apply to the British South Africa Company, in whose territory there were no outside traders; but in the case of the
      522
      Niger Company the Government ought to require it to send up accounts of all their expenditure and revenue to be laid before Parliament. He had ventured to bring this matter before the Committee, because they had hitherto received no reply on these matters from the Foreign Office. No doubt it would be said that these Companies were the cheapest form of annexing territory to the British Crown, and that it did not matter in the long run which trader made the profit; but he felt convinced that, if they wanted to spread civilisation rapidly and to found it on a sound basis, the soundest policy was to allow competition to come in. That would be much more efficacious than the policy of tying the hands of traders by allowing a monopoly.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he had already trespassed upon the time of the Committee for some little space, but would now promise to be brief. He was glad the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence) had at last had an opportunity of bringing this matter before the House, though he was afraid he could not agree with the hon. Member in the view he had presented in regard to the action of the Niger Company. The hon. Member represented that the Government had handed over the administration of this vast territory of 500,000 square miles to the Niger Company. That Company, by pressing up the river, had enabled Great Britain to bring under her sphere of influence the vast territory in question. Liverpool merchants who traded with that part of Africa had not ventured up the Oil Rivers.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid, that he knew of one firm which had been up there for 40 years.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that his information pointed to the fact that at the time the Charter was granted to the Niger Company they had bought out every one of the traders on the whole river, and they had gone behind the Liverpool traders, who confined their operations to the mouth of the Oil River, and had pushed up to the east, and therefore it was not unnatural that a certain amount of trade jealousy should arise on the part of the Liverpool merchants as against a Company whose operations had proved to be eminently successful. His hon. Friend talked about monopoly,

      523
      but where was the monopoly? By the Berlin Treaty of 1885 the navigation of the Niger was open to all the world; therefore, the clients of the hon. Member were entitled to make use of it. And what duties were imposed on merchants? Absolutely none. There is not a single Import Duty imposed on any merchandise on the two rivers, except in the case of alcohol, tobacco, and war material. If the clients of the hon. Member wished to introduce those things into the country duty would have to be paid, but as to ordinary articles of merchandise—in which the hon. Member's clients probably dealt—there was not a single Import Duty of any sort or kind to be paid throughout the length and breadth of the dominions of the Chartered Company. According to the information supplied to him (Mr. Lowther), not only was there no monopoly, but the trade of the independent traders had actually increased in the district since the Niger Company had been granted a Charter. In 1886 the Niger Company had the whole of the trade; in 1887 independent traders had l–17th of the trade; in 1890 they had l–12th; and in 1891 they had l–9th. He did not feel called upon to defend the Niger Company, the Conservative Government having been in no way responsible for the granting of the Charter. While he was at the Foreign Office he came to the conclusion that the Company was doing a most admirable work, because they prevented any importation of spirits above the deltaic region, and in the lower regions had imposed a very high duty on alcohol. It had enormously developed the country in the time it had been there, and had acquired for British trade and influence this vast territory, which amounted to nearly 500,000 square miles, and which, if it had not been so acquired, might have been swallowed up by France 10 years ago.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, that in regard to the point raised in the first speech of the hon. Member for Penrith, as to whether any fresh Papers on Madagascar would be laid on the Table, he could not give an answer without further inquiry. The question had been raised in the House already this Session, and the consideration which influenced the Government in refusing to give them was that, affairs in Madagascar being still in
      524
      a critical state, even if Papers which might be produced had no direct bearing on the questions at issue, they might indirectly have some disturbing influence which it was not desirable to provoke. However, the point raised would be considered. The question of the Return of the tariffs of foreign countries would have to be considered by him with the President of the Board of Trade before a reply could be given. The Papers as to the cession of Vitu were in course of preparation, and he did not know why they had not yet been presented to Parliament. There had been no intentional delay in presenting them. With regard to Samoa there had, no doubt, been some trouble there, but there was no intention to inflict retributive justice on the person who was the cause of it. Mataafa was unfortunate; he did not happen to be the nominee of the Treaty Powers; and, secondly, he was not successful. He was placed on board a man-of-war, and it was for the three Treaty Powers to decide what should be done with him. He would probably be placed upon an island belonging to one of the Treaty Powers, where he would be secure, so far as Samoa was concerned. By his removal the Government of Malietoa had been strengthened, and it was hoped that affairs in Samoa might progress satisfactorily as soon as the new officials had arrived. With regard to Manicaland, the British and Portuguese Commissioners had met on the spot and had gone through certain delimitations, but failed to agree. The question of final settlement was now the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. Regarding the Soudan, he was as much against the policy of starving the Soudan as the hon. Member himself, but the question must depend upon the future influence of political considerations. As to Chantaboon, they had received assurances that its occupation was only to be temporary, while as to the Most Favoured Nation Clause, the Treaty was so distinct that the Government would be bound to see that no commercial advantages were given to other countries which would result in the exclusion of British trade. With regard to Nyassaland, it had been the object of the present Government to insure that its administration should be impartial as regarded the

      525
      various interests concerned, and the Government had hitherto made no change in the conditions under which it was administered. It should be remembered that in all new territories this country had to consider whether the taxpayers would agree to expenditure enough to take them over. If the British taxpayer was not asked to pay, they must be prepared for some anomalies in existing administration. As to the Niger Company, it had administered the territory over which it ruled well, and had raised no political complications. After the most careful inquiry it appeared that the Customs raised did not so much as cover the amount which the Company spent in administration. It was one of the few Chartered Companies which paid a dividend.
      SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, the Debate had been necessarily discursive, but beyond all doubt the most prominent subject before the Committee had been the state of affairs in Siam. In his humble opinion, the Committee ought to accept as satisfactory the statement made by the Under Secretary. He could not associate himself with the opinion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), as he did not believe that British prestige had been lowered in the East and in India by the occurrences that had taken place. We did not, and we never had, assumed responsibility for a protectorate in Siam, and he ventured to think our reputation was more likely to suffer from extravagant pretensions than from confining our efforts to our legitimate interests. The Under Secretary of State had accentuated the statement he made on a former occasion with regard to our great commercial interests in Siam and the Resolution of Her Majesty's Government to defend and protect them. He believed they might look with confidence to the Foreign Secretary to act up to the spirit of that statement, and they would pay careful attention to the result of the negotiations that were going on. He believed the Secretary of State had due regard to the interests of British commerce, for it would be not only a national loss, but a national disgrace to allow those interests to be injured or destroyed. The Committee ought to be
      526
      satisfied so far with the assurances of the Under Secretary.
      Mr. HANBURYrose—
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 55.—(Division List, No. 296.)
      Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported.
      Motion made, and Question proposed
      "That a sum, not exceeding £25,680, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to call attention to the position of affairs in Mashonaland. That position was critical, if not perilous, for British subjects and British interests. There were some 1,500 British subjects no w engaged in developing the resources of that distant, but most promising and naturally rich country. They were practically cut off from the rest of the British possessions. Hundreds of miles separated them from any immediate assistance which could be afforded either by the Imperial or the Colonial Government. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), in a speech he had made earlier in the evening, had attacked Chartered Companies. He (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) was sorry to hear that from the hon. Member, because if the hon. Member would carry his mind back to the latter portion of the last century and the earlier portion of the present century he would see that the East India Company, the great prototype of the present Chartered Companies, had done the greatest amount of good for the commerce and Imperial power of this country. The greatest commercial development of this country abroad had originated from the efforts of private individuals, working sometimes for their own hand and sometimes banded together as Chartered Companies. What was the

      527
      position of the British Chartered Companies in South Africa? They had been carrying on a great work of exploration and development in one of the richest territories of the world. A grave danger now threatened them. Lo Bengula, a powerful and savage Monarch, who could put from 15,000 to 20,000 armed men in the field, was dissatisfied with their progress, and threatened them with serious danger, if not complete destruction. Although the colonists might be able to defend themselves within Forts Victoria and Salisbury from any attacks by Lo Bengula's warriors, their work, their wealth, and their resources were of such a character that their retirement within the forts would practically ruin all their enterprise. Their work was twofold—mining and agricultural. There were no two forms of industry so open to destruction by an enemy as mining and agriculture. Everybody knew how easily crops could be destroyed, cattle carried off, and the machinery and appliances of mining ruined by an active enemy. Therefore, the retirement of the colonists within those forts would mean the practical ruin of their settlement and the destruction of their agricultural and mining enterprise, which were very open to the enemy's attack. The Government had assumed an unjust and illogical attitude towards this great British enterprise, for they had said to the Chartered Company that their forces, which would be adequate for the defence of the forts, but absolutely inadequate for the protection of the settlement from the raids of the Matabele, were not to undertake any offensive movement, but were to remain on the defensive. But the only practical way of dealing with the danger would be by a speedy movement of the whole of the British forces in Mashonaland upon the King's kraal. He had asked the Prime Minister the other day whether the defence of a position was not often best secured by offensive tactics. That statement was received with ignorant jeers by the Radical Party, and he was not surprised at that. The latest news from Mashonaland was that, in the opinion of Sir H. Loch and of the responsible authorities in Mashonaland, Lo Bengula was at the present moment temporising, because he had sent some 6,000 of his men on a raid into the Mashukuhunbwe
      528
      country to the north of the Zambesi, and until they returned he would be unable to take the offensive against our colonists. When that force returned Lo Bengula would be in a position to throw between 15,000 and 20,000 armed barbarians against the small body of 1,500 colonists in that distant country. What was the character of those Matabele? The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had tried to throw some responsibility on the late Government. "Though Lo Bengula's character was known," said the hon. Gentleman, "the late Government had some negotiations with the Potentate." He would venture to submit that that argument was wholly beside the matter. The hon. Gentleman had added that these raids of the Matabele, which used to be of a most destructive and horrible character, had practically ceased. But that was not so. The raids had been resumed in the present year, and had been attended with all the horrors of the massacre of the helpless Mashonas and the carrying into captivity of their women and children. Every British Government had at some time or other to enter into negotiations with Powers and Potentates whose character for humanity might very largely be disputed. The object of the late Government, as well as of the Chartered Company, in entering into negotiations with the King was to secure peace and order for the large districts which had hitherto been exposed to the raids of these savage tribes; and it was because that policy, which had been successful for several years, was now threatened with attack by Lo Bengula that he now brought the matter before the Committee. He would refer hon. Members who wished to know anything about the Matabele and their raids to the letters which appeared in The Times of that day and on previous days, the statements in which would be fully confirmed by everyone who knew anything about South Africa. He would read a few extracts from a letter which had appeared in The Times of August 29th, from the Bishop of Derry, whose knowledge of South Africa was derived from the most authentic sources—
      "The Matabele are descended from a Zulu tribe which emigrated in 1825 under Ummilhquiri, father of Lo Bengula. They form a military state or caste: they are soldiers, not for defence but for the raids upon feebler tribes for cattle, slaves, and especially women. Mashona-

      529
      land is the centre of their raids, their happy hunting ground. The Matabele loves to kill, lives to kill."
      The Bishop then went on to describe the raid of the Matabele. The kraals of the Mashonas were surrounded at night. In the morning the savages made a descent on them, massacred the men, and carried off the women, children, and cattle into captivity. A certain number of Mashona men were preserved in order to drive the Mashona cattle into the country of the Matabele, and when they arrived there these unfortunate men were brutally slaughtered before the eyes of their families. That happened this very year, and yet the Under Secretary for the Colonies told them that the raids were things of the past.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I did not say that. I said to a large extent.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the words "large extent" were not used by the hon. Gentleman, or, if they were used, they were used in such a way that the attention of the House had not been fixed on them.
      MR. S. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman's question to me was whether or not I could say that the raids had ceased within the last few years. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the raid the other day, the raids are to a large extent things of the past.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he differed from the hon. Gentleman as to his impression of what he had said on the subject. The cessation of these murderous raids was due to the policy of the late Conservative Government and of the Chartered Company. But what had happened this year in Mashonaland? In July one of Lo Bengula's impis raided the country, and many of the unfortunate Mashonas were massacred close to Victoria itself, and their women and children were carried off. Lo Bengula, when remonstrated with by the agent of the company, said that the Mashonas were his slaves, and that he had the right to treat them as he chose. For the last 50 years the unfortunate Mashonas have been subjected to this persecution, and thousands of them had been killed and their women and children made slaves. The country in which
      530
      these atrocities were being perpetrated was a country under British protection, a country in which the British flag was flying. It might be true that the Chartered Company were largely responsible for peace and order in Mashonaland; but it was impossible for the Government to repudiate the responsibility, which must in the last instance fall upon them for the protection of the British subjects in that country, and for the security of those who looked up to them for security. The Government had thrown upon the Company the responsibility of protecting British subjects within their territories, and yet had forbidden them to take aggressive action against Lo Bengula, which seemed to be the only effective method of giving protection to those who were dependent upon them for their lives. All that was asked was that the Company and the British settlers in their district should be allowed to deal a deadly blow at this barbarous and cruel tyrant, and thus secure Mashonaland for all time against the raids of the Matabele. When Lo Bengula's impis returned from the raid they were making against the Mashukuhunbwes it would be impossible to protect Mashonaland from the overpowering numbers of these savages should they attack the settlement. If such a thing occurred, Her Majesty's Government would have to bear the responsibility. The Government had adopted the very worst policy that it could adopt. They had adopted the half-and-half, meddling and muddling, policy which always characterised a Ministry of which the present Prime Minister was the head, and refused to permit the Company to adopt the only rational means of defending themselves against these raids. Lo Bengula claimed that the Mashonas were his slaves, and that he had a perfect right to carry off their cattle and their women and children. What were these Mashonas doing for the settlers? They were supplying the necessary labour by which alone the country could be developed; they acted as agricultural labourers and mining labourers in Mashonaland. These unfortunate people had taken refuge from Lo Bengula in their mountain fastnesses. They had been induced to come down from these fastnesses in the belief that they would be preserved from the cruelty of the Matabele under the protection of

      531
      the British flag. But they did not get that protection; they were still being raided by Lo Bengula. The Bishop of Deny in his admirable and eloquent letter well described the terrible results of these raids—
      "The Mashonas are absolutely necessary for the development of the country, whilst their extermination is growing nearer every year. The sight of gentle, unoffending servants simply hacked to pieces, their blood spurting over the Englishman's gown, or the Englishman's coat, is something too terrible for thought to dwell upon. This cloud, big with death, ever threatening to break into a fresh storm, and forming again and again, must be dissipated, unless the peaceful development of Mashonaland is to become impossible."
      The present condition of affairs was described in an extract which he would read from The Times newspaper—
      "Dr. Jameson, the Administrator of Mashonaland, who knows more about the situation than anyone, has declared the present position to be impossible, and says that it renders action of some sort imperative. Mining work in Mashonaland is suspended; the natives who supply the manual labour cannot be induced to come down from their fastnesses. Prospectors are obliged to remain within the protected area of the Company's occupation. On all sides the opinion appears to be gaining ground that a trial of strength between the forces of barbarism and civilisation in that part of Africa is becoming inevitable. Such a trial has in no way been courted by the Company. War is financially undesirable, and if the conflict could have been postponed for another decade, the Company would have been in a better position to enter into it with the necessary assurance of success."
      All this showed that a grave responsibility would rest on the Government if they adopted the policy they had announced to the House. Her Majesty's Government had no right to blow hot and cold in this matter, for it involved the well-being and prosperity of 1,500 British subjects, and possibly their lives as well. Either the Government should undertake responsibility for the protection of our fellow-subjects in Mashonaland, or should give the British South Africa Company a free hand in dealing with Lo Bengula.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it was obvious that the Chartered Companies must be restrained by the Government to some extent; it was not less obvious that if war ensued the Imperial Government must sooner or later interfere to protect British subjects. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had that evening spoken of Chartered
      532
      Companies as excellent institutions, but in his own view the policy of colonising by means of such Companies was very doubtful. It might be that the accounts which had been referred to might turn out to be somewhat exaggerated, and it might even yet be found preferable to square Lo Bengula rather than to fight him. But whether that was so or not, he thought it was quite clear that inasmuch as the Imperial Government restrained the Chartered Company from taking any step which they have believed to be necessary for the safety of those over whom they ruled, obviously in some way or other the Imperial Government would have to come to their assistance in time of difficulty. He would suggest to his hon. Friend, who thought more vigorous action should have been taken by the Government that he should remember that if the Imperial Government was called upon to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the Chartered Company, it might have something to say to the Chartered Company about the chestnuts after they were pulled out. He would not now enter at greater length into the ethics of Chartered Companies. He would prefer to proceed, as formerly, by slow steps into a new country. That course was pursued in Nyassaland with extremely happy results; and, while upon this point, he would like to ask that more frequent Reports might be published as to the condition of this part of Africa. Although he would have liked to have had some discussion before Parliament closed on certain important questions connected with Uganda, they could not well discuss anything until the Papers relating to that part of Africa were before them.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to say a word or two upon questions relating to African colonisation, but before I do so I would like to say that I am also very much interested in another Colony—the Bahamas—the discussion in regard to which, I believe, will be raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. It is quite as much for the convenience of the Government and the Committee as for ours that we should separate what we have to say and keep each subject distinct; but, of course, if the Government are going, without giving us the slightest warning, to move the Closure at some early period, then, of course, it will be

      533
      necessary for us to deal with the various subjects together. I do hope that the Under Secretary will take this opportunity of giving the Committee in some detail the opinions of the Government upon the whole question of Chartered Companies, which is a subject of the utmost importance, and has, within the last few years, received great development. The Chartered Company of Borneo has, perhaps, been made a precedent, which has been largely followed in the case of Africa. I am not prepared to say that this is the best policy to follow, and experience must have shown that there are great difficulties connected with it. On the other hand, there is much to be said in its favour. If we are to proceed with that policy there ought to be some continuity, and some rule ought to be laid down as to the responsibility of the Imperial Government in connection with Chartered Companies. There is no advantage at all in Chartered Companies unless you intend deliberately and permanently to throw upon them the responsibility which you have committed to their charge. You say to a Chartered Company—"We give you powers to provide for the peace, order, and good government of the land which we trust to your care," and then at the very first opportunity, the moment there is any trouble in the land, there is at once a demand upon the Imperial Government that they should interfere, and, apparently, the Imperial Government drifts and drifts until at last it does interfere. We have, therefore, all the disadvantage with regard to Chartered Companies, all the trouble and risk, and none of the advantages. I think that is altogether a mistake. For myself, I may say that I have not seen reason to doubt that the system of Chartered Companies might have been a very good system, at all events, in the early days of the colonisation of these countries; but, as I have said, you should make an arrangement with a Chartered Company and stick to it. You must say to them—"You have the responsibility, and you must take it up. If you go into a country you must take the risk." In the case of the British South Africa Company, I am not aware that they have even disputed this responsibility, or their readiness to fulfil their obligation; but then the Government comes in and interferes with them,
      534
      and when the Company, which, by the way, had asked for no assistance, proposed to take a forward movement or an aggression, as it had been called, but which was really a defensive movement, as he understood it, against this Chief Lo Bengula, then the Imperial Government steps in and says, "You shall not move an inch without consulting us: you are not to take the only true method of protecting the people who look to you for protection; you are not to take the only reasonable method, which is to punish Lo Bengula for his aggressions." If the Government was going to take the responsibility of saying—"You shall not punish Lo Bengula for his aggressions," then all I can say is that in that case the Government will have a very heavy responsibility if any massacre of either native or European subjects of Her Malesty took place. I think the Government ought really to state the matter plainly for the information of the Committee. We ought to know exactly what our relation is to these Chartered Companies. Are they practically independent bodies? In that case let them take the responsibility, and then they will have no claim on this country; but if the Government resolve to interfere with the policy of the Companies, we shall be answerable for any failure of that policy. I hope we shall have a clear statement on this subject.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I do not think the Committee will expect me on this occasion to enter at length into the question of Chartered Companies generally. We have Chartered Companies in various parts of the world. So far as the Colonial Office is concerned we have only one in any sense under our control; the Foreign Office have four or five, and I do not think it would be expedient on the present occasion that I should attempt to lay down any principle which ought to direct the Foreign Office, as well as the Colonial Office, in dealing with these Companies. But so far as the British South Africa Company is concerned, the position is that they acknowledge themselves to be entirely responsible both for the administration and the protection of the territory over which they have control, but in their Charter, as regards any question of dispute between

      535
      them and the chiefs in their territory, there is a distinct clause which enables Her Majesty's Government, if they think fit, to interfere in that dispute and to forbid the Company taking a forward action, or to come to some arrangement with them in regard to that particular matter. Government are in communication with the Company in regard to the dispute with Lo Bengula, and they have made no complaint whatever in regard to the attitude Her Majesty's Government have taken up. They have declared themselves perfectly competent to look after their own protection, and they have declared themselves very well satisfied with the moral support which we have given them.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What is the moral support?
      MR. S. BUXTON: The moral support is that we have, as regards the posts of danger in Bechuanaland, sent up more police, and we are prepared in that sense to show Lo Bengula that, as far as we are concerned, he cannot attack our territory with impunity. It has been assumed that the Company are in a position to attack Lo Bengula at the first moment. That is entirely and absolutely incorrect. The Government are, of course, bound to take an interest in the action of the Company, and what we have done so far as regards their position is simply this—we have said that at the first moment they should not make an aggressive movement on Lo Bengula without our knowledge and authority. A good deal has been said about Matabeleland and Lo Bengula and his raids, which I do not desire to defend; but I think we ought to require two things. In the first place, these raids are no new thing, and, in the second place, as regards the raid the other day, Lo Bengula declared that he sent the impi in order to punish the Mashonas, partly on our account—because they had stolen some telegraph wires—and partly because he wanted to get back some cattle that had been stolen. I think it is quite clear that this impi did largely exceed his orders, and that they were very severely punished by a large number being killed.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (interposing): What was the subsequent statement?
      MR. S. BUXTON: His statement was that which we have always admitted
      536
      —namely, that the Mashonas were his subjects. We have always admitted that they were his subjects, and his statement that they were his slaves was another way of saying that they were under his jurisdiction. What I wanted to point out was this: at the present moment, whether as a matter of right or wrong, there can be no justification on the part of the Company for an aggressive movement which the hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be undertaken, and where also, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the case, at the present moment they are not in a position to make it. And, so far as we are concerned, we are not going to be rushed into another South African War. We feel it is only right and just from the point of view of Imperial interests as well, I am bound to say I think of the interests of the Company themselves, that they should not by a forward movement, without proper support, be allowed to suffer some reverse which might raise a very large number of native troops throughout other parts of Africa against the white men. We are, as far as we can, desirous of ending this dispute in a peaceful way; we are very anxious to take no more risks than we can possibly help, but at the same time the Government are fully aware of the responsibilities which they have undertaken by forbidding this forward movement. They believe that is the right policy. They know that at the present moment the Chartered Company themselves are in accordance with the action they have taken, and I can only say in the very delicate position of the question at the present moment that remarks such as those of the hon. Member are, in my opinion, very mischievous and highly inexpedient. [Sir E. ASHMEAW-BART-LETT: Which remarks?] The observations which the hon. Member used more than once, that in his opinion we ought to allow and encourage the Company to attack Lobengula whether right or wrong—[Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I said nothing of the kind]—or whether they are likely to be successful or be defeated. These remarks are so much in accord unfortunately with the views of persons on the spot—but not with responsible people in the Company—that I fear unless a strong expression of opinion in this House is made, they

      537
      may easily rush us into this war which we are very anxious to avoid. I hope, at all events, that we may be able to avoid any difficulty with Lo Bengula, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the Company and these Colonists have been very fortunate in having had up till now a very easy and peaceful time, and I do not think on the first difficulty which arises that they ought to complain, or that they ought to call upon Her Majesty's Government to support them in their aggressive movement. We are prepared to defend the territory for which we are responsible; we are prepared to do our best to avoid difficulties of this sort, and the Company themselves declare that in their opinion they are quite prepared to meet any emergency. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, while we fully feel the responsibility of any action we may have taken in the matter, we believe that such action as we have taken has been in the interest of peace and in the interests of the company themselves, and we believe that if a difficulty arises we shall be in a proper and right position to meet and deal with it. With regard to what has been said as to further Papers on this and kindred matters, I have in the last day or two laid some Papers on the Table, which I hope will be printed and circulated in a very short time. As regards the question of Swaziland, I think hon. Members will feel that it will be more convenient to discuss that question when we reach it in the ordinary course; and if hon. Members desire to speak on it they had better do so on the special Vote instead of mixing it with other questions.
      THE CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID,)called upon Sir C. Dilke, when—
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid: I desire, by way of personal explanation, to say that the Under Secretary has very considerably misrepresented what I have said. I did not advise a forward movement. I said that the Government had no right to throw all responsibility upon the Chartered Company, and at the same time forbid all offensive movement. The first I knew of the forward movement was the statement by the Government that they had distinctly forbidden a forward movement. With regard to the statement of the hon.
      538
      Gentleman, in my opinion, on the whole, not unsatisfactory, and if his answers to my questions had been in the same sense, the House would have been spared much of my remarks to-night.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this is more than an explanation.
      SIR C. W. DILKEcalled attention to the action of naval officers on the Treaty shore of Newfoundland, and said it would be impossible for Parliament to impose its will upon any other Colony which had responsible and representative institutions in the manner in which it had attempted to do in the case of the self-governing Colony of Newfoundland. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had been reported to have said, in reply to a question, that the recent extraordinary action of the naval officers was in pursuance of a discretion conferred by Treaty. He had afterwards explained that he was misreported and had not said "Treaty." But the discretion alluded to was not contained in any Statute, and it appeared to him that the powers which were exercised by the naval officers were outside any law. Turning to the Blue Book which had recently appeared, he said that the first action taken by Lord Ripon in the matter, to judge by a telegram sent to the Colonial Government, went in the same direction as that in which the late Government had gone in their dealings with the colony, only the language was still more peremptory. In the telegram Lord Ripon threatened that Her Majesty's Government would be compelled to resort to coercive Imperial legislation. The whole question now in dispute arose out of the meaning to be attached to the words saying that we should not molest or interfere with the French fishery in the Royal declaration attached to one of the Treaties. The British contention was that we had a concurrent right of fishery on that part of the Newfoundland shore upon which the Treaty of Utrecht had given the French the right to land and dry fish. That part of the coast was an integral portion of the Colony and it returned two Members to the Colonial Legislature. It had not been until the lobster fishery commenced, in the year 1882, on the Treaty shore, that conflict arose on the French Treaty rights. In 1887 the French naval officers began to cut the nets of British

      539
      fishing boats that were engaged in fishing off the Treaty shore, and to remove British lobster pots, and so did that which our Government had declared that they had no right to do. He denied that Newfoundland had been unwilling to carry out Treaty obligations, and declared that if, instead of a feeble colony, they had had to deal with an Australasian Colony, no attempt would have been made to bully the Colony or to propose Imperial coercive legislation, as had been attempted in the case of Newfoundland. He did not think that it was to the advantage of the Colony that arbitration should take place upon the limited subject to which it was confined, and as regarded which it constituted a partial admission of a monstrous claim. He did not wish to interfere with the Treaty rights, but in their protection of the French they had gone far beyond the letter of the Treaty. They had prevented their own Colonists from making use of their own country, and it was because he felt that they had gone much too far that he ventured to call the attention of the Committee to the matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTON MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough) rose to Order.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, there was no question of Order involved, and called upon
      COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT, who had risen simultaneously with Mr. Morton. The hon. Member said that, having been recently in Newfoundland, he would impress on the Government how deeply the Colonists felt upon this question, and how necessary it was to arrive at a settlement.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he did not intend to detain the Committee unnecessarily, but he was of opinion that they ought to protect the British citizens in Newfoundland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had stated that the colonist desired to "rip up" the Treaty of Utrecht. That was not so. The Newfoundlanders had stated distinctly, through their Delegates who were here in 1891, that they desired and were willing, to purchase the French rights, whatever they were, at a fair price. And all that they asked of the British Government was that, as Newfoundland was a poor Colony, the British Government
      540
      should lend them the money at a low rate of interest, and he (Mr. Morton) was assured that the Newfoundlanders would pay both interest and principal of such a loan. He (Mr. Morton) did not think much of the proposed Arbitration. After all, it would only decide whether a "lobster" was a fish or not, and would leave the main question undecided. On the whole, he (Mr. Morton) thought it would be just as well to drop the proposed Arbitration altogether, and to approach the French Government in a friendly manner with a view to settle the question finally by purchasing the French rights; and it was admitted that the French people had rights on the Newfoundland coast. Until that was done the "Newfoundland difficulty" would never be settled. And he (Mr. Morton) earnestly hoped that the present Government would do their best to get the matter settled. He (Mr. Morton) had by several questions called the attention of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Buxton) to some grievances of the Newfoundlanders, but the replies were not very satisfactory. One of those matters was with regard to the naval officers acting as Magistrates in questions affecting the rights of the colonists. What the Newfoundlanders said was that they had Magistrates and Courts of their own on the land, and they objected to their citizens being tried in secret on British ships without any chance of their being properly represented or protected by publicity. He (Mr. Morton) hoped that the Government would in this matter allow the colony complete Home Rule. Then there was the question of Admiral Sir B. Walker, and the compensation cases. He was informed that the Admiral had evaded service of the writs which had been issued against him. That, if correct, was a disgraceful state of things, and should not be allowed by the British Government to exist for a single day. Surely the British Government could appoint some respectable solicitor at St. John's to accept service of these writs, and allow the Supreme Court to hear and settle these cases. In this, as in other matters, he (Mr. Morton) hoped that the Colonial Office would do their best to remove the grievances which were properly complained of, and do justice to our oldest colony.
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, as he understood the matter, there were three points of complaint. The Colonists complained that the Government here had decided against them without fairly considering the position of affairs; that by the Treaty the French had the right to put up temporary buildings only for the purpose of curing cod, whereas they had put up most substantial factories in order to do something else; and further, that the British Government did not protect them against the French, who destroyed the nets and implements of the local fishermen, although they had at least equal rights with the French to fish for Crustacean as well as for cod. He thought the Admiralty might easily give instructions to the Naval Officers to prevent the French from taking the law into their own hands. He could not see the object of arbitration. What was the point for arbitration? Was it whether a lobster was a fish? If that were determined, how would it settle the dispute? He agreed with much of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke), and he thought it was only fair to the Colonials that they should be consulted with reference to what should be done in these matters affecting themselves.
      MR. S. BUXTON: Three points have been raised, and I shall deal with them in their order. With regard to the objection as to Justices of the Peace for the Colony, they were appointed at the request of the Colony; and as soon as the Colony is able to appoint local Justices, the Government will be glad to relieve these officers from a position which they do not desire. In many parts of Newfoundland they have been of great advantage to the inhabitants, who have approved of the bulk of their actions. We cannot now go back, and we are bound by the Acts that previous Governments have for many years passed. As to the question of coercing the Newfoundlanders, I can only say that England has always sympathised with their difficulties, and has made attempts in a sympathetic and liberal spirit to meet their views. In 1857, in 1864, and in 1874 action was taken, and the difficulty with France as nearly as possible concluded; but, unfortunately, the Newfoundlanders rejected our proposals, and no settlement was arrived at. As to the
      542
      question of the particular matter to which the permanent Act will apply, I admit to the full it is a limited reference which goes to the Board of Arbitrators; and I think every one of us—certainly Her Majesty's Government—would be only too delighted if every one of these difficult and anomalous French Treaty questions could be referred to arbitration and settled by definition. Unfortunately you cannot go to arbitration unless both sides are prepared to do so. The late Government more than once approached the French Government with a view to seeing if all the questions at issue would not admit of arbitration. The French Government, however, have refused to arbitrate on all the points, and I think we shall all agree that the present moment is not at all a favourable one to meet the French Government with a view to complete arbitration. That being so, and the position being an anomalous one, it appears to me better to have these small questions arbitrated upon than to allow them to add to the friction already existing. I can only say that we have endeavoured, and will still endeavour, to meet the Newfoundland Government in the most friendly spirit we possibly can. The Despatch referred to, which I am glad to think the hon. Member regards as an advance in the right direction, was written with a view to getting them to send a delegation over here to discuss the question, and to show that we, as far as we could, consistently with Treaty rights, were ready to meet them in regard to their own local matters. We trust that they will endeavour to meet us in the same spirit, so that this section of the matter may be removed as one source of friction with France. That is the position so far as we are concerned. We are anxious to settle this section of the matter.
      SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, that during the five years he was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs this question had constantly occupied the attention of the Government. Nothing could be a greater mistake than that which appeared to dwell in the mind of the hon. Member for Peterborough—namely, that the late Government—and he supposed he could speak also for the present Government—were in any way indifferent to this question,

      543
      because Newfoundland was not one of the largest Colonies, or its people one of the most numerous and best able to make their voices heard. On the contrary, this question had occupied an amount of attention out of all proportion to its magnitude and the size of the Colony, or the interests involved. As the Under Secretary of State had said, it was a matter of great difficulty with which, after all, two great Powers were concerned, each tenacious of the privileges and rights of its subjects, involving questions as to which there was considerable difference of legal interpretation. He had been surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member, but he had been still more surprised to hear from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke), who had had large experience in connection with foreign affairs, and who, he freely admitted, was a very considerable authority on many points of foreign affairs, arguments which showed such a total disregard of the rights and susceptibilities of other Powers. When the right hon. Baronet deprecated arbitration and said that we had the rights of our Colonies to protect, and that they should be left to manage their own affairs, was it possible that he was ignorant of, or indifferent to, the position of the French Government on this question? How was it possible that one nation—still less a colony of a nation—could judge its own cause? Where there was an International difference for one Power to say—"These are our rights, and these we will maintain," is nothing less than saying—"We will go to war unless our view is accepted." Was it to be supposed that the French Government would tolerate an assertion by us of the right of the Colonists of Newfoundland to say what was the interpretation to be placed upon certain Treaties, and to what extent they would carry them out? It was evident that the responsibility rested with the Power who made the Treaties, and that it was the duty of that Power to see that they were carried out. The British Governments had been far from indifferent to the susceptibilities of the Colonists. They had run considerable risks of difficulty with the French Government, and he was bound to say that the French Government had been forbearing in the
      544
      matter. To say that we could permit a Colony to ignore obligations under which it lay, to interpret a Treaty for itself and disregard the rights of France under that Treaty, seemed to him to ignore and disregard the plainest principles of International Law. The hon. Member for Peterborough said—"Why go into arbitration about the matter of lobsters?" There were a school of politicians who said—"We ought to go to arbitration upon all matters of International difference;" but when it came to any particular point that had to be arbitrated upon they said—"You have no need to go to arbitration." It was perfectly impossible to contend on the one hand that arbitration was the course in all cases of difficulty, and then to decline to go to arbitration because it did not suit them to do so.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: I never said that.
      SIR J. FERGUSSON: But the hon. Member said that some way of settling the matter ought to be found with the French Government. Well, the only way of settling a dispute was to go to an International tribunal, and that Her Majesty's Government had been willing to do. But here arose the difficulty. They had to consider the limits and grounds of arbitration. Neither Power was willing to refer to arbitration what it regarded as sovereign rights. The French asserted their right to something like concurrent possession of the Treaty shore with ourselves, and to build salmon weirs on the streams—they did build them, in fact, and they had to be removed. The French would like us to refer to arbitration whether they had a right to do such things, and whether they possessed concurrent rights on the Treaty shore. This we could not allow. Neither would the French Government submit to arbitration matters they considered to be their undoubted rights under the Treaty, consequently the Reference had to be narrowed to the limits we had stated. Novertheless, there were some questions of principle here involved, because, if the curing of lobsters, which was not an established practice when the Treaty was entered into, lay within the right of "drying fish," then it might follow that the necessary buildings must be put up for the purpose. A good deal depended on that question. He had only risen to

      545
      point out how vain and futile it was to say that they could leave to the Colonies the right to settle affairs that were matters of International arbitration. We could not deal in amity with a foreign Power with whom we had contracted International Treaty engagements were we not to charge ourselves with the fulfilment of those Treaty obligations, and were we not ready to settle by arbitration matters we could not settle by diplomacy.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was unable to agree with the strictly official view put before the Committee by his right hon. Friend opposite. The right hon. Gentleman was bound by his responsibilities to support the view taken by successive Governments, and to accept the view which had been stated to the Committee by the Under Secretary. When he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was in America, dealing with a fishery question of a different kind, he had had the opportunity of making the acquaintance of some of the foremost Representatives of the Colony of Newfoundland. He had entered into conversation with them on this subject, and had learned a great deal about it. He confessed he had come to the conclusion which had been so well stated to the Committee by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Those who heard the right hon. Baronet would say that these discussions in Supply were not purely obstructive. The right hon. Gentleman had given an account of this dispute with regard to the lobster fishery on the Treaty coast of Newfoundland, which had been accepted by the Under Secretary of State as substantially correct; and what was the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman drew from the statement—a conclusion which must have been accepted by everyone who heard him, and who, at the same time, was prepared to accept his facts as correct? It was that the French had extended their rights under the original Treaty and under the King's Declaration until they were now claiming more than either in equity or in law they were entitled to. The Newfoundlanders, according, to the right hon. Baronet, were absolutely right in their contention. What was to be done? It was suggested by the Government that they
      546
      should be forced to arbitration because the Colony would not go willingly. The right hon. Baronet said there were certain questions affecting territorial rights which were not fair subjects for arbitration. "Suppose," he said, "the French claimed a Treaty shore on the Isle of Wight, would you go to arbitration on a claim of that kind? Clearly not. Why should you go," said the right hon. Member, "to arbitration on a similar question because it happens to affect a Colony?" Under these circumstances, they arrived at this conclusion—that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, they could not admit the claim of the French—they could not go to arbitration. What was the alternative? Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go to war? Really, this was very important. This question had been raised by two supporters of the Government who belonged to the New Radical Party. Whenever people came forward to defend the rights of the Empire, and the property of the Empire, they were accused of being Jingoes at once; but here were two hon. Members, belonging to the New Radical Party, who pressed on the Government a course of action which meant war if it meant anything.
      SIR C. W. DILKE: If it is put tome as a question, I say we have no demand at all to make on the French. We have simply to remain in possession of the rights which we have. If he asks me whether I think there is any risk of war in that I say no.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had not asked any question of the right hon. Baronet; but he was prepared to give way to him at any moment he desired to make a further statement. As he had said, he was in agreement with the right hon. Baronet; but he wanted to have a clear understanding as to the position of the new Radical Party on the question of Treaty rights, for it seemed to him that it must inevitably lead them into war. The right hon. Baronet said it would not lead to war, but that was simply the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit. It would not lead to war if the French Government gave way; but how did the right hon. Baronet know that they would give way? What authority had he to speak for the French Government? He said we had no demand to

      547
      make on them, but at the present moment French officers were cutting the nets of our people, they were preventing the establishment of railways and of local communication, and interfering in many ways with the territorial right of our Colonists. And were we to sit still? "No," said the right hon. Baronet, "we were to give instructions to our Naval officers to prevent the French from doing these things." But what would be the result of that? War. ["No, no!"] It was absurd for the right hon. Member to interrupt him and to say that it did not mean war with France. What was the alternative? It was repression—to say to the Newfoundlanders—"You are a small Colony; you do not interest us. It is true you are the oldest of the British Colonies; but as a pecuniary matter, if we strike a balance, we shall not be the gainers by your possession; and under the circumstances, if you do not take our advice and give way to the French, though we admit that you are right and the French are wrong, we will not protect you, and you must workout this question for yourselves." This was really a most important question, on which it was well he should clear their minds of cant, and to have a clear notion of what their policy should be. This was a case in which his right hon. Friend would, he thought, be prepared to say—"Our honour in this matter is concerned, and we are bound to accept even the risk of war in protecting our Newfoundland Colonists." If the right hon. Gentleman said that, he would not say that he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should not be inclined to support him; but, then, do not let the new Radical Party accuse him and his friends of being jingoes. The other alternative was to say to the Colony—"Go, in Heaven's name, and settle affairs with the French!" That was the position taken up by the hon. Member behind him.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: No, no!
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member's desire was to repeat his statement.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he objected to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about him. He (Mr. Morton) had stated in his speech that what he desired was that they should approach the French Government in a friendly way with a view to purchasing their
      548
      rights. He had said that the people of Newfoundland had stated distinctly that they were willing to pay for these rights.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the proposals of these amateur diplomatists were most ridiculous. The view now put was not that put by the hon. Member in his original speech.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had put that view.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member proposed that they should approach the French Government in a friendly way and say—"You are absolutely wrong; you have no rights. Now, what will you take for your rights? "It was well-known that the French would not sell their rights; but if they were prepared to do so, it was equally certain that any price they put on them would be much larger than Newfoundland could afford to pay. Newfoundland was a miserably poor Colony, with a population of 300,000 or 400,000. But did the hon. Member propose to put the expenditure on the British taxpayer? They had seen no inclination on the part of the new Radical Party to spare the British taxpayer; but he confessed it would be another thing to be carried to their credit if they required Parliament to pay for the extinction of rights which did not exist. This discussion threw light on many interesting questions. It threw light on the foreign policy of the new Radical Party and on their self-governing legislative policy and their policy with regard to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the veto of the Crown. In the case of Newfoundland there was an undoubted and unimpaired and indefeasible supremacy of the British Crown; the Imperial Parliament had a veto over the legislation of the Colony, and yet here was a case in which a small Colony refused to carry out the Treaty engagements of the Imperial Power, and the right hon. Baronet said that he and a great number of his friends would do everything in their power to prevent the Imperial Parliament from exercising the supremacy of the British Crown and from vetoing the concurrent legislation of the Colony.
      SIR C. W. DILKE: I am loth to interrupt my right hon. Friend, even when he refers to me as speaking for the new Radical Party, though I have spoken simply for myself. I repudiate the sug-

      549
      gestion that I would back up the Colony in refusing to carry out Treaty engagements.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was well aware that the right hon. Baronet contended that the French had no Treaty right, and that they were wrong in their claim. But the position of the Government was the reverse of that. They admitted the claim of the French as a subject of contention which they were willing to submit to arbitration. How was supremacy to be exercised over Newfoundland when they found a powerful Party led by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean ready to use all the Forms of the House to prevent it?
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he wished to repudiate a great deal that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had said. He believed that the French had Treaty rights; so did the Colonists, and they had no desire to rip up the Treaty. They were willing to buy the French out. With regard to the practicability of this purchase, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the United States purchased two of their present States—one from France and one from Spain—and that within recent years they had bought a large tract of territory from Russia. Surely the British Government could do something of the same sort. [Cries of "Divide!"] It was nonsense to talk of the "new Radical Party" as desiring to carry out a Jingo policy. They had no such desire. What he desired was that whatever rights the French had we should purchase. There was no question of war in the matter, because all these things could be settled if the Government wished it in an amicable manner. [Cries of "Divide!"] The Under Secretary had said that the cases he (Mr. Morton) had brought under the notice of the Colonial Government were mares' nests; but judging from the reply of the hon. Member he, at least, did not seem to think so. The people of Newfoundland did not think so. It had been admitted that there was something in some of the cases; but it was contended that the matter could only be settled by the Government. This was, unfortunately, the way in which the Colonial Office had generally treated the Colony. Whatever complaints were
      550
      made they were almost always said to be "mare's nests," and until they could induce the Colonial Office to adopt a better mode of dealing with the questions, difficulties would be constantly arising. [Cries of "Divide!"] He contended that it was the duty of the Colonial Office to arrange with the British Admiral as to accepting service of writs. He (Mr. Morton) had a letter from a Member of the Assembly of Newfoundland, in which he stated that he had taken out a writ against Sir Baldwin Walker, but had been unable to serve it because he had left the country. Six other cases had been sent to him, in one of which the claim was for 2,000 dollars; but Sir Baldwin Walker, although he had been in the country, had evaded the service of the writ by only coming on shore on Sunday, and getting away to his ship before the time at which the writ could be legally served. He (Mr. Morton) did not wish to concern himself in any dispute between the Colonial Office and the Admiralty; but he trusted that care would be taken to appoint someone in Newfoundland to accept service of the writs. ["Divide!"]
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion which has taken place has been no doubt interesting and important; but I think it will be felt that it has now reached its natural termination. [Cries of "Oh!"] I understand there are still several questions to be raised under the Vote in regard to other Colonies than those that have been dealt with, and I think the Government might now consent to report Progress. [Cries of "No!"] I beg to move to report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the Committee will be disposed to sit a little longer. I believe that the other subjects to be discussed will not take long, and seeing that the Government have obtained only two Votes in the past two days—the Home Office Vote yesterday, and the Vote for the Foreign Office to-day—I think the House should go on a little longer. [Cries of "No!"] Do hon. Members opposite think that one Vote a day is a satisfactory rate of doing the large amount of work yet before them?

      551
      In these circumstances, I think we should go on with Supply.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the time which has been occupied on this and the preceding Votes had been unreasonably long. If he will look back at the record of the proceedings of previous Parliaments he will find that, by comparison, the time which has been occupied on these Votes has been extremely limited. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that two days for discussion on the Home Office and Foreign Office Votes is a very limited amount of time compared with that occupied on those Votes last year. The Foreign Office Vote, which has been closured after four hours' discussion, has usually taken two nights; and it must not be forgotten that we have yet to discuss the Report of the Supply taken last night. There are many important questions to be raised on the Votes, and it is only in Supply that Members find their opportunity of criticising the policy of the Government. I do not think there is any desire to discuss unimportant Votes at undue length. All we ask is that discussion shall not be cut short by the arbitrary action of the Government.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Dealing only with our discussion to-night, I would point out that at least two or three of the important questions which have come before us have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own side. I would also point out that Members—notably the hon. Member for Camberwell—who sit on the Liberal side of the House, who have given notice of their intention to bring forward certain matters under the Foreign Office Vote, have left the House under the impression that there will certainly be no opportunity of discussing them after 1 o'clock in the morning. One question to be raised of which I know something myself has to do with the Bahamas. I think that out of courtesy to hon. Gentlemen who have put down these notices we should not attempt to proceed with the Votes at this hour. When we were discussing the conduct of business, the Prime Minister, in answer to a statement of mine, which was to the effect that under the new Rule it was intended by the Government that we should sit up every night until 1 o'clock in the morning, distinctly repu-
      552
      diated any such idsa. My right hon. Friend has spoken as though we were only going at the rate of one Vote a day. I would point out that on Tuesday the Government obtained no fewer than five Votes, in addition to which they have since obtained the whole of the Home Office Vote, the Foreign Office Vote, and have now pretty well got through the Colonial Vote. Most important questions have been discussed, including Siam, Madagascar, and the raids of the Matabele. Any one of these subjects at an earlier period of the Session would have been good enough for two days at least, whereas we have got rid of half-a-dozen in a few hours. Any reasonable person who takes note of the number of important subjects which have been discussed during the past two days will at once be ready to admit that no time has been wasted. The Government may do what they please, but they cannot get this Vote. In view of the Opposition, it will only be putting the House to unnecessary trouble if the Government force us to go to a Division.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Member for West Birmingham a short time ago expressed his desire to bring forward the question of the Bahamas. All that the Government desires is that the right hon. Gentleman will bring that question forward now.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not at 1 o'clock in the morning.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the fact that the hon. Member who intended to raise the question of the Bahamas was not present. He had gone away, believing that the Vote now under discussion would not be passed to-night. He (Commander Bethell) and other Members had understood that after the question of Newfoundland had been dealt with Progress would be reported. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to that course.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do the Government propose to take the postponed Resolution relating to the House of Lords to-night?
      SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That will occupy some time.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 133.—(Division List, No. 297.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the Motion with reference to which notice had been given should be brought on tonight. I have already pointed out that, as regards the Motion in which one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters are interested, it is impossible for that gentleman to bring it forward, because he has gone home. As regards the matter that I am concerned with, no doubt its discussion will not occupy much time, but it is a subject when there could by no possibility be any reference to it in the public Press. The matter concerns the administration of justice in the Bahamas, and it is a subject that is of intense interest to the Colony, at all events, and which cannot be reported in the Press at such an hour. At all events, I do not choose to let it come forward without the possibility of its being reported. It is now 25 minutes past 1, and the Government have still, by the necessities of the case, to deal with the Report of Supply, including the matter on which they sustained a defeat the other night. I think it is asking too much that we should proceed with the ordinary work of Supply. Understandings entered into with the Prime Minister appear to me not to be worth anything at all. He goes away—["Oh, oh!"]—and his Lieutenants will not keep his engagements. ["Oh, oh!"] But I will not press that point. I quite understand that the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer are part of the policy of bullying the House of Commons. Well, we have resisted that before, and I shall continue to resist it to the end. Under any circumstances I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I will not discuss the question in the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, who says he does not choose to let the Committee discuss a certain subject. Whose language, I should like to ask, is the language of "bullying?" The right hon. Gentleman's is not the tone that I hope any gentleman uses on these Benches. I only ask, in the interests of all parts of the House, and in view of the late period of the Session, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should do what they can to facilitate the despatch of Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the question on which he desires to speak will only occupy a short time, and it seems to me, therefore, that his only fear is lest posterity should lose the benefit of the speech he is prepared to make. That is, no doubt, a very important matter. I should be very sorry that future generations should not be able to study that oration. Informer times we used to consider 1 o'clock an early hour, and I am told that in another place, where they are not so anxious about the preservation of their orations, they are still debating. If the House of Commons considers itself physically weaker than the House of Lords, and is so much more solicitous about the reporting of its speeches, it will be useless to protract this struggle, and I do not propose to do so. I would, however, express a hope that on other occasions these questions will be approached in a different spirit from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely share the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that questions of this kind will hereafter be treated in a different spirit. As the right hon. Gentleman has given way I will not follow him in his extremely insolent remarks. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in describing the observations made by a Member as "insolent remarks?"
      THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear, the words. If the right hon. Gentleman did use them they are not Parliamentary, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of withdrawing them.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have great pleasure in withdrawing the expression, in accordance with your ruling, and I will substitute another word which has been admitted to be in Order, and say, instead of insolent remarks, venomous observations. I must protest—[Cries of "Divide!"]—against the misrepresentation of my language; and again I say that to treat a question which is of the greatest importance and interest to one of our Colonies—[Cries of "Divide!"]—at half-past 1—["Divide!"]—when there can be—["Divide!"]—I say to treat the affairs of an important Colony—["Divide!"]—I say to allow—["Divide!"]—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. J. CHAMBEBLAIN: To allow a matter which interests an important Colony—["Divide!"]—to be discussed at half-past I in the morning, is to show great want of respect to that Colony.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—put, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—.REPORT.
  Resolution [6th September] reported.
  SUPPLY—.REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £56,697, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
      Resolution agreed to.

    SUPPLY [5th September]—REPORT.
    Order read, for resuming Consideration of Postponed Resolution,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £22,595, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had intended to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not see his way to postpone the consideration of this Order to next Monday. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to do so he would have complied with the wish of a large number of his supporters in the House. There was a feeling abroad that the subject of this Vote required a great deal of discussion, and that it was ridiculous for this popular Assembly to supply the means to "another place" to enable it to defy and impede their legislation. He believed that though they might not be able to do it this Session, the time was not far distant when the feeling to which he referred would assert itself by Constitutional methods, and the infringement of the liberty of the people would be resented by cutting off the Supplies. In view of the late hour and the late period of the Session, and of the other business the Government had to do before they broke up for the short vacation, he did not propose to enter at length into the subject to-night. At the same time, he did not think he would be doing his duty if he allowed the Vote to pass without attempting further to reduce it. Though they carried a reduction in the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments by £500 the other evening, there was a strong feeling that this official was not the worst feature in the long list of sinecurists in the House of Lords, and that the case of "Black Rod" was even worse. In addition to the salary he received as Black Rod, this gentleman was on the Pension List as a retired Admiral, and was furnished with an official residence.
    SIR W. HARCOURT SIR W. HARCOURT rose to Order. It was not at this stage possible to move a further reduction of the Vote without re-committing the Vote.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." That Question having been proposed, no further reduction can be moved.
    MR. SEXTON: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. Friend would effect the purpose he had in

    557
    view by dividing against the whole Vote.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had consulted what he had thought was a considerable authority on the subject, and had been told that he would be in Order in moving a reduction; but as Mr. Speaker had ruled him out of Order—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: He has not ruled that.
    MR. SPEAKER: A reduction can be moved to a Vote on Report; but in this case no Notice of Motion had been given, and no hon. Member rose to move; therefore I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry he had not announced his intention to the Speaker. He, however, was willing to accept the situation as it stood. He would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and signify his protest by opposing the entire Vote.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, he thought it was understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement as to the course it was intended to take with regard to the reduction carried upon this Vote in Committee.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think there is any course to take except to agree to the Report on the Vote as it was passed the other night. I have been in communication with the House of Lords to see what can be done in reference to the Vote. I hope that some arrangement may be made; but I am not able at present to say whether it will be possible. All that I am at present able to say is that we must take the Vote as passed in Committee.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.) They had stood a great deal during the past few months in the shape of threats from the House of Lords, and now he thought was the time when they must do something more than merely remonstrate. It would be understood that the Division would be taken as a protest against interference with the rights of
    558
    the people on the part of the House of Lords, and not that it was intended to deprive the officers of that House of any salaries or wages that might be their due.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government must support the Vote. It may or may not be that this House will ever come into conflict with the other House of Parliament. If it does, this is not the way in which the battle will be fought. If we have differences to settle with the House of Lords, they must be settled in a very different manner to reducing the Votes for Clerks. The Vote was reduced the other night on the ground that the salaries of the Clerks in the House of Lords were too heavy, a view that hon. Members may hold very fairly. But I must protest against the notion that if we have a Constitutional issue between the House of Commons and the House of Lords it can be fought on such a battle-field as a Vote for the salaries of Clerks.
    MR. SEXTON: We who are Irish Members consider first our duty to the people of Ireland. I cannot forget that before the Home Rule Bill was drawn and introduced into this House the Leader of the House had the audacity to declare in public that the Bill, whatever it might be, would be rejected by the House of Lords. In face of that declaration, I consider that any opportunity for attacking that institution in any form is most opportune.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough, who had said that he had no wish to deprive any officers of the House of Lords of the salaries due to them, that if he supported the Motion the hon. Member would refuse payment of all salaries whatever.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: No; we have given a large amount on account.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSwished to say that when the proper time arrived he would be prepared to take his share in any conflict with the other House if the necessity arose, but he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that conflict should be fought out in some different fashion than that now proposed.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is useless to argue with hon. Gentlemen who take the line that on account of political differences with the House of Lords they would refuse to vote money towards its establishment. But I would ask the House generally to consider the somewhat undignified position the House would place itself in if it adopts this Motion. Some time ago objections were raised to the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, and a Committee of the Lords was appointed by the late Government to consider the matter. The House of Lords freely entered into the feelings of this House and proceeded to reduce the salaries to the scale of the salaries of this House—[Cries of "No!"]—I think it will be found that reductions amounting to £7,000 have been made in the House of Lords, and on the expiry of the tenure of the present holders of the office the salaries will be reduced to the same scale as the salaries of corresponding officers in this House. I think that every Member who desires to maintain the honour and dignity of the House will vote against the Motion now before us.
    MR. PAUL: As I object to voting a single sixpence to the House of Lords for any purpose or under any conditions, I will most cheerfully support my hon. Friend opposite if he goes to a Division.
    MR. LOGANsaid, that as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, if the Motion went to a Division he would consider it his duty in the interests of his constituents to protest against the House of Lords by voting for the Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 63.—(Division List, No. 298.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Education (Scotland) Acts with respect to the age for attendance at School." [Education (School Attendance) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Section 10 of 'The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.'" [Companies (Winding-up) Bill [Lords.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.
  That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Bill, to which this House has disagreed.

  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 447.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 199.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21st March] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NAVAL DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 450.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL.—(No. 332.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.]—(No. 453.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [Lords.] (No. 457.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Two o'clock.