Commons Sitting of 15 March 1894

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  MILITARY REGULATIONS AT PONTEFRACT BARRACKS.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the 10 o'clock parade held nightly at Pontefract Depot all sergeants who are in barracks are forced to attend such parades, although sergeants availing themselves of their privilege to be absent from barracks are exempted; whether there is any Regulation requiring such attendance; and whether such attendance is required in any other depot besides Pontefract?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): I am informed that the sergeants who happen to be in Pontefract barracks are required to attend the tattoo parade. It is entirely within the discretion of the officer commanding to require this attendance of sergeants if he thinks there is cause for it. I have no knowledge as to the practice in this respect at other regimental depots.

  INTERNATIONAL TELEGRAPHIC CODE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his Department has issued a Circular, inviting subscriptions to an Official Code Vocabulary for telegrams, which is to be issued by the International Telegraph Office at Berne, at 10s. per copy; whether the use of this Code is to be made compulsory for Code messages, and whether this Rule will deprive merchants and others of the power of sending a secret Code message; how many copies will be purchased by the British Post Office, and at what cost; and whether it can be arranged that the use of the new Code shall be at the discretion of persons wishing to dispatch messages?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of copies of the Vocabulary to be purchased by the British Post Office, the price to be paid for them, and the charge to the public will depend on the demand. The Official Vocabulary is intended to facilitate the transmission of secret Code messages; and its use will become compulsory for European Code messages three years after its publication.

  PUBLIC WORKS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can explain why it was that, in the year ending 31st March, 1892, out of a Vote of £47,000, for Scotch piers, harbours, &c, only £20,355 4s. 10d. was expended; why, in the year ending 31st March, 1893, out of a Vote of £20,000, for the same purpose, only £4,131 19s. was expended; why, under these circumstances, in the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1894, the Estimate for this purpose was so much as £16,000; and whether during the year this sum, or, if not, what portion of it, is likely to be expended?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The comparison suggested by the hon. Member is not quite accurate. The Vote of £47,000, taken for the year ending 31st March, 1892, embraced all the Highland and Island works, including subsidies for steamers,
  304
  whereas the Votes of £20,000 and £ 16,000 subsequently referred to only relate to the special subhead devoted to piers, harbours, &c. The main reason for the comparatively small expenditure in the first two years as compared with the Estimate taken, was the difficulty of carrying out the manifold stages of the procedure imposed by the Highland and Islands Public Works Act, 1891, and in concluding contracts for the construction of the harbour works. I may add that various harbour works have during the past year been sanctioned by the Treasury, which are in the final stage, and contracts have been entered into for their construction by the County Councils; and that I therefore anticipate that the £16,000 will be almost if not entirely exhausted by the end of the current financial year.

  BILLETING AT PONTEFRACT.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the licensed victuallers and others at Pontefract, on whom the 3rd King's Dragoon Guards were billeted for some six to eight weeks during the labour dispute in the coal trade in the months of September and October, 1893, have as yet received no compensation in respect to the charges and expenses imposed upon and incurred by them; and whether he will direct that payment shall be made forthwith, and that it shall be at the same rate per man and horse as was made to those on whom cavalry soldiers were billeted during the same period at Wakefield and other Yorkshire towns?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The persons on whom troops were billeted at Pontefract can be paid at once up to the limit laid down in the Army Annual Act; but they claim higher payment, and correspondence is taking place with the Treasury on the question whether any additional payment can be made from public funds.

  HORWELL'S ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
  MR. OWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a Vestry meeting, held 22nd of February, at St. Stephens-by-Launceston, for the purpose of electing

  305
  a representative Governor on the trust of a charity known as Horwell's Endowed Schools, when the Vicar is stated to have put the nomination of a Mr. Thompson to the mooting, and to have declared him duly elected, although only five hands were held up in favour, while 10 hands were held up against his being elected, and that the Vicar refused to receive the nomination of another gentleman, and abruptly closed the meeting at the end of a few minutes; and whether such trustee has been elected according to law; and, if not, will he take the necessary steps to have such election declared invalid, and cause another meeting to be held to elect afresh? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the report in The Western Daily Mercury of a Vestry meeting held 22nd of February at St. Stephen's, Launceston, for the purpose of electing a Governor on the trust of Horwell's Endowed School, wherein the Vicar is said to have put the nomination of a Mr. Thompson without any reasonable interval, and refused to put the nomination of another gentleman, declaring Mr. Thompson elected, although only five hands were held up for him and 10 against; the reverend gentleman is said to have also abruptly closed the meeting without giving those present an opportunity of signing the same, and did not even make an entry, the whole meeting only lasting four minutes; if, on ascertaining the above account to be substantially correct, he will take steps to cancel the said election of a Governor, in order to have one elected in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants; and will he propose to take steps in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): My attention had not been called to the matter referred to prior to my hon. Friend giving notice of the question. The Local Government Board have communicated with the Vicar of the parish, and he states that Dr. Thompson having been proposed for the office the proposal was seconded and carried, five voting for the motion; and that it is not the ease that 10 voted against it. He adds that it was not until after Dr. Thompson had been elected,
  306
  and the business of the meeting was at an end, that anything was said as to a wish that some other person should be proposed. Whatever may be the facts, the matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction. They would not be empowered under any circumstances to declare the election invalid, or to cause another meeting to be held for a further election. As to my hon. Friend's second question on the same subject, I can only state that the Local Government Board are not empowered to take any steps to cancel the election referred to.

  SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT WORK.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Estimate in Vote 8, Class III., shipbuilding contract work, exceeded the amount actually expended by £235,106 during the year 1892–93 and by £186,617 during the year 1891⤓92, and that, during the six years ending 1893, this Estimate has invariably exceeded the amount actually expended, as is likewise the case with Vote 10 for Works, Buildings, and Repairs; whether the large surpluses thus arising through continuous overestimates are applied to meet deficiencies on other Votes beyond the sums voted by Parliament for those Votes, are occasionally used to ease the Votes of a succeeding year, or are applied to meet expenditure not provided for by Parliament: whether the Admiralty have yet made any reply to the representatives of the Comptroller and Auditor General, that the Admiralty practice, as shown in these Estimates, tends to weaken the control of Parliament over the Appropriation of Grants; and whether steps will be taken to secure that in future the Estimate and the expenditure shall be more evenly balanced?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The hon. Member's question relates to points raised in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Navy Appropriation Account. These points are under consideration at the Admiralty, and a reply to the Audit Office letter will shortly be sent. The whole subject will then come

  307
  in the usual way before the Committee on Public Accounts, who will, if necessary, take evidence upon it and report their conclusions to the House.

  WAR OFFICE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the complaints made by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Treasury of the inadequacy and the want of explicit-ness and clearness of the explanations offered by the War Office to account for the great differences between the sums estimated for and the sums actually expended during the year 1892–3; whether he can afford any further explanation of the fact that in this year on the Vote of Guns and Carriages, Repairs, and Conversions, whereas the sum of £41,300 was voted no less than £62,248 11s. 9d. was actually spent, and that under the head of Appropriations in Aid the sales of old stores, estimated to produce £105,000,only produced £55,136 11s.7d., in both which cases the inadequacy of the explanation has been specially noted by the Treasury; and whether, in future, steps will be taken to secure that the estimate and the expenditure shall be more evenly balanced?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware of the references made by the Comptroller and Auditor General to these two cases. As attention has thus been specially called to them, they will necessarily be examined and considered by the Accounts Committee, and the War Department will be prepared to give to that Committee all the explanations required. That is the regular process, which it is not desirable to anticipate.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the meantime, any steps will be taken to meet the suggestions and requirements of the Auditor and Comptroller General?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No doubt we will meet the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General as far as possible.

  LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS AT COASTGUARD STATIONS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury
  308
  whether he can explain how it is that the claim of £7,815 2s. 2d. for storing life-saving apparatus at coastguard stations, made by the Admiralty against the Board of Trade in 1891 and submitted to the Treasury, has not yet been settled?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Mercantile Marine Fund, which is administered by the Board of Trade, has claims against the Admiralty and other Departments for services rendered to them. The Admiralty and other Departments have claims against the Mercantile Marine Fund, of which that of £7,815 2s. 2d. for storing life-saving apparatus is one. These claims may probably, so far as they will go, be set against one another. But no precise adjustment can be made until the time comes for a revision of the conditions on which the Grant in Aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund is based. These conditions are under discussion between the Board of Trade and the Treasury.

  CANADIAN CATTLE TRADE.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a remonstrance has been received from the Dominion Government of Canada against the continuance of the Order for slaughtering Canadian cattle on landing in the United Kingdom; whether the Minister of Agriculture in Canada has furnished all possible evidence of the non-existence of contagious pleuro-pneumonia in the Dominion; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made any representation to the President of the Board of Agriculture respecting the strong feeling existing in the Colony against scheduling Canadian cattle; and whether the Papers on the subject will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): A very full and voluminous Report has been received, and is now under consideration. The question as to giving Papers should be addressed to the Board of Agriculture.

  MATLOCK BRITISH SCHOOL.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: In the absence of my hon. Colleague (Mr. Picton), I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education on what date Her Majesty's Inspector first reported adversely on the structural condition of the British School, Matlock, and how often the attention of the managers has been called to the matter; whether the managers have yet taken any steps to remedy the defects complained of; whether it is a fact that this school has no playground, and that the sanitary arrangements are defective; whether complaints about the state of the school have been sent to him by parents of the children attending it; and whether, seeing that the annual inspection is just over, he will now peremptorily decline further recognition to the school?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): Her Majesty's Inspector reported adversely on this school after the inspection in February, 1892, and the attention of the managers was called to his Report in March. Plans for alterations were submitted by the managers in May and a lengthy correspondence followed. During the summer of 1892 the managers were in negotiation for additional site, and they submitted fresh plans in September which, after further protracted correspondence, were finally approved in February, 1893. Her Majesty's Inspector reported to the Department in August last that nothing had been done towards carrying out the alterations, and the managers were subsequently warned that the school in its present condition could not continue to be recognised indefinitely. The school has no playground, and is in parts damp and insufficiently lighted and ventilated. Complaints have been received from a parent of children attending it that it is cold and draughty. The last Annual Report has just been received, and is now under consideration. It appears from it that no alterations have yet been made.

  LISCARD, CHESHIRE, SCHOOL.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: On behalf of my hon. Colleague, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been
  310
  called to the report in The. Birkenhead News of 3rd March of a statement made by the Rev. 0. T. L. Crossley at a public meeting held as Liscard, Cheshire, on the 2nd March, from which it appears that Mr. Crossley offered a site for a school in the churchyard at Liscard, which site was approved by the Department; whether Mr. Crossley's statement as to the approval of the site is correct; and, if so, whether the site in question satisfied the Rules of the Department as to playground, &c.; and whether the Department have power to sanction the alienation of land dedicated to another public purpose?
  MR. ACLAND: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers. Mr. Crossley, last year, submitted a site for a new school at Liscard behind his church. His proposal was sanctioned by the Chancellor of the Diocese. No interments had ever taken place in the portion of the site proposed for the school, and none in any part of the churchyard for several years. The architect of the Department reported that the site was sufficient for a school of about 400 children, and Her Majesty's Inspector did not see any objection to it. Mr. Crossley was therefore informed that the site could be accepted. The question as to alienation does not concern the Department.

  LIMERICK POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH STAFFS.
  MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green): I bog to ask the Postmaster General whether the revision in the Limerick postal and telegraph staff's which has been pending for the past two years has yet been sanctioned; if the Returns of Duties and the Revised Scheme for the working of the Limerick Post Office were submitted in October last: and if he will state what is the cause of the delay, and when the revision is likely to be settled?
  MR.A. MORLEY: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that any revision of these staffs has been pending for the last two years. A revision of the postal side of the Office—involving a few minor alterations—has, however, recently been under consideration, and is now before the Treasury, and it is hoped that it will shortly be carried out. Inquiries which have recently been made respecting the

  311
  telegraph work appear to indicate that there is waste of force in certain duties; and I am having this question carefully investigated.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS RETURN.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will during the present Session give a Return of all Public Elementary Schools similar to the Return given in August, 1890, with such alterations as may be necessary in consequence of the fee grant?
  MR. ACLAND: A Return including this information is in course of preparation for the year ended 31st August, 1893. As it is of a somewhat elaborate character, it will probably not be ready for issue till the Session is well advanced.

  LOCH FYNE HERRING FISHERY.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the extreme diversity of opinion amongst fishermen in and about Loch Fyne upon the subject of the close time for herrings; whether he is aware that the close time which is suitable for one locality is not suitable for others; and whether he will instruct the Fishery Board to take evidence on the spot with the view of making some alteration in the present Rules?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am fully aware that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to a close-time for herring-fishing on the West Coast. In respect to Loch Fyne, I am informed by the Fishery Board that the voluntary close-time extends from l5th March till 1st June, and was established in 1888 by the Argyll and Bute Fishermen's Association. This close-time was, up to this year, strongly supported by all sections of this Association. Quite recently the southern section of the Association petitioned against it, and the Board have informed the various sections that they desire to leave the question of close-time in the hands of the fishermen themselves. I may add that an inquiry was made by the Fishery Board in 1892, which disclosed a very considerable divergence of opinion amongst the fishermen, fish-
  312
  curers, and others interested in regard to the question of establishing a close-time for herrings. In all the circumstances, I do not propose to institute any further inquiry at present.

  DUNDALK GAOL.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the medical officer of Dundalk Gaol, in his quarterly Report in January, 1894, drew attention to the case of a prisoner in said gaol named Sheridan, and suggested that the Prisons Board (Ireland) should issue a Rule that prisoners under medical treatment should not be put to hard labour till taken off the sick list by the medical officer of the prison in which they are confined; and whether the Prisons Board refused to issue such a Rule; and, if so, whether he will direct the Prisons Board to alter their decision, and issue a Rule to prevent the recurrence of the grievance complained of? I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state how many inquiries on oath and how many inquiries not on oath took place in Dundalk Gaol, or in reference thereto, from 1st January, 1886, to the date of the appointment of the present Governor; how many similar inquiries have taken place from the date of the appointment of the present Governor of said gaol to 1st January, 1894; and how many warders are still attached to Dundalk Gaol who were there at the time of the appointment of the present Governor? And, in addition, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a prisoner named Sheridan, confined in Dundalk Gaol, being reported seriously ill on the night of 8th December, 1893, was visited in his cell at 10.30 p.m. that night by Dr. Flood, who was doing duty for the medical officer of the gaol owing to the illness of the latter; that Dr. Flood made a note in the medical officer's journal that Sheridan was suffering from a bronchial attack and had a temperature as high as 103·2 degrees, and ordered him medicine and nourishment and to be poulticed, &c.; that, on visiting Sheridan at 8·30 a.m. on 9th December, he found him out of bed and picking oakum, his tasked labour, with a poultice on his back; whether Sheridan subsequently developed acute pneumonia, which nearly

  313
  carried him off; whether he can state by whoso direction a prisoner under medical treatment, and as ill as above indicated, was ordered out of bed and sent to his ordinary hard labour under the conditions described; whether any Rule exists in Irish prisons forbidding prisoners under medical treatment being put to hard or any labour till certified as fit by the medical officer; and whether, if there be no such Rule, he will issue such explicit instructions as will in future effectually prevent the recurrence of such inhumanity as was practised in Sheridan's case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): As regards these questions, I have to say that I have received from the General Prisons Board a Report dealing with the action of the prison officials in the case. Rut with a view to elicit the entire facts, I propose to direct a sworn inquiry to be made into the matter by the Prisons Board.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer.

  LAND PURCHASE IN KILKENNY COUNTY.
  MR. M 'DERMOTT (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a number of tenants of Mr. Carbery's and Lady Saurin, in the County Kilkenny, signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings about four years ago; and whether he can state the reason why the purchase money has not yet been advanced by the Land Commission?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Land Commissioners that on the 8th October, 1891, 27 agreements were lodged on behalf of tenants on this estate for advances under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts of 188.5 and 1888. Applications had at that time, however, been received largely in excess of the grant of £10,000,000 available under the Acts mentioned, and at the present date funds have not yet been released for the particular applications referred to, and consequently they cannot, so I am informed, yet be finally ruled on. It is possible, however, that funds may soon be available.

  EXPLOSIONS IN COAL MINES.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to the Commission to inquire into Explosions in Coal Mines from Coaldust, which has been sitting for some time, what is the present position of the inquiry; and whether the House will soon be in possession of the Report of the Commission?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): At the conclusion of the evidence the Commission adjourned, in order to await the result of certain experiments. These experiments are now finished, and I am informed by the Chairman that they will now proceed to the immediate consideration of the Report, which he hopes will be presented not later than the end of June next.

  THE SMALLS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any intention of at once increasing the power of the light on The Smalls, as has been so often urged by Masters of the Mercantile Marine?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELEA,): I am informed by the Trinity House that 18 months ago the power of the light at The Smalls was increased more than 20 per cent., and that there is no necessity for making a further increase.

  NAVAL WARLIKE STORES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have yet accepted responsibility in respect of the test and proof of guns and the inspection of warlike stores for the Naval Service, or whether this question, as to which the Committee on Public Accounts last year reported that it had made no advance since 1892, still remains unsettled?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The question has been referred for consideration to the Naval Warlike Stores Committee, who have not yet reported upon it.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the newly appointed Consul of the United States for Madagascar has abstained from applying for the exequatur through the medium of the French Resident General, and has referred back to his Government for further instructions; and whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to cause inquiry to be made on the spot into the existing position of affairs in Madagascar, and to place themselves in communication with the Government of the United States with a view to joint action in respect to Madagascar, in which the two Powers have equal commercial and other interests?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): It is understood that the United States Consul has not yet applied for an exequatur, but Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of his communications with his Government. The existing position of affairs is so well known that a local inquiry is superfluous. In view of the position of France as the protecting Power, Her Majesty's Government cannot adopt the suggestion in the second paragraph of the question.

  VOLUNTEER NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' DECORATION.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT (Nottingham, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what is the reason for the delay in the issue of the decoration to Volunteer non-commissioned officers; and whether he can give any definite information as to the date when the same will be ready for distribution?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Much consideration has been given to the question of the conditions and character of this decoration, and I hope to state to-morrow the conclusions at which I have arrived.

  KIRKDALE GAOL, LIVERPOOL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in offering for sale the site of the closed Kirkdale Gaol, the Government
  316
  reserve any portion of the site as an open air space, or make any conditions as to the purposes to which the site is to be put; and whether the Government have definitely abandoned all idea of building military barracks on the site?
  MR. ASQUITH: No portion of the site is reserved for any purpose, and there are no conditions as to the purposes to which the site is to be put, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that he is not aware of any intention of erecting barracks on the site.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to carry out the contemplated overhaul of the hull and machinery of H.M.S. Warspite, at Haulbowline Dockyard?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Any necessary work that can be conveniently and economically carried out at Haulbowline will be taken in hand there.

  INDIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any, and what, action has been taken, on the recommendations of the Indian Public Service Commission of 1386, regarding the special departments of the Indian Administration, referred to by Lord Cross in the last paragraph (37) of his Despatch (No. Public 104), dated London, 12th September, 1889; whether the Local Governments and the Government of India have forwarded to the Secretary of State their views on the suggestions of the Commission regarding these special departments as desired by Lord Cross in the above paragraph of his Despatch; and what orders have been passed by the Secretary of State thereon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): It is impossible to give, within the limit of an answer, in this House a statement of the steps which have been taken with regard to the matters referred to in the hon. Member's question. The subject is a large and complicated one, and has been dealt with in a lengthy Correspondence which is not yet

  317
  complete. When the Correspondence is complete there will be no objection to laying it on the Table of the House if the hon. Member will move for it.

  BECHUANALAND CONCESSIONS COMMISSION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Bechuanaland Concessions Commission sat at Gaberones on 10th May, 1893, and heard evidence, the hearings occupying about a week; whether the Commission have given their decision on any of the cases then heard; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and whether he can say when the Report or decision of the Commission may be expected?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The final Report and connected documents of the Bechuanaland Concessions Commission were received at the Colonial Office in December last. They form a very bulky document, which requires very careful consideration. The pressure of work in the South African Department has been so great that it has been, as yet, quite impossible to deal with the Report.

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that six steam trawlers were seen at work about eight miles N. N. E. from Port Knockie on Sunday the 4th of March; whether he will state what arrangements are made to prevent and punish such offences against the bye-laws excluding trawlers from the Moray Firth; and whether anchorage is obtainable at Craigenroan for a gunboat when employed for the protection of the fisheries in this locality?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: On inquiry I am informed by the Fishery Board that on the 9th instant they received a communication from the Moray Firth Fisheries Association which they at once sent to the Commander of H.M.S. Jackal, who reported to the effect that inquiries had been made regarding the alleged trawling, but that there were apparently no grounds for the complaints, the vessels probably being steam liners
  318
  and vessels on passage. The Moray Firth is patrolled by the Jackal, which I is specially set apart for the superintendence of the fisheries in that area and its protection against the operation of trawlers. In addition to this, if the letters and numbers of any trawler detected working in the proscribed waters are intimated to the Board, the case is reported to the Procurator Fiscal. There is anchorage off Kingston, three miles west of Craigeuroan, but it is open and unsafe, with wind from east to north to north-west. That is the opinion of the Fishery Board, and it is corroborated by the Admiralty.

  NICKEL STEEL PLATES IN NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the results of recent trials of armour plates by the United States Government at Annapolis and at India Head prove the great superiority in resistance of plates constructed of nickel steel as compared with compound plates and plates constructed by the Harvey process without nickel; whether he is aware that the German Government have adopted nickel steel plates for vessels now in course of building; whether Her Majesty's Government have nevertheless adopted the cheaper Harveyed plates for protected vessels now being constructed for Her Majesty's Navy; whether any trials of nickel plates as against Harveyed and other plates have recently been made in this country; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table a Report showing the nature and result of such trials; and whether Her Majesty's Government have received any authentic account of the recent trials of various kinds of plates in the United States which they can make public?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The hon. Gentleman will find the general answer to his questions in the Explanatory Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which will, I trust, be in the hands of Members to-morrow. The Admiralty note the results of armour plate trials made abroad, but rely mainly on the results of our own trials of armour manufactured under our own officers' inspection. Doubtless the German Government pursues a corresponding policy.

  319
  Cheapness has not been the reason for the conclusions at which we have arrived as the result of a long series of trials. It would not be possible to publish either official Reports of our trials, or special information as to trials abroad.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  FAMINE IN THE ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the Arran Islands are in a famine-stricken condition, owing to the failure of their crops last season, and the tempestuous winter weather, which prevented them from pursuing their fishing avocations; whether they are destitute of the moans of tilling their lands; and what steps, if any, are being taken to save them from death by starvation, and to supply them with seed potatoes for their holdings?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Representations have been made to me regarding the condition of the people on these islands, and on their receipt I at once directed inquiry to be made, and special attention has since been given to the matter. The Local Government Board Inspector, who has recently spent several days on the island, has made careful inquiry into the condition of the people, and as to the sufficiency of existing relief arrangements; and the relieving officer, who is resident on the principal island, has at his disposal the means of affording outdoor relief in cases of necessity, and has been fully instructed by the Board's Inspector as to his duties and responsibilities. The prolonged gales have, no doubt, seriously inconvenienced, and to some extent impoverished, the islanders; but it is not correct to say that they are starving, or that any general destitution exists; and, as I have pointed out, the Local Government Board have adopted all necessary precautions for dealing with any unexpected emergency. Application has been made by the parish priest for a quantity of seed potatoes to be supplied to the islanders as a free gift; but with this application it is not, I regret, possible to comply, as there are no funds available for the purpose, and the Congested Districts Board are only empowered to provide seed for cash payment.

  ALLEGED ASSAULT BY AN OFFICER AT STONEHOUSE.
  The following question appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a serious assault and breach of discipline were committed by Lieutenant Colonel Coffin, at the Royal Marine Barracks, Stonehouse, on the 28th ultimo, under the following circumstances—namely, that this officer whilst inspecting men under orders to embark, and having occasion to find? fault with one of them, called the Company Sergeant, Colour Sergeant Baker, before him and ordered him to remove the man from the ranks, saying to the Sergeant "Get out of my way," "Get out of my way," "Get away, d—n you," at the same time stepping forward and pushing the Colour Sergeant with such violence as to cause him to stagger several paces backwards, and his cap to fall from his head; whether he is aware that the incident was witnessed by the following officers—namely, Captain Gordon, Lieutenants Graham, Pearse, and Barker, and by upwards of 100 noncommissioned officers and men, and some civilians; whether he is aware that Colour Sergeant Baker has been upwards of 15 years a non-commissioned officer, and during that time has borne an unimpeachable character, and is now within two months of completing his 21 years' service; and what steps the Admiralty purpose taking to protect him and others from such conduct?
  As the question was not put in due course,
  MR. HANBURYsaid: I should like to know whether this question, which contains a serious imputation upon an officer, is to be allowed to pass over without notice being given as to when it will be answered? Such questions as these ought to be answered directly they appear on the Paper.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is usual to allow questions to be postponed if the Minister wishes it.
  MR. KEARLEY: As reference has been made to me, I should explain in justice to myself that I understand communications are passing between the Admiralty and the Marine Authorities which will, I hope, put this matter in

  321
  a position satisfactory to those who are aggrieved.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTII: I rise to Order. I do not think any statement of that sort should be made.
  MR. BARTLEY: When is the question to be answered?
  [No reply was given.]

  WORKING HOURS IN GOVERNMENT NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to introduce a working week of 48 hours into the Naval Establishments at the commencement of the new financial year?
  SIR J. GORST: Will the hon. Gentleman also answer my question to the same effect?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend and also the right hon. Member for Cambridge University will postpone their questions.
  SIR J. GORST: How long is this question to be postponed? I have been putting it ever since March last. I should like to have some definite idea when it will be replied to.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am unable to name any definite time. The right hon. Gentleman must use his discretion as to when he will repeat the question.
  SIR J. GORST: It will be my duty on the Estimates to call the attention of the House to the dilatory proceedings of the Government on this matter.

  FERMOY UNION ACCOUNTS.
  MR. W. KENNY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Ellis, the Auditor of the Board, in regard to the accounts of the Fermoy Union, in which it is stated that he could not speak too strongly of the abuses that exist in connection with outdoor relief; that in LS81–2 the expenditure under this head was £311, whilst in the year 1892–3 it was £1,646, or about one-sixth of the entire resources of the Union; and that neither the
  322
  Guardians nor the relieving officers fairly understood the legal restrictions on the administration of this form of relief, and in many cases were deliberately careless; whether the action of the Guardians in the Fermoy Union is typical of what prevails over much of the South and West of Ireland; whether, owing to this and other forms of maladministration, many of the Poor Law Unions throughout Ireland are in a state of financial embarrassment; and if he proposes to take any steps to secure the due administration of the Poor Law?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Before that question is answered I wish to know, Sir—I am not aware if questions are submitted to you in the absence of Mr. Speaker—whether it is in Order in a question of this nature to introduce such statements as are contained in the second and third paragraphs, and is it not usual for the Clerks at the Table to insist on the questions being confined to matters of fact?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: These paragraphs appear by inadvertence, and I directed them to be struck out when my attention was called to them. I may add that during the last few days there has been very great pressure on the Clerks.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In his recent Report on the audit of the Fermoy Union accounts the Auditor did, I am told, refer to the administration of outdoor relief in the Union in the terms quoted in the question. The action of the Fermoy Guardians is not, as asserted by the hon. Gentleman, "typical of what prevails" over much of the South and West of Ireland. The Local Government Board are aware of a few Unions which are at present more or less financially embarrassed; but this arises not so much from extravagance in the giving of outdoor relief as from the action of the Guardians in failing to strike adequate rates and to punctually collect the same when struck. The Fermoy Guardians have instructed their relieving officers to prepare; and lay before them at their next meeting a Return of all cases of outdoor relief, with full particulars and observations in respect of each case, with a view to a thorough revision taking place.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that the accounts for all Irish Poor Law Unions are subjected to

  323
  minute scrutiny at the hands of the Government Auditors every year, and have any Reports been made by these officials that such abuses as are indicated in the question exist, or that the Guardians are ignorant of their duties?
  MR. J. MORLEY: What my hon. Friend implies in his question is quite true. The accounts are annually audited by an Auditor appointed by the Local Government Board; and as to the implication in the last paragraph of the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I am able to say that the statement that the Poor Law is not fairly and duly administered is entirely inconsistent with the facts.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that all the Poor Law Unions in England are free from financial embarrassment?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer that.
  MR. W. KENNY: How many other Poor Law Unions in Ireland are in this state?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say how many, but my Report is that it is very few.

  CRIME IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. W. KENNY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of cases of crime reported by the police to the Judge of Assize in County Clare at the recent Spring Assizes, held at Ennis, the number of persons made amenable thereat, and the result of the trials of the said persons; and the number of Clare prisoners tried at the Winter Assizes, held at Cork, and the results of the trials of the said persons under the change of venue involved in the Winter Assize Act?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The total number of cases reported by the police to the Judge at the last Spring Assizes for Clare was 118, which included all cases that occurred in the county since the Summer Assizes of 1893. The number of bills found by the Grand Jury was seven, resulting in three pleas of guilty, one conviction, and three disagreements of juries. The number of persons returned for trial from Clare to the Winter Assizes, held at Cork, was 30, resulting
  324
  in seven convictions, eight pleas of guilty, five acquittals, and seven disagreements of juries. In the remaining three cases a nolle prosequi was entered in one, and in two the defendants were discharged on their own recognizances to come up for trial when called upon. I may observe that Mr. Justice O'Brien, in his remarks at the Clare Spring Assizes regarding the number of cases in which persons were made amenable, fell into the blunder of ignoring the Winter Assizes. The list of cases furnished to the Judge covered the period from the Summer Assizes, 1893, to Spring Assizes, 1894—in all 118 cases. Seven persons had been returned for trial to the Spring Assizes, with the results already stated by me; but there were 11 other Clare cases for trial at the Cork Winter Assizes, in which there were seven convictions, so that, instead of there being only four cases in which persons were made amenable—that is to say, one conviction and three pleas of guilty—there were in the period referred to by the Judge 15 cases in all sent for trial and eight convictions.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how it is that Mr. Justice O'Brien always goes the Minister Assizes; also has his attention been called to the fact that this Judge's observations at the Spring Assizes in County Clare were exactly the same as in the Charge which he made at Cork Assizes in 1886, when a Home Rule Government was in power, including the statement that "the waters had not yet subsided," and other literary gems of that description? Further, has his attention been called to the strong censure passed by Justice Gibson on his learned brother with regard to his sentences?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am unable to say how it happens that Mr. Justice O'Brien always goes the Munster Circuit, the arrangements made being irrespective of any action of the Executive Government. I confess I read this learned Judge's Charge with some amazement, because the impression which the Judge, travelling, I think, entirely out of his province, attempts to convey on the relative state of order in Clare is entirely unsupported by the opinion of the Local Police Authorities, and I prefer to believe the Local Police Authorities.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In how many of the 118 cases reported in County Clare were convictions obtained from Clare juries?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not carry all the figures in my head.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Was there one case?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. SEXTON: As it is suggested from the Bench and otherwise that the state of things could be improved by resort to the machinery of coercion, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, not only in Clare but throughout Ireland during the period of the Crimes Act of 1887, the proportion of persons made amenable to the total number of crimes committed was always extremely minute?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, speaking more particularly in regard to Clare, and unless my recollection deceives me—and I do not think it does—the same applies to Ireland generally, the proportion of persons made amenable for crimes committed in Clare during the operation of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Amendment) Act was not largely in excess of those which they now succeed in obtaining.
  DR. KENNY: Do not the statistics of crime in Clare compare favourably with those when the Coercion Act was in operation?
  MR. W. KENNY: Were not the observations of Mr. Justice O'Brien based on the Returns of the police furnished at the Assizes?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot undertake to say what was the precise foundation on which the learned Judge based his observations.

  THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the drivers and horses allotted to the transport of the Army Hospital Corps are supplied by the Army Service Corps; whether the men and horses of the Army Service Corps, belonging as they do to the combatant brunch, will be under the protection of the Geneva Convention in time of war; or whether they will be liable to be shot or captured while in charge of, or attached to, the ambulance waggons; and whether the
  326
  practice of supplying the ambulance transport from a combatant corps prevails in any Army other than our own?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The transport needed for medical services in time of war would be supplied from the mounted companies of the Army Service Corps. Men so employed, when wearing the brassard, would be under the protection of the Geneva Convention. I am informed that in Austria, France, Germany, and Russia ambulance transport is provided from combatant corps.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to ask, further, whether in France, Germany, and Austria those men were not deemed to be under the protection of the Geneva Convention, and whether the same did not apply to the ambulance drivers permanently attached to the Ambulance Corps?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked for notice.

  SCOTTISH LEGISLATION.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government will introduce legislation with regard to Scottish Fisheries during the present Session?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government intend to press the Local Government Bill for Scotland to completion before they undertake any fresh legislation of importance.
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): Would it be possible to distribute copies of the Local Government Bill before Easter, so that we may consult our constituents in relation thereto?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It has been arranged that no Government Bills shall be introduced before Easter.
  DR.MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire): Does that apply to the amendments to the Crofters Act?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I hope it will be possible at the latter part of the Session to get through the short Bill required to complete the Crofters Act.
  MR. DALZIEL: May I ask whether, in the event of representations being made that no serious opposition will be offered to the introduction of the Scotch Local Government Bill before Easter, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider

  327
  the possibility of moving the Adjourn-merit one night at 10 o'clock to enable a statement to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): I have given a pledge that the business up to Easter shall be confined to financial matters, and I understand that there is an objection to the introduction of Government Bills before that time.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's, &c.): Are we to understand from the somewhat ambiguous reply of the Secretary for Scotland that, in the event of satisfactory progress being made with the Local Government Bill, the Government propose to bring in a Bill dealing with the Scotch fisheries?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I should certainly give preference to the Crofters Amendment Bill.

  INDIAN IMPORT DUTY.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the decision to exempt British cotton goods from the Import Duty imposed upon most other articles was arrived at by the Government of India, or whether the exemption was by order of the Secretary of State; and upon what principle the Government of India is prohibited from imposing a duty of 5 per cent. upon certain British goods for Revenue purposes, while the Home Government, for the same object, imposes a duty of nearly 50 per cent. upon Indian tea?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Secretary of State declined to sanction the proposal of the Government of India to include cotton goods among those on which a duty was to be imposed. He did so on the ground that a duty on such goods in the shape in which it was proposed by the Government of India would operate as a Protective Duty, and that, in view of the Resolutions passed by the House of Commons on the subject in 1877 and 1879, such a duty ought not to be imposed unless a more urgent financial necessity were shown than that which the Government of India had laid before him. I may add that the Tea Duty is a Revenue Duty charged upon all tea consumed. With respect to articles on which, when imported from abroad, a Customs Duty is levied, a countervailing Excise Duty is levied on the same
  328
  articles, if produced or manufactured in this country.
  MR. WHITELEY: May I ask whether the cotton trade in India since the abolition of duties on imported cotton goods has not largely increased, and would not the direct effect of the re-imposition of the duties be to further stimulate the manufacturing them at the expense of the already suffering and depressed home industry?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I answered that question the other night, when I gave the figures showing the enormous progress made in the internal cotton trade of India.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the Home Government has decided to fetter the hands of the Government of India in the matter of an essential duty in order to avoid a deficit, be prepared in the Budget to provide for such deficit?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member will hardly expect me to answer such a question offhand.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT: PAROCHIAL OFFICIALS.
  MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in this present year Overseers will have to be nominated and surveyors to be elected at the parish meetings which ought to be held on the 2otb of March (or within 14 days thereof), or will the present officials continue to hold office until November next, in like manner as the Guardians?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): Overseers and surveyors of highways are not continued in office by the Local Government Act, and it will be necessary in the present year that these officers should be appointed at the same time and in the same manner as if the Act had not passed.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT YOUGHAL.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Irish Privy Council on the 7th instant, upholding the objection of Sir Joseph Neale M' Kenna

  329
  to the erection of a labourer's cottage on his property by the Youghal (County Cork) Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that in the adjoining Union of Midleton more than one-third of the original scheme was nullified owing to similar successful action on the part of landowners, thus depriving 103 labourers of cottages in this Union alone; and whether, in view of the fact that the working of the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Acts is seriously crippled by the extensive use made of the power to appeal under the present system, he will take steps to enable Boards of Guardians duly to carry out the duties entrusted to them under these Acts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. As regards the Midleton Union, the number of cottages included in the Guardians' scheme was 303, and the number sanctioned by the Local Government Board was 208; Petitions were lodged against 17 of these, and the Privy Council disallowed the objections as to nine cottages, with the result that 200 of the 208 cottages previously approved by the Board were finally authorised. The Board inform me that they do not think that the working of the Labourers' Act is seriously crippled by the use made of the power of appeal.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the vast majority of cases the Privy Council have paid no attention to the representations of Boards of Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say I am aware of it.

  ELEMENTARY' SCHOOL TEACHERS AS INSPECTORS.
  MR. JACOBY: J beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction existing among teachers in public elementary schools in England and Wales with the recent appointment of Mr. L. J. Roberts, B.A., as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools: and whether he has ascertained that there were no Sub-Inspectors already engaged in the work of the inspection of schools, or teachers employed in the work of instruction of schools, who being certificated teachers and possessed of the
  330
  requisite experience might have received the appointment in question?
  MR. GROVE: May I ask whether it has been the custom to nominate Inspectors from the ranks of school teachers; whether there is any objection to such nominations; and whether the last Vice President did not approve a scheme for making such nominations?
  MR. ACLAND: No previous Government has made any such appointment as those indicated in the question, with one exception, when a distinguished University man, who was for a short time a certificated teacher, became ultimately an Inspector. I have received several letters expressing dissatisfaction on this subject, and have seen some letters written to others. I observe that these letters have, almost without exception, ignored the fact that almost for the first time in the history of the Department, as far as I am aware, two Sub-Inspectors who had been certificated teachers have been made Inspectors since I became Vice President out of four appointments made. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, because I do not take the view that all Inspectors without exception should necessarily have been certificated teachers. I think that complete exclusiveness in any part of our educational system at a time when by degrees the various grades of education in the country are becoming more effectively united into a common whole would be a misfortune. I am fully satisfied with the choice that has been made in the case of Mr. Roberts, who is now serving under the Chief Inspector for Wales.

  MULLINGAR WATER SUPPLY.
  DR. KENNY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the source from which is derived the water supply for the military barracks, Mullingar; whether the supply is by contract; if so, who are the contractors; what is the rate per 1,000 gallons; and when does the contract terminate?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The water supply for the barracks at Mullingar comes from the Convent of the Annunciation, Mullingar, under a contract with the Bishop of the diocese and others. It is not usual to disclose contract prices in such cases. The fixed

  331
  term of the contract expires in the present month; but the arrangement continues until six months' notice on either side is given.
  DR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existence of this contract prevents the town of Mullingar accepting an adequate water supply, which has been offered at the rate of 4d. per 1,000 gallons?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge of that. If the hon. Member will inform me of the circumstances I will inquire into the matter.

  THE BRAZILIAN REVOLUTION.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to progress of the civil war in Brazil, and especially as to the reported surrender of Admiral da Gama?
  SIR E. GREY: The Senior Naval Officer at Rio, telegraphing on the 14th instant, states that the Portuguese commanding naval officer has received Admiral Saldhana da Gama and many of his officers and men on board his vessel. Her Majesty's Government have not yet received any further details relating to the surrender of the insurgent forces in Rio Bay.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Minister at Rio de Janeiro has confirmed the report of the cessation of the civil war in Brazil, and in such case if Her Majesty's Government will render all assistance possible to British traders to recoup the disastrous losses of the past six months of siege, and use its influence with the Brazilian Government to devote itself to the development of the riches of the country and the opening up of fresh channels for International trade?
  SIR E. GREY: The question of how to deal with claims of British subjects for losses arising out of the recent disturbances in Brazil is now being considered in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown. The Government of Brazil cannot be asked to take advice from outside as to the development of their own country, but Her Majesty's Government are anxious to use every
  332
  means in their power to promote trade with Brazil as soon as the political state of the country admits of it.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: May I ask whether the Government have received any complaints from British residents as to the neglect of their interests; and, if so, is there any foundation for those complaints?
  MR. HANBURY: Is it true that Admiral da Gama has taken refuge on one of Her Majesty's ships?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the Government use its influence to obtain clement treatment for the officers and men of the Brazilian Navy who have surrendered?
  SIR E. GREY: I can only say, in answer to the last question, that Her Majesty's Government has been most careful to abstain from any interference whatever in what was a purely internal matter, and I cannot promise that they will interfere in the final settlement of the dispute. It is true that in disturbances of this kind persons not directly concerned must suffer. British trade is considerable, and it has suffered, and that has naturally given rise to many complaints which we have received; but I am sure that Her Majesty's Minister and the naval officers, who had a most difficult task to perform, have discharged their duties well, and done the utmost possible under the circumstances. With regard to Admiral da Gama, our latest information is that he is on board a Portuguese vessel, not a British ship.

  THE TREATMENT OF INEBRIATES.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce, at an early date, a Bill to carry out the Report from the Departmental Committee on the treatment of inebriates?
  MR. ASQUITH: Instructions have been given to the Parliamentary draftsman to prepare a Bill for introduction to Parliament to (tarry out the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee, and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary hopes to introduce the Bill at an early date.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  333
  Foreign Affairs if he will supply, by Return or otherwise, complete information as to the treatment of habitual inebriates in the various cantons of Switzerland?
  SIR E. GREY: A Report has just been received, and will be published in the Miscellaneous Series of Reports.

  ARTILLERY MAJORS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in 1882 a Warrant was issued promising that majors of Artillery who served seven years as battery commanders would be made brevet lieutenant colonels, that in consequence of this Warrant a considerable number of officers were induced to remain in the Royal Artillery, and can he explain why this Rule has been suddenly abrogated, and if any complaints or remonstrances on this head have been addressed to the late or present Deputy Adjutant General of Artillery by those officers of one of the scientific corps who are now being rapidly superseded by their comrades of the Cavalry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The brevet promotion referred to came to an end in 1885, and since 1887 its place has been taken by voluntary promotion to half-pay lieutenant colonelcies. I can only refer to the reply I made on February 20 to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, to the effect that this half-pay promotion is almost obsolete, and that I do not see my way to re-open the question.

  THE GRIMSBY TRAWLER "CEYLON."
  SIR L. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the recent prosecution of Blackburn, commander of the trawler Ceylon, for trawling in inshore waters failed for a technicality, and that he was not tried for the offence itself, the Crown will institute proceedings again?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): It is not quite correct to say that the prosecution failed for a technicality. I explained two days ago the reasons for which it was not further proceeded with, and looking to the lapse of time since the offence is alleged to have been committed, and to all that has taken place in the
  334
  interval, it is not intended to institute a new prosecution in this particular case. As I previously stated, however, the law against illegal trawling is being, and will continue to be, strictly enforced.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When my right hon. Friend says he is not prepared to revive the proceedings, does he bear in mind the statement of the Sheriff I quoted the other day that this was a most flagrant case?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Any observation made by the Sheriff Substitute on that occasion must have been extra judicial, inasmuch as evidence had not been had in the case. As to whether it would or would not be possible to revive it I say nothing, because there are serious objections to reviving it under the circumstances.

  THE IRISH EDUCATION ACT, 1892.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to remedy the defects in the Irish Education Act of 1892 with respect to raising of the expenses of the School Attendance Committees under the Act?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A Bill is ready, and will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to state in detailed terms the amendments which he requires in the Public Libraries (Ireland) Act, which passed this House last year, with the object of enabling the Hill to be promoted without delay?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It would be impracticable to state in detailed terms, in reply to this question, the amendments which this Bill would require if introduced again in the same form in which it appeared last Session; but I may inform my hon. Friend that, in my opinion, a Bill to carry out the objects aimed at should be framed as nearly as possible on the lines of the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (the English Act), and the main points in which the Bill of last Session differed from that Act have already been pointed out to my hon. Friend.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me in drafting a Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot do more than tender the advice I have already given.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT: LONDON VESTRY ELECTIONS.
  MR. BARROW: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Rules and Regulations for the conduct of the London Vestry elections, under the Local Government Bill (England and Wales), will be issued; and whether the clerks to the various Vestries will be appointed returning officers for the Vestry elections in the same way as the clerks to the Unions are now the returning officers for the elections of Guardians?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The existing members of Vestries elected under the Metropolis Management Acts will continue in office until the elections which are to take place in November next have been held. The necessary Regulations will be issued in ample time for those elections, but I cannot at present state more precisely when they will be issued.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state the decision of the Government and to present the promised Correspondence about the question of simultaneous examinations for the Civil Service in India?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The question is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, but I am not yet in a position to announce their decision, or to present the Correspondence on the subject.
  MR. CURZON: I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman unfairly, but is he aware that a month ago the late Under Secretary told us the Papers would be presented in a reasonable period, and that they were virtually complete?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he regretted that he was not yet in a position to present the Papers.

  THE KABUL MISSION.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the promised Papers concerning the Mission of Sir Mortimer Durand to Kabul and the agreement with the Amir of Afghanistan will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: So soon as it can be done consistently with the interests of the Public Service I will cause these Papers to be presented to Parliament.

  SCOTCH COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. A. CROSS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate can County Councils in Scotland, if they so resolve, hold their statutory meetings outside their respective counties?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I do not find any warrant in the Act for County Councils holding their statutory meetings outside their counties. Provision is made in the Act for Committees meeting outside the county, but there is no similar provision in regard to the meetings of County Councils.
  MR. A. CROSS: Are we to presume they cannot meet outside their counties?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: There is no statutory provision on the point.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT EASTBOURNE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, after holding a public inquiry last April, the Education Department issued to the borough of Eastbourne on 24th June a final notice for 1,311 places, which expired on 24th July; whether on 10th August last the only proposals before the Department for supplying this deficiency were for 968 places, or 343 less than the expired final notice demanded; whether the Commissioners who held the public inquiry reported that an annual increase of 140 places would be necessary to meet the growth of population, and whether a Wesleyan school for 365 children has been lately closed; whether at this moment the only school provision made or undertaken is for 464 places at Norway, 496 at Up-wick, and 540 at Whitley Road, or 1,500 in all, leaving a present deficiency, including the 140 and the 365 places, of

  337
  516 places, even if these schools wore all open; whether he is aware that the Upwick School is not yet finished, and the Whitley Road School not begun; whether the Department received from the School Attendance Committee of Eastbourne a Resolution declaring that the Whitley Road site was eminently unsuitable; whether all the proposed schools comply with the Rules of planning of the Department; whether he can state the contract price for each school; why the Department did not give effect to the procedure provisions of the Act of 1870 in July last in the case of Eastbourne; and whether they will now proceed to enforce those provisions without further delay?
  MR. ACLAND: The public inquiry held at Eastbourne last year settled 1,311 places as the deficiency to be supplied. Since then a further deficiency of 365 places (making a total deficiency of 1,676) has been caused by the closure of the Wesleyan School last month. The final notice expired on the 5th of August, 1893. A committee of voluntary managers undertook to supply the deficiency, and submitted plans for three schools: (1) At Norway Hamlet for 464 children; (2) at Upwick for 496 children, and (3) at Whitley Road for 761 children, or 1,721 places in all to meet the deficiency of 1,676. The sites of all three schools were approved as suitable. The first of the three new schools is finished and open, and the building of both the others is now well advanced. After the Whitley Road site had been approved, and the contract for the building signed, an objection to the sire was raised by the Eastbourne School Attendance Committee, but the Department did not see any reason to alter their decision. The contract prices of the three schools are £1,989 10s., £2,180, and £3,530 respectively. In view of complaints made as to the new schools, the Department sent an architect to Eastbourne a few days ago to make a special inquiry. He reports that due despatch is being used in the work; that the building, both in the school already built, which is certainly very unornamental, and in the two now in progress, is in conformity with the plans sanctioned by the Department: and that the latter will be completed by the 15th of May as regards the Upwick
  338
  School, 15th of June as regards the boys' and girls' departments of the Whitley Road School, and July 16th as regards the infants' department of that school. It is the duty of the Department under the Act, in the case of an ascertained deficiency, to order the formation of a School Board if it appears that, after due notice, the deficiency is not in course of being supplied with due despatch. So far due despatch seems to have been used, and the Department will continue to exercise all vigilance to see that it is maintained, both in respect of completing the work now in progress and of meeting such further deficiency as arises from time to time owing to growth of population.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the architect he sent down satisfied himself as to the substantial character of the schools, as well as with their compliance as to space requirements?
  MR. ACLAND: Yes; I asked him that myself. The schools come within the Rules as to new buildings.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then, in spite of all the irritation, the people of Eastbourne have complied with the Act in every respect?
  MR. ACLAND: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "in spite of all the irritation." They have raised a good round sum of money, and are building the schools.

  LABOUR COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS.
  MR. DIAMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any Rules for the guidance of Assistant Labour Commissioners as to the nature of statements made to them by witnesses, and which ought or ought not to be inserted in their Reports presented to this House; whether complaints alleged to have been made by a mill manager at Port Glasgow, and set out on page 193 of the Reports of the Lady Assistant Commissioners dealing with the employment of women, in which 1,500 women workers in Mill 54 are stated to be chiefly low class Irish, who are intemperate and immoral, should have been admitted, seeing that further on in the Report the Assistant Commissioner states that she saw no evidence of the immorality alleged; and what steps are

  339
  taken to verify statements made to the Assistant Commissioners before these statements are printed and circulated?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Chairman of the Labour Commission that, so far as he is aware, it has not been the practice to make any Rules for the guidance of Assistant Commissioners as to the nature of the statements made by witnesses which are to be included in their Reports. The senior Lady Assistant Commissioner was entrusted by the Commission with the duty of supervising generally the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners, and it is believed that this duty has been satisfactorily performed. It is impossible for the Commission as a body to investigate the reliability of the evidence given to the Lady Assistant Commissioners.
  MR. DIAMOND: Is there any remedy open to persons who feel themselves aggrieved by these statements?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not in a position to answer that question.

  IRISH POST OFFICE CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the existing contract for the supply of clothing for Irish Post Office officials is held by a private firm; and, if so, when the contract was entered into, and when it will expire; whether, on its expiration, an opportunity will be given to Irish firms to tender for the contract: and whether it would be possible to arrange that the material for the clothing should be of Irish manufacture, assuming that equally good material could be supplied at the same price?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The present contract for the supply of Post Office uniform clothing in Ireland is for three years, and expires on the 31st instant. It is held by an Irish firm. The new contract, like the present one, will be made by the War Department on behalf of the Post Office; and it is understood that tenders have already been invited. I am not aware that any condition has been made as to the place where the material for the clothing should be manufactured.

  IRISH CONSTABULARY CLOTHING.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the existing contract for the supply of clothing to the Royal Irish Constabulary is held by a private firm, or whether the Force is supplied from a Government clothing factory; when the existing contract was entered into, and when it will expire; whether on its expiration an opportunity will be given to Irish firms to tender for the contract; and whether it would be possible to arrange that the material for the clothing should be of Irish manufacture, assuming that equally good material could be supplied at the same price?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General informs me that all contracts for the clothing of the Constabulary are given to private firms. The existing contract was entered into on March 1, 1893, and will expire on March 31, 1895; it is held by an Irish firm. On its expiration tenders for a new contract will, as on former occasions, be invited by advertisement in the public Press, and Irish firms will be afforded an opportunity of tendering. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I learn that some years ago Irish woollen manufacturers were invited by advertisement to inspect the standard great-coat cloth at the Constabulary Office, with a view to their proposing to supply the same; that three manufacturers responded to the advertisement, and stated that, with the exception of great-coat cloth, it would not suit their trade to undertake its manufacture. Samples of this cloth were subsequently received from two of the traders, but the results were unsatisfactory. I should be glad if it were possible to arrange for the manufacture in Ireland of the material for Constabulary uniform, or even a portion thereof, but in order to bring this about it would be necessary that the standard of quality should be maintained without increase of price.

  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the Bovine Tuberculosis Commission is ready or when it may be expected?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to my inquiry, I am informed that the work of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis is being proceeded with with all possible speed, and that it is hoped that the Report will be issued shortly.

  GERMAN PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether large quantities of manufactured goods, mainly produced by unpaid convict prison labour in Germany, are frequently surreptitiously imported into those Kingdoms, and whether the carriage is cheapened by preferential rates; and whether he will have inquiry made into this matter as affecting the industrial progress and taxpaying interest of this country?
  MR. MUNDELLA: We understand that prison labour is used in some industrial productions in Germany, but the Board of Trade have received no complaints in the matter. I am assured that there are no surreptitious imports into this country, and we are not aware of any preferential rates on German manufactures.

  THE MOUTHS OF THE DANUBE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the European Commission of the Danube continues to perform the duties imposed on it by Article 16 of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, and Article 53 of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, to clear the mouths of the Danube and the neighbouring parts of the sea from sands or other impediments, to facilitate the navigation, and to exercise its powers as far as Galatz in complete independence of the territorial authorities; whether there is any foundation for the statements recently made in the Press that Russia, as one of the territorial authorities on one of the banks of the Kilia arm of the river, has objected to the Commission exercising its powers in complete independence of her, and has proposed to exclude it altogether from independent action in the Kilia arm: whether, in view of the great importance of the Kilia arm as commanding the whole trade of the Danube, and as affecting the prosperity of Roumania, Her Majesty's Government will use its influence to cause that arm to be kept clear
  342
  and open for navigation; and whether any Papers relating to the subject can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR E. GREY: I am afraid I can only again refer the hon. Member to the Treaty of London of 1883 for details connected with the Kilia branch of the Danube. We have no reason to suppose that the Russians intend to undertake any operations as regards the Kilia mouth, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason for raising any question connected with the European Commission of the Danube at the present time. Reports are received from Her Majesty's Representative on the Commission from time to time, but they deal mainly with details connected with the navigation of the river, and there will be no object in laying them upon the Table of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that under the Berlin Act of 1883 the general powers of the Commission are maintained? Is it not a fact that a, Protocol attached to the Treaty especially affirms this right?
  SIR E. GREY: I have not a copy of the Treaty before me. If the hon. Member has read the Treaty I will accept his statement that he is quoting it correctly.

  ZOBEHR PASHA.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a Correspondence between Sir William Marriott, Lord Cromer, and Lord Rosebery on the subject of the claims of Zobehr Pasha against the Egyptian Government, and whether there is any objection to laying the Correspondence upon the Table of the House; whether Sir William Marriott has suggested a Parliamentary or judicial inquiry into the matter; and whether Her Majesty's Government intends to accede to that suggestion?
  SIR E. GREY: Such a Correspondence has taken place, and Sir William Marriott has suggested a Parliamentary or judicial inquiry into the matter in this country. Her Majesty's Government do not think such a procedure would be suitable or desirable, and cannot, therefore, support the suggestion. The question is, in their opinion, one for decision by the Egyptian Government or Tribunals, and it would serve, no useful purpose to

  343
  lay the Correspondence before the House.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT CLERKS.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT (Nottingham, S.): On behalf of the hon. Member for West Marylebone, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practice whereby the chief and other clerks of the London and Sheerness Police Courts receive and retain for their own use, in addition to their salaries, certain fees for supplying copies of depositions to prosecutors and others; and whether he can state if this practice is authorised by any statutory authority?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware of the practice referred to, which has existed for many years with the cognisance of the Treasury and Exchequer and Audit Department. I am not aware of any express statutory authority under which the fees in question are payable to the clerks; but it is a matter of great importance in the interests of justice that copies of depositions should be prepared rapidly and accurately for the use of prosecutors and others; and as the making of these copies is outside the official duties of the Police Court clerks, the Metropolitan Police Magistrates have, with my own and my predecessor's approval, sanctioned the existing scale of fees. I may add that I have had recently under my consideration the whole question of the remuneration of the Police Court clerks, and proposals are now being weighed under which the fees in question would be transferred to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it not a fact that the salaries of these valuable public servants are limited by Statute to what many people think a very moderate sum?
  MR. ASQUITH: They were so limited; I do not know what they stand at at the present moment.

  UGANDA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision on the Uganda Question; and whether any action will
  344
  be taken in carrying out any decision of the Government before the opportunity has been given for a full discussion of the subject in the House of Commons?
  SIR E. GREY: As was stated on Tuesday, the Government will communicate their decision with reference to Uganda soon after Easter, and an opportunity will be given to discuss it. No instructions have been sent to put matters on a different footing in Uganda to that on which they were left by Sir G. Portal, and unless any unforeseen emergency should arise it is not intended to send any till after the decision has been announced to the House.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it will be necessary, notwithstanding the passing of the new Local Government Act, for the Parish Vestries to appoint new Overseers and Highway Surveyors to hold office till next November; and if the Local Government Board intend shortly to issue Circulars instructing the various Local Authorities as to their powers and duties under the new Act?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My answer to the hon. Member for South Norfolk deals with the first point in this question. As regards the second, the Local Government Board have issued Circulars to Boards of Guardians, Urban Sanitary Authorities, and Highway Authorities explaining the position of matters as regards elections in the current year. The Board are preparing other Circulars, which will be issued very shortly.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: The words "till November" are used, but will not the officers now to be appointed hold office till March next?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I must ask for notice of that.

  WARNED SCHOOLS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will assent to a quarterly Return, commencing from 1st January, 1894, and giving the names of schools from which the Department have threatened to withhold the Parliamentary Grant, and specifying the matters of

  345
  complaint on account of which this course has been taken?
  MR. ACLAND: This question was only put down last night, but I can say generally that I think a quarterly Return from the 1st of next month can be given, which will meet in the main what the noble Lord asks for.

  THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, under the Rules laid down by the Declaration of Paris, 1856, those Powers which have abstained from agreeing to and are not bound by it would, in the event of their being at war with Great Britain, retain their right, under the Law of Nations, to fit out and use privateers against British commerce, and also their right to capture British goods in neutral vessels, whether those goods were contraband of war or not; whether, in such an event, Great Britain, having agreed to the Declaration, and being bound to it as towards all the other Powers who have also agreed to it, would have the right to capture her enemy's goods in neutral vessels belonging to such other Powers; or whether she would be hound to refrain from exercising that right as against her enemy while submitting to its exercise as against herself; and whether he can state what Powers have up to this lime abstained from agreeing to the Declaration of Paris?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): The first two inquiries of the hon. Member relate to certain legal questions with reference to hypothetical cases which the hon. Member puts and as to which my opinion is asked. I consider that I am not bound to answer these questions, which do not relate to any matter under the consideration of this House, nor is it for the public interest that I should do so. I therefore respectfully decline to answer them. As to the third question, which is one of fact, I have to state that the United States of America, Spain, and some of the South American States are the principal Powers which have not up to this time agreed to the Declaration of Paris.

  VETERINARY COLLEGE IN DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
  346
  addition to the sum of £15,000 proposed to be allocated for the establishment of a Veterinary College in Dublin, he is pro-pared to moderately endow the institution as one appertaining to technical education in Ireland?
  MR. HOZIER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I impure whether the Government propose to give for the benefit of veterinary science in Scotland a grant corresponding to the £15,000; and, if not, why not?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer the question. I do not think it is possible to add to the proposed grant of £15,000 any proposal for the endowment of the institution. I may inform the hon. Member who put the supplementary question that the money to be granted for the purposes of this college is not Imperial money, but that it comes from a certain Irish fund intended for purely Irish purposes. It does not follow that Scotland should have a like grant.

  PROPOSED IRISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are considering a scheme for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture for Ireland, which was promised favourable consideration by the late Premier?
  MR. J. MORLEY(who replied) said: My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, in answering a similar question a short time ago, said—
  "We have no proposal to make upon the subject, but shall be triad to find some opportunity of considering a plan for that purpose. I should like, however, to see the evidence taken before a Select Committee, which I\ hope the House would appoint, before consenting to a proposal for the establishment of a board of Agriculture for Ireland."

  THE SILVER QUESTION AND OUR EASTERN TRADE.
  MR. WHITELEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a Memorial from the General Council of the London Chamber of Commerce reciting that, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory state of the silver question, and the grave injury inflicted upon our Eastern trade by the heavy fall and violent fluctuations in exchange, and the great uncertainty as

  347
  to the future, it was desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take such steps as would lead to the meeting of another International, Conference; and whether the Government has this communication, which refers to an injury suffered by a trade amounting to nearly £250,000,000 annually, under its consideration?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have received the Memorial to which my hon. Friend refers. I have already stated that the Government have received no intimation of any desire of any Foreign Government for the reassembling of the Monetary Conference, and they themselves have no intention of milking any such proposal.
  MR. WHITELEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said I had received the Memorial.

  INDIAN IMPORTS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will suggest to the Indian Government the expediency of raising their Revenue by the taxation of German, French, and other Foreign imports, and admitting British goods as heretofore?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Differential duties existed in the time of the East India Company; hut all distinction between goods of British and those of foreign origin was swept away by the Tariff of 1859; and it is not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, expedient to return to the former practice.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the colonies of France, Germany, and other countries do make special conditions in favour of the Mother Country?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; but J am not prepared to say their fiscal system is better than ours.

  LORD ROSEBERY'S VISIT TO EDINBURGH.
  MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.): I beg to ask whether it is true that the Prime Minister, being a Peer and Lord Lieutenant for the County of Edinburgh, is to address a public meeting on political topics in Edinburgh during the present week; whether, a new Writ
  348
  having been issued for the Leith District, situated within the county, and in close proximity to the City of Edinburgh, the conduct of the Prime Minister is not calculated to influence the election; and whether such conduct does not fall within the spirit and letter of the Sessional Order touching the interference of Peers and Lord Lieutenants in Parliamentary elections?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Although questions of this kind are put from time to time, with the view apparently of preventing Peers from taking part in Parliamentary elections, they have, I think, only a partial success. Matters of this kind are settled rather by precedent than by argument. I am certainly not prepared to state that the speech of a Prime Minister, wherever delivered, is not calculated to influence elections whenever and wherever they take place. It depends a good deal upon what the election is and who the Prime Minister is, and I am not prepared to state the exact mileage of the sphere of influence that he may possibly have. But if the hon. Member desires to know what is the proper course for a Prime Minister to take who happens to live in proximity to the place where a contested election is occurring, I recommend him to consider the occasion when Mr. Disraeli was Prime Minister and was made a Peer, and when he vacated his seat in this House in consequence of his being created a Peer. I think the first public act of his as Prime Minister and a Peer was to make a very important political speech during the election for the very seat which he bad vacated in his own county and in immediate proximity to his own residence. It was a very important and very remarkable speech, and if the hon. Member wishes to understand exactly how a speech of that kind ought to be made he will find it a very judicious model for all Prime Ministers in those circumstances. The hon. Member is mistaken in saying that Lord Rosebery occupies the position of Lord Lieutenant in Edinburgh. Edinburgh is a city and county, and he is not Lord Lieutenant in Edinburgh.
  MR. HOZIER: Was not Edinburgh included in the scope of the Scotch Sea Fisheries Bill because it was supposed to be in the County of Midlothian?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We are on the subject of the Lord Lieutenancy. There was a time when Lord Lieutenants thought they ought not to interfere in political matters in their own counties, but the abstention is not always observed now. I know that the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire came to Derby to make a speech against its Representative. Therefore, there are exceptions to the rule that Lord Lieutenants should not interfere in political affairs in their own counties.
  SIR. J. GORST: Is the House to understand that the Government admit that the Standing Order of the House of Commons respecting the interference of Peers at elections is about to be broken, and that the only excuse for breaking it that the Government make is that it has been broken before?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Member must not assume that I admit anything.
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): Was not next, Saturday's meeting at Edinburgh arranged some weeks ago, before there was any prospect of an election for the Leith District?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: J believe that is so.

  THE VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Vote on Account will be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Vote on Account will, I think, be taken most conveniently on Wednesday, the 21st instant. My great object is to free hon. Members on both sides of the House as early as I can from controversial business, so that they may go away. Therefore, what I propose is that we should take the Vote on Account with the Report of Supply on the 21st, and if that business is concluded on that day there will be nothing to prevent Members from going away on the Thursday before Good Friday.

  PAUPER ALIENS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: When will the Pauper Alien Returns for January be issued?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have inquired about the matter, and am informed that, in accordance with the Rules of the House,
  350
  the Board of Trade are not at liberty to circulate the Returns for January until the new Session has commenced. In accordance with the Orders, the Return was laid on the Table of the House immediately the new Session began. In the meantime, however, the particulars were published in The Board of Trade Journal.

  BELFAST AND NEWCASTLE POST OFFICES.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could state what amounts of revenue are derived from the Cities of Belfast and Newcastle respectively by the Post Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member, inasmuch as there are no statistics in the possession of the Department which would enable me to do so.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF SCOTLAND AND THE UNTTED KINGDOM.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will now agree to the appointment of a, Select Committee to inquire into the financial relations of Scotland to the other Division of the United Kingdom, and to the Imperial Exchequer?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government will agree to the appointment of such a Committee, but desire its postponement for a time till there is loss financial pressure on the officials of the Treasury than at the present moment.
  MR. COCHRANE: Will it be done before Whitsuntide?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will inquire.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (INTRODUCTION OF BILLS).
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish to say that if would be a great convenience to the officers of the House if hon. Gentlemen would be good enough to put the number which each gentleman has gained in the Ballot upon the Notice which he hands in with his Bill.
  Ordered, That To-morrow the introduction of Bills have precedence of the Orders of the Day.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      1. £1,200, Supplementary, House of Commons Offices.
      DR. CLARKsaid, these expenses wore growing very fast. He noticed that £300 a year extra was charged for going through the names in Petitions, and he also saw that £200 more was required for the new arrangement for orders of admission. He wanted to know whether it was merely a temporary increase, or would it be a permanent increase?
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, that these items were nearly all owing to the extraordinary length of the Session. The Treasury had no control over these expenses. Very few of the items in the Vote would occur again, unless they had another extraordinary Session such as the one just terminated, which they all trusted would not happen again. With regard to the Petitions, he had himself considered the question, and had asked the authorities whether it would not be possible to have some cheaper method of doing the work. He would call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions to the subject.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he had never been able to understand why the Civil Service expenses connected with the House of Commons and the House of Lords should not be placed upon the same footing as items in other Public Departments. He hoped the Treasury would consider the inauguration of a more reasonable system of dealing with the business of this House, and he trusted that they would have control over these expenses. Having regard to what
      352
      happened to the officials of the House of Lords last Session, he thought the time had come when the House of Commons should set an example in this matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would like to know what the officers of the House did respecting these matters. According to his right hon. Friend, the present practice was about as bad as it could be, because the Treasury had no control. Practically, there fore, there was no control except what was exercised in Committee. In the existing state of things nobody could give an authoritative reply to questions on this Vote, or furnish information as to the actual state of affairs. He hoped the Government would take the earliest opportunity of effecting an alteration.
      SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, he would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the whole system, involving so much cost as these Petitions did, could not be re-considered from first to last. This year there was an increase of some hundreds of pounds in the cost of counting, and then there was the cost of printing.
      MR. HOWELLasked whether, considering the length of the last Session, the case of the underpaid messengers and others would be remembered.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that a number of extra men were appointed to deal with the work last Session. He sympathised with the object which his hon. Friend the Member for Preston had in view, but it was not easy to give effect to it. In the first place, it would require legislation. The whole of the management of the officers of the House was carried on under Act of Parliament. The power to meet and consider these items of expenditure was now vested in the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and several other important officers of State. They had the power of considering this question of salaries and of expenditure, hut so far as the Treasury was concerned it had no power over that expenditure. With regard to Petitions, he had said before that he was anxious to draw the attention of the Committee to that matter, and he would be very glad if they would take into consideration some cheaper method of carrying it out. For his own part he

      353
      did not see any great advantage in going through the number of signatures to Petitions, but when any charge was made as to want of honesty in a Petition the Committee ought to have power to examine into it closely.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had rather sheltered himself behind the Commission, and had stated that the Treasury had no power in this matter, but unless he could get a satisfactory assurance from him he was afraid he would have to begin on this Vote with a long series of Motions for reduction. He bad had a Report made of pluralists in the Public Service—those who held more than one office—and he found that the number was 439.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT SIR J. T. HIBBERT rose to Order, and submitted that the question of pluralists was not one that should be introduced on this Vote.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid, the question of pluralists did not seem to be relevant to this Vote, and he did not think it would be in Order.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would not pursue the subject. With regard to the cost of counting signatures to public Petitions, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman said he would give up that system. He did not know what was to be done with Petitions. He conceived that it might be advisable either to print them and bind them up in such a shape as would form interesting reading for wet Sundays, or to make a precis of them, or they might bo useful for bonfires on November 5. But to do no more than count the signatures was futile, and when be found that the cost of counting them amounted to £550 a year, his conscience revolted, and his constituents would not think he was doing his duty if he did not protest against it.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he desired to emphasise what bad been said with regard to those at the bottom of the staff', who received from £1 to £2 a week. He was bound to say that the House was always ready to give an increase to the higher officials, but they altogether forgot the lower ones. If he remembered rightly, last year his right hon. Friend suggested that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this subject. Could the right hon. Gentleman promise that a Committee would be appointed
      354
      during this Session, or that the whole matter would be considered?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he had no power to do so. The power rested with the Speaker and the other Commissioners, under Act of Parliament.
      MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not wish to dwell upon the appointment of a Select Committee, but he confessed that he thought the Commission was a wise provision made by Statute. Of course, he assumed that the Commission was a practical working body, composed of eminent persons, they had been told, holding high office in the State, and be assumed that the Commission met with tolerable frequency, and that all these important matters were fully considered by them. He did not think the Committee would wish to take the control out of their hands. The Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to inform them how many times the Commission met during the year, and whether any record of its proceedings was preserved.
      MR.A. C. MORTONsaid, that in view of what had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury he would bring the matter forward again on the Vote on Account. He desired to protest against what he had said—namely, that because this was a Statutory Commission they could not appoint a Select Committee to consider it. If be recollected rightly, this House had many a time appointed a Select Committee to consider the effects of Acts of Parliament, and he therefore did not think that would be a bar at all.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I may say, speaking quite frankly, that I have never heard of the existence of this Commission, or that I was one of its Members. The Committee may draw what inference it pleases from that fact.
      MR. HANBURYasked the late Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who had held Office for some six years, to give the House the benefit of any information he possessed with regard to the Commission.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I can only say that I have never received a summons to attend during the whole of the six years I had the honour of holding office. I can only infer, of course, from that fact that no meeting of the

      355
      Commission took place during that time. Of course it would be impossible that a Member of it, even an ex officio Member, should receive no summons.
      MR. GIBSONBOWLESsaid, he desired to call attention on this Vote to the question of pluralists. He found that no less a person than the Serjeant-at-Arms was a pluralist. He received £1,200 a year as the Serjeant-at-Arms, in addition to £114 which he received as Groom of the Robes.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTrose to Order. The item of £300 did not in any way include the salary of the Serjeant-at-Arms, nor did it refer to anyone who could properly be termed a pluralist. There were wages paid to extra cleaners and messengers.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that it was hardly consistent with the dignity of the House that its Serjeant-at-Arms should be also a Groom of the Robes.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had had his explanation. It had been stated that the Vote did not apply to anyone who might be called a pluralist, and, therefore, the hon. Member was out of Order.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he must ask for details, as the Committee had not got any statement before them.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he understood the learned Attorney General was also a Member of the Commission, and he would like to ask him what his experience was of the work of the Commission?
      SIR C. RUSSELL: I wish to say that if I have the honour of being a Member of this Commission, I now hear of it for the first time.
      DR. CLARKsaid, it was very clear that this Commission was not very efficient, but partook of the nature of a sham. Practically, so far as he could see, £300 came under the control of the Committee on Petitions, and a Committee of this House was spending the money. As individual members of that Committee they must see that the money was not being thrown away. When the constitution of this Committee came before the House, they would require to know something on the subject. He regretted that the officers of the House had not received anything for the extra work they had done.
      MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if the Commission did not sit, who did the work of appointing the Commissioners?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I can only say that the Speaker undertakes the responsibility of representing the Commission.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he should move to abolish this system altogether when they came to the Civil Service Estimate-. He understood there was a Statutory Commission which was to meet to regulate appointments of officials, and various financial matters connected with this House. As he understood it, that Commission never sat; everything was transacted by the Speaker, or one of the permanent officials. He should like to know whether, under the Statute, the Speaker had the power to appoint all the officials of this House, and practically manage it as the head of one Department without at all calling into action his colleagues on that Commission? They had the Statute forming this Commission and requiring it to meet and carry on the business of the House, and if it had not met for six years the question was, had the business of the House been transacted contrary to the Statute during the whole of these six years?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he did not go quite so far as to say that this Commission had not been carrying out its work. He believed that the Speaker, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, from time to time, taken into consideration matters in connection with the salaries of this House. The Commission, as a body, bad not sat for a long period. He knew one period during which they held sittings, for he had seen the Report of their meetings, and that was in the year 1880. He did not say they had not met at other times. Any member of the Commission had the power of calling the Commissioners together by applying to the Speaker. If they had not recently been called together, he did not know that the Speaker had conferred from time to time with the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day for the purpose of considering all questions with reference to this House. He should say the best plan for his hon. Friend the Member for Preston to follow would be to bring the matter forward on some Notice of Motion on going into Supply. It was deserving of consideration, and he thought that

      357
      would be the best way by which the hon. Member could accomplish the object he had in view.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had staled that it was competent for any member of the Commission to call the Commission together, but it appeared from the testimony of both Front Benches that a number of the Commissioners did not know they were members of the Commission. If they did not know they were Commissioners, how did they know they had power to call the Commission together? Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to let these gentlemen know they were Commissioners and had this power?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is impossible to take any steps except through the proper authority of the House—that is, the Speaker. I will take every step I can to bring this discussion before him, and I shall be able to take his advice upon the best course to pursue.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, this was evidently a serious matter. So far as he could detect, it was something like the Liberator Society. Here was he believing there was nothing wrong in the matter because he knew the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and such like had given their names to the Commission. -Now, however, they knew the Commission had been summoned once in the year 1880, and since then occasionally a Commissioner had been consulted by the Speaker or the authorities. How did they get these names? He had been reposing in the trust that the Home Secretary was a member of the Commission, and he had also been under the impression that in some sort of way his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was also exercising a certain supervision over the matter. But one gentleman after another repudiated it and said he had never heard of it. It was like getting money from the public on the faith of certain names appearing on a prospectus and then gentlemen saving they did not know their names were upon such a document. They ought to have some understanding on the matter. He was not going to say anything about the Serjeant-at-Arms being also Groom of the Stole; but he wanted to know were any of these cleaners pluralisms. Did they also act as Ladies of the Bed-Chamber?
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is trifling with the Committee.
      MR. LABOUCHEREconsidered they bad a right to know whether any person under the denomination of a cleaner had any other pay from the Government.
      MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to know whether this Estimate had been before the Commission and sanctioned by them?
      MR. HOWELLsaid, that some years ago he brought certain matters before the House, and there was then an implied promise that they should be brought before the Commissioners. That was in 1887, and yet they had no information with regard to the Commission having sat during all this intervening period. That being so, they were not carrying out the Statute at all with regard to these matters.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTwould like to Say one or two words with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. That hon. Member rather suggested that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had given his name to this Commission. He would like to point out that this was a permanent Commission created by Acts of Parliament, the first in the time of George III., on which certain officials were named as Commissioners, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for the time being. He would again suggest that the hon. Member should raise this question by way of a Notice of Motion on going into Supply.
      SIR. A. ROLLITsaid, there was a more important aspect of the question than the one of alteration or reform, and that was-—was there any authority whatever for making these payments? Obviously the question of the regulation of the House and the salaries of the officials was entrusted to a Statutory Commission, which was to take care that these salaries were properly adjusted, and unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to give the House the assurance that the Commissioners had met and had sanctioned these payments, the [louse had no authority whatever to deal with it. Here they had an increase of from £220 to

      359
      £530 for merely counting signatures, and the right hon. Gentleman did not give them a vestige of authority or sanction for the grounds upon which that change took place. He did not see how, strictly speaking, the House was in a position to make these payments without committing a breach of the Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to give them some assurance that the matters had been investigated and were in order, so that the House would have something on which to act.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, everything had been in order, and those accounts would all be passed by the Committee on Public Accounts, who were authorised by this House to deal with any of the Estimates at present under the consideration of the Committee. All these items had been considered by the authorities of the House and authorised by the Speaker. He was told it was not usual to call the Commission together except when any new appointments were made or salaries were revised. It was not usual to call the Commission together to consider normal expenditure.
      Vote agreed to.
      2. £1,200, Supplementary, Home Office.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of questioning the amount, still less questioning the principle, of this Supplementary Estimate; but they must bear in mind that a Supplementary Estimate was supposed to consist of expenditure which could not have been foreseen when the regular Estimate was presented to Parliament. He wished an explanation as to how it was, under the circumstances, which were common knowledge, that this expenditure was not foreseen to the extent of making it possible to have it in the original Estimate. He could not help bearing in mind that about the time when the regular Estimate for the Home Office staff was being prepared, or rather at the time when it was still possible to insert additional items, the Home Secretary was at Liverpool proclaiming his intention to pursue, to use a general term, it forward policy with regard to the Factory-Act passed by the late Home Secretary. That intention could have been inferred from the fact that he described the
      360
      Factory Act as a dead letter up to the time he took Office. That being the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, it was very extraordinary that this expenditure which was necessarily to be involved in a policy of this kind should be so very little foreseen. It was a fact that no sum was taken for this service at all in the original Estimate, but in another part of the Home Office Estimate it had been the practice to provide for special inquiries by a sum of £1,000. That sum not only was not increased, but was diminished this year to a slight extent. A considerable period of time seemed to have elapsed between the announcement by the Home Secretary at Liverpool and the appointment of the Committees he so announced; and there were only two possible conclusions which could be drawn from this fact. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not foresee that there was any really practical work or any work involving special effort or expenditure going to take place; or, if he did foresee such a thing, there were other Members of the Government with whom he found a difficulty in getting the necessary funds provided. In the latter caseall he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) could say was that the right hon. Gentleman, although he was entitled to take credit for himself in this matter, was not able to claim credit for the whole of the Government to which he belonged.
      MR. ASQUITH(who was indistinctly heard) said, that as far as his recollection went the Home Office Estimate was prepared in the latter end of the year, and he did not think at that time he had any definite idea of carrying out these special inquiries. The hon. Member had referred to a speech of his in Liverpool in January, 1893, in which he used some general language as to his intention to appoint Committees of Inquiry into certain dangerous trades; but, as a matter of fact, the earliest of these Committees was not appointed until the following April. The work done by such Committees was very valuable. He had been most careful to make the inquiries as inexpensive as he possibly could; but the necessity of employing scientific experts, both as members and as witnesses, and of incurring a considerable amount of travelling expenses, had led to a larger sum than he anticipated, or was altogether

      361
      glad to see. He was, however, satisfied that such expenditure would turn out in the long run to be economical expenditure, and be a great saving of life and health in these industries.
      MR. HANBURYurged the advisability of the publication of the Reports of these inquiries.
      MR. ASQUITH: All the Reports have been published and laid on the Table of the House.
      MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)asked whether the Committee which had to do with the lead industry received any information as to the most valuable inquiries with reference to lead mining which had taken place in Western Australia?
      MR. ASQUITHwas not aware, but would inquire into the matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTONhad no doubt that this money had been very usefully spent, and the work done important. He noticed at the bottom of the page, "Deduct from Estimate net savings on other sub-heads of the Vote £1,600." He objected to this way of keeping accounts. They made savings under some sub-heads, but the Departments were allowed to spend them on other matters. That was objectionable, and if too much money was voted it ought to be returned. It was the practice of Departments to get more money voted than they wanted, and then if anything turned up they might not have thought of before they could spend these savings on what they liked, and unless they wanted more money than the savings they did not come to Parliament at all. The savings under certain sub-heads ought not to be spent on other matters.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid, the question which the hon. Member had raised did not affect this particular Vote, and was a matter for the general Estimates, and not one over which he (Mr. Asquith) exercised any responsibility. He could not see any serious danger in this connection. As far as this Vote was concerned, they stated the whole amount they proposed to spend, and then they set forth that as they had saved £1,600 on the financial year they only asked for £1,200, the £1,600 saved making up the £2,800 required. He failed to see any objection to that.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, his contention was that what was voted for
      362
      certain specific purposes ought not to be spent on purposes entirely different.
      Vote agreed to.
      3. £1,500, Supplementary, Colonial Office.
      DR. CLARKdesired to know how much had really been spent on telegrams? As far as he could see there was £2,250; was that all for South Africa? He saw that £5,000 for telegrams to the High Commissioner was extra, and he desired to know whether £7,250 instead of £1,500 had been spent extra on these telegrams?
      SIR A. ROLLITdid not grudge the telegrams, because it was important the Government should have the quickest information, but he did think it was sometimes questionable whether the Government got value for the expenditure thus incurred. In the present case the cost of telegrams in relation to South Africa alone was £6,000, being an increase of £3,750 on the original Estimate of £2,250. He would like to contrast what private enterprise sometimes secured with what found its way to the Government. Recently there was an unfortunate conflict in the neighbourhood of Zambesi between our Authorities and the Portuguese Authorities. A statement of the events and the details of the occurrence had appeared in The Times, if not in other papers, but the Government up to this time had received no direct official information by telegram or otherwise. Private enterprise had anticipated the Government by 10 days or a fortnight. He should like to know whether the Government had received direct information on this matter by telegram or otherwise? If not, they were led to the conclusion that notwithstanding their large expenditure a newspaper was in possession of much earlier information than the Government with all its resources.
      MR. HANBURYpointed out that the Supplementary Estimate referred to the expenses of telegrams to South Africa, but there must also be telegrams to be paid for from South Africa, so that the expense would be even larger than appeared on this Vote. Perhaps his hon. Friend would also be able to say whether the expenditure in telegrams had been in any way increased by the remarks made in the House by the hon. Member

      363
      for Northampton in reference to South African affairs.
      MR. KNOXsaid, he thought that in many cases a little expenditure in postage stamps would effect almost as good an object as a large expenditure in telegrams. He was aware that the Colonial Office did not show that despatch in answering letters even which might be expected. He knew of one case in which complaints from very important Bodies of gross interference with public rights and the rights of the subject in South Africa had been sent to the Colonial Office as long ago as January, and yet the people who had sent them, though they were in Loudon, had not received even an acknowledgment of their receipt. It would be well, therefore, if there was a little more expenditure on postage in the Colonial Office.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,)said, that the great addition to the expenditure on telegrams was due to the Matabele War, when it was necessary that the authorities at home should be kept informed of what was going on in the front, to the Swaziland Conventions, and the disturbances in Pondoland. It might be that if there was no such thing as the telegraph, the affairs of the Colonial Office would be bettor conducted. But as they had the telegraph things were conducted by telegram, which was a very expensive amusement, and not quite so efficient as they would wish. With regard to the communications between the Portuguese and the British Authorities, if the hon. Member for South Islington put down a question on the subject he would obtain the necessary information. As to whether the cost of telegrams was in any way increased by the questions put by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton in the House with regard to South African affairs, he should say that it was unquestionably so. When assertions were made in the House as to public concerns the Government had to obtain at the earliest possible moment information in regard to them. But they could not put the blame for the increased cost on the hon. Member for Northampton. If an hon. Member in the exercise of his duty found it necessary to raise matters in the House, the Govern-
      364
      ment were bound to obtain the necessary information.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that as he was neither a company promoter nor a holder of shares in those bogus companies, he thought this expenditure for telegrams was a waste altogether. He thought the company promoters ought to be made to pay it. He hoped the Radical Government, considering how many poor people there were in the country who had nothing to do with company promoters, would not waste the taxpayers' money in this fashion. They were told with regard to the Vote, that though the cost of telegrams had increased by £2,250, there had been a saving in salaries. Therefore, the Government proposed to take money voted for salaries to defray the cost of telegrams. If a sufficient saving had been made in salaries to cover the extra cost of telegrams the Government would not have come to the House at all, and the House would have known nothing about the increase in the cost of telegrams. In all those Departments it was the practice to spend money on purposes for which it had never been voted by the House. He thought that if there was a saving on any Vote the money should go back to the Treasury, and the Department should come to the House for any extra money they might want. He hoped his hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary would promise, as the Home Secretary had promised on the previous Vote, to have this objectionable practice put a stop to in the Department which he represented.
      DR. CLARKsaid, that if the hon. Member for Preston had read the telegrams with regard to South Africa published in the Blue Book, he would see that the expenditure was not due to the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, but was due to the Colonial Office sending out telegrams protesting against the filibusters and freebooters under the control of the Chartered Company. As to the murder and looting which had taken place in South Africa, the subject would come up on another Vote, and would be then discussed. He merely wished to say now that it was not an economist like his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, but the Chartered Company, that was responsible for the increased expenditure in telegrams.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had been told that whilst out of the House his hon. Friend the Under Secretary had placed the responsibility for this large increase in the cost of telegrams on his shoulders. He never could get the real facts from his hon. Friend. He never attached the slightest importance to these telegrams. His hon. Friend telegraphed to Sir Henry Loch; Sir Henry Loch telegraphed to the person implicated, and then a most unsatisfactory telegram was sent home. He thought the whole expenditure should be charged to the Chartered Company.
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he had not thrown the responsibility for the increase in the telegrams on his hon. Friend. On the contrary, he had said that his hon. Friend was not in any way responsible for the extra expenditure. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, he thought it of importance, and it would receive attention so far as the Colonial Office was concerned.
      Vote agreed to.
      4. £1,081, Supplementary, Local Government Board.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was in connection with the cholera that this extra expenditure had been incurred? He had frequently drawn attention in the House to the way in which the expenses for the prevention of the introduction of cholera into these countries had been borne. He had been told that it was absolutely necessary that the localities should bear the expenses. Was this extra item of expenditure incurred by the visits of Inspectors to localities in order to dictate to the localities the money they should spend for a national purpose, without any choice of their own? He would also point out that the House passed a Vote every year for quarantine. If quarantine was no security against the introduction of cholera, it was no use at all; and if it were a security against cholera, why should those men go about the country incurring this extra expenditure?
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this has nothing to do with quarantine. Quarantine is confined to yellow fever. If the hon. Gentleman was in the post which I had the honour to occupy last year,
      366
      he would be aware that when an outbreak of cholera occurs the first step taken by the people of the locality, by the general public, and by the House of Commons, is to ask the Local Government Board to immediately send down an Inspector to investigate all the circumstances of the affected district, and to see that the proper remedies are taken to prevent any spread of the disease. I can assure the Committee that it was to the admirable manner in which these gentlemen conducted their work that we were able to grapple with the cholera in 1892 and 1893. I do not think any money has been so well spent, or from which the country has received a more adequate compensation, than this small sum for medical inspection in a time of very great difficulty. I am sure the country, as well as the Local Government Board, owe a debt of obligation to those gentlemen, who were ready at all times to proceed to those places where outbreaks of cholera occurred.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of George IV., which he would find on the Table, he would see that quarantine referred not only to yellow fever, but to every infectious disease, and to merchandise as well as to persons. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Act, and make him a very handsome apology.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS III.
      5. £25,000, Supplementary, Law Charges.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he found under Sub-head B £14,000 for agents' fees-fees of counsel and fees and expenses of expert witnesses bulked together. He should like to know the amount paid to each class. He found that a sum of £6,200 was paid in fees and expenses to export witnesses in the cordite case. Two of the expert witnesses, Sir F. Abel and Mr. Dewar, were strongly interested in the case, and considering the amounts which the patent brought them in from foreign countries, he did not think it possible that any of this money could have gone to them. He was inclined to divide against Votes for expert witnesses altogether, because they were paid by one side or the other in a case; and he would

      367
      certainly divide against this Vote unless he got a satisfactory explanation.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, the Vote for Law Charges was always larger than it ought to be, and for the same reason the administration of the Criminal Law was poisoned at its source. With regard to prisoners brought before Magistrates in boroughs, there was no room for doubt or misgiving; but with regard to prisoners brought before Magistrates in rural districts, it was unfortunate that under the present system Magistrates' clerks had often a financial interest in having prisoners committed for trial. His experience was not very extensive in that respect, but he knew of one case at least in which a man was returned for trial without any legal ground, and though the Magistrates were inclined to discharge him, because of the influence of the Magistrates' clerk. This was no new complaint. He had brought it frequently before the House. The present Attorney General had admitted the evil and deplored it; the present Lord Chancellor when Solicitor General; the House had made the same admission; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury when Solicitor General also recognised the evil. He therefore thought this practice of committing innocent persons, or even guilty persons, when there was not sufficient evidence, simply because the Magistrates' clerk had a financial interest in the matter, ought to be carefully guarded against.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that with regard to the fees and expenses paid to expert witnesses, the Committee ought to be at least informed of the principle on which they were paid—whether according to the amount of knowledge they possessed or otherwise. He should like to point out that this increase in the expenditure represented 60 per cent. of an increase on the original amount. The original amount was £41,000, and now they were asked to vote £25,000 additional. He should say that it reflected no credit on those who prepared the original Estimate that they were not within 60 per cent. of the expenditure.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he noticed that the original Estimate for the expenses of the intervention of the Queen's Proctor in divorce cases was £4,000, and that the Committee were now asked for an addi-
      368
      tional Vote of £2,000. He was aware that by the existing law if the two parties concerned wanted a divorce and got up a case against one of the parties and a decree was pronounced, if it were afterwards discovered that both parties wanted the divorce, no divorce would be granted. He thought that a most absurd law. It seemed to him that if two persons wanted to be married let them be married, and if two persons wanted to be divorced, let them be divorced. Why should we spend this £6,000 per annum in trying to find out whether the two parties in a divorce wanted the divorce, and if they did, reuniting them again in holy wedlock? He knew it was the law; but he objected to an expenditure of £6,000 a year in carrying out a ridiculous law, and a harsh and unwise law.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he should like to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the Crown did not win the cordite case, and whether, therefore, this £6,000 for expert witnesses did not represent the entire of the amount paid to them, as the ordinary expenses were paid by the losing side?
      MR. POWELL WILLIAMSasked when Parliament would get a distinct statement as to the amounts received by the Law Officers of the Crown under the new arrangement? There was considerable anxiety on that point both inside and outside the House. He did not begrudge the hon. and learned Gentleman the full benefit of the arrangement between himself and the State. The hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to take the full benefit of it, but he (Mr. Williams) was anxious to know the net result of the arrangement and when it would be made known to Parliament.
      SIR C. RUSSELLsaid that, in answer to the hon. Member for Preston, he desired to say that a short time ago an exact statement was made as to the amounts received by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General respectively, and further particulars would appear in the Appropriation Account; but the remuneration of the Law Officers did not arise in a direct sense upon this Vote. It was quite true there was a considerable increase in the Vote, but the increase was nothing like the 60 per cent. which had been referred to. According to a statement furnished to him by the Treasury the Estimate was based

      369
      upon the average of the expenditure for the previous three years, and in this period there had been a number of important criminal prosecutions of long duration and involving great expense. Amongst them were the Hansard prosecution, the Portsea Island prosecution, cases arising out of the Liberator frauds, and some other important prosecutions. As regarded these proceedings, he was not able to give the hon. Member for Preston a division between the costs of agents and fees to counsel. In regard to the costs for expert witnesses under Sub-head C, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the cordite case. The amount stated was a total which would be reduced by the sum to be received from the unsuccessful litigants when the costs were taxed if the decision stood.
      MR. HANBURY: This amount is the total?
      SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes. He would remind the hon. Member that the amount represented not merely the amount of remuneration for witnesses for 12 days' attendance, but also for examination and research and experiments long before the trial itself came on. He agreed that expert witnesses were an expensive luxury. These witnesses had included some most eminent men. There was Sir F. Bramwell, Sir Andrew Nobel, Dr. Armstrong, and others, whoso evidence was considered by the advisers of the Crown necessary for the purposes of the trial. As to whether Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar were on the list of paid expert witnesses, he could not say, but he believed they were. He saw no reason why they should not be. They had no interest in the matter, and they were entitled to be paid properly. He was told that as yet they had made no claim. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the Law of Divorce, no doubt if the law were as the hon. Member wished it to be, the interventions of the Queen's Proctor would be less frequent; but under the law as it stood, if the Queen's Proctor received information that a divorce had been obtained by collusion, or by a suppression of material matters that ought to have been brought before the Court, it was his duty to submit the facts to the Law Officers of the day, and to see that the attention of the Court was drawn to them. He agreed
      370
      with the hon. Member for Donegal that it was in the highest degree unsatisfactory that clerks to Magistrates should be interested in prosecutions, but the matter did not come directly under this Vote.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had questioned the accuracy of his statement as to there being an increase of 60 per cent. in the Vote——
      SIR C. RUSSELL (interrupting): I withdraw that.
      SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it was important the House should clearly understand the position of the matter with respect to the cordite action. It was absolutely essential to call a very considerable number of expert witnesses—some 10 or 12. With respect to the position of Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar, he did not know whether they had made any claim for remuneration, but he would point out that Her Majesty's Government had no claim upon them except from the fact that they had been members of the Explosives Committee which sat in 1889 or 1890, and the question as to whether or not the Government had infringed Nobel's patent in the matter of cordite referred to 1891 and the succeeding years down to the present time. Sir Frederick Abel had ceased for some years to be in the service of the Government, and was now in the honoured position of Secretary to the Imperial Institute, and Professor Dewar had never been in the service of the Government, except that the had from time to time been consulted by them. He was a Professor of the University of Cambridge and of the Royal Institution. If these gentlemen made a legitimate charge for their services he did not see on what ground it could be disputed. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Donegal as to Magistrates' clerks being interested at times in the prosecution of persons who might be tried before the Magistrates, the subject had been considered by successive Law Officers and Governments, and although no one could deny that it was desirable that the same rule should apply in the case of clerks to County Magistrates as those which applied in the case of Borough Magistrates—namely, that they should not be concerned, directly or indirectly, through partners or otherwise,

      371
      in cases winch came before the Bench with which they were connected, still it was found that there were many practical difficulties in the way of a change, difficulties which did not appear at first sight, and which would make it doubtful whether a change would be in the public interest. In the remoter parts of England and Wales it would be impossible to obtain competent legal advice—and the Magistrates had to rely in many cases upon the guidance of their clerks—if the proposed change were effected. Wishing the change to be made, yet it was impossible to make it, having due regard to the efficiency of the administration of public justice. It would involve great expense, it could not be effected without legislation, and it would certainly be of a very doubtful character. Before any alteration were made the whole subject should be carefully considered.
      DR. CLARKsaid, he would not oppose the Vote, because he understood that no claim had been made by Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar——
      SIR C. RUSSELL: I said that up to the present time no claim had been made.
      DR. CLARKsaid, that when they did make a claim he would divide the House against the payment. As a matter of fact, the Government in the cordite case had been fighting in the interests of these two gentlemen. These gentlemen—-who, by the way, had been on the Explosives Committee, and had availed themselves of the information they had obtained as such—had really been defending themselves. If the Government had been unsuccessful their patents would have gone, not only in this country, but abroad, and they would have lost all their royalties.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, they ought not in any way either to sanction the conduct of these two gentlemen, or pay public money to them. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) that this matter must be watched. He did not think the conduct of these gentlemen was what it ought to be. The information printed in the Papers with reference to these matters was insufficient to allow the Vote to be properly discussed. There was a 60 per cent. increase on the £41,000 mentioned in the original Estimate for these three items, and there could be no doubt about the fact that the
      372
      law expenses of the country, not only in these but in other Departments, were continually increasing. The fact was, that the fees paid to barristers by the Government were much too high. The work could be done just as well if the Government employed ordinary barristers instead of confining their briefs to a few distinguished counsel and paying them very large fees. The Government in this matter set a bad example to the country, the result being that law expenses were always heavy. He trusted that the present Radical Government would see if they could not in the future bring about a reduction in these items instead of an increase. He was willing to give the Attorney General a little more rope, but the time would come when the democracy of the country would say that they would not have the taxes wasted in the manner in which they were being wasted at present.
      Vote agreed to.
      6. £10, Supplementary County Courts.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, this was not merely a question of £10. That was the way it was put in the Vote, and he had always objected to that method of dealing with it The real expenditure was over £400,000. He must object to the Vote, because he believed the County Court business to be badly managed by the Government. In the City of London they were not particularly fond of economy; but they managed their County Court business in such a way that, though they paid higher salaries than the Government, they made a profit, whereas the Government made a loss. Surely the Government should be able to manage the County Courts as well as a Municipality. If they handed them over to the Municipalities a saving might be effected. He desired to know why there was an increase of £200 in the item for the conveyance of persons to prison? He did not think there ought to be any conveyance to prison at all in connection with debt.
      SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that if the City made a profit out of County Court business it was at the expense of suitors.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the charges to suitors in the City wore the same as ill other parts of the country.
      SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the charges in connection with County Courts Were not in the discretion of the Government, but were fixed by Act of Parliament; and as to the increase in the charge for the conveyance of prisoners, he presumed that it was in consequence of there having been more prisoners to convey.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had said nothing about fees. It was the expenditure, not the receipts, he was talking about. The fees were the same in the City of London as elsewhere.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the real sum in question was hear £500,000. The Comptroller and Auditor General had already brought before the attention of the House on his Report, of the l0th January the fact that in many Services for which they were called on to vote the sum put down in the Estimates was a perfectly illusory sum—that, as a matter of fact, the sum voted bore no relation whatever to the amount expended, and that as a consequence the amount expended was entirely withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. Under the pretext of voting £10 they were really dealing with a sum of £427,000, though they had no control over the expenditure whatever. What did it represent? Why, salaries, printing, stationery, registrars, postage, conveyance, incidental expenses, and so forth, of the County Courts—Courts which, he ventured to think, were the most important of all the Courts in the country, for they were the poor man's Courts. They were very subject indeed to abuse. The Registrars were liable to overcharge and make little arrangements—to adopt tricks and devices whereby when payments were made they were considered not to be formal or in order, the fees being allowed to run on. Many a poor man was subjected to serious oppression in consequence of charges of this kind. It seemed to him that of almost all the cases of abuse brought before them this was the last they should allow to pass without protest. The Comptroller and Auditor General had called attention to these sums that were withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. He (Mr. Bowles) himself had appealed to the
      374
      Chancellor of the Exchequer to put into the Appropriation Account £8,000,000 of which this £400,000 was part, and really they ought to have a promise of an improved practice in the future in regard to this money. Votes of this kind turned the financial proceedings of the House into a farce. He should like to hear what there was to be said in defence of this monstrous and even wicked system of dealing with the expenditure of the country.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he wished to say a word not so much on the Estimate as on the statement the hon. Member for King's Lynn had just made, which was a matter of serious moment. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Registrars of County Courts made overcharges and were guilty of abuses and dishonourable conduct in their office.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he must have explained himself in an unfortunate manner. What he meant to say was that the Registrars were only human beings, and were consequently liable to make overcharges. He thought it extremely likely that they did make overcharges, inasmuch as they were withdrawn from the cognisance of the House.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid that, having been a Registrar himself, he thought it extremely unlikely that they would do anything of the kind. The Registrars were admitted solicitors, and if they were guilty of the practices suggested by the hon. Member they would be struck off the Roll, and would richly deserve all they got. Their accounts were audited periodically, and if they were persons likely to do these things—which they were not—they assuredly would not have the opportunity. He could not accept the hypothetical way in which the statement was made. It, had reference to a body of men who had charge of large funds; and if there was a suspicion of their being justly open to a charge of such an abuse of their position as the hon. Member suggested, it would be a standing danger to the administration of justice. The statement of the hon. Member was absolutely incredible, and the second statement, he ventured to think, ought never to have been made without citing cases in its justification.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say it was quite impossible for what the hon. Member for King's Lynn had mentioned to have happened in reference to charging fees. It was quite impossible for any County Court officials or other persons to have taken such advantage. All the fees were on a certain fixed scale—accessible to everybody. In the original Vote there was full opportunity of revising every halfpenny of the expenditure under this head. Then the amount received was almost equal to the amount expended. The Supplementary Estimate had been rendered necessary because the number of plaints presented during the past year had exceeded expectation, and the salaries of the Registrars varied with the number of the plaints received. The system was thoroughly workable; and though the hon. Member had pointed to him as the culprit, he was not afraid to stand up before the House and defend it. The whole matter, of course, was open to criticism when brought forward before the House of Commons; but he ventured to say that the whole system which had now been in force for many years was advantageous to the public, and that the fullest means of information was open to everyone who applied for it.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the system of placing these Estimates before Parliament. A few years ago the late Government was attacked by a Member of the present Government for adopting that very system of appropriation which the right hon. Gentleman now told them worked so admirably.
      MAJOR RASCHsaid, that he had received complaints from his constituents as to the extraordinary charges forced upon them. He would not say that they in particular were treated unfairly, but he thought his hon. Friend's experience was the exception which proved the rule. People were under the impression that this was done because it was thought they had no friends in the matter and that there was no remedy.
      SIR C. RUSSELLpointed out that it was the hon. Member's duty to bring forward any cases of the kind which he could authenticate in order that they might be thoroughly investigated.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, this matter was well worth the consideration of the House. He urged that the system of appropriations-in-aid should not be carried further until the question had come before the Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor and Comptroller General in his Report called attention to the fact that the division of the Votes into subheads had no effect, the appropriation of the money voted being governed by the Appropriation Bill. Care should be taken that the system was not extended, for the Auditor and Comptroller General was much afraid that it would extend to the whole of the Civil Service Estimates.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There is no fear of that.
      MR. HANBURYwould make another suggestion. As the Auditor and Comptroller General did not assign the appropriations-in-aid to the different purposes for which they were voted, it was possible to transfer Votes for one purpose to another without even the Treasury being consulted. That ought to be checked, and the Auditor and Comptroller General suggested a remedy. In dealing with Departments for which only a nominal sum was voted, though large sums were actually spent, the Appropriation Bill ought to assign the money voted to the various heads on which it was to be spent, thus supplying the defects of the Estimates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise to follow the recommendation of the Auditor and Comptroller General at once in the next Appropriation Bill.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he would take the matter into consideration, but he could not promise that the plan suggested would be adopted in the next Appropriation Bill.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that the Auditor and Comptroller General had censured the present practice. He simply pointed out that it would be desirable to have Parliamentary sanction—which he could not find—for the present excellent system of appropriation.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not see how sanction could have been given, because this was the first year in which it had been done. The Auditor and Comptroller General said in his Report that under the power conferred by the second section of the Act the practice of paying

      377
      receipts hitherto appropriated as payments in aid had this year been extended to 39 of the Votes. It was upon that extension that he based his suggestion that it would be more proper to make the appropriation. They were dealing now not with strict appropriations but with appropriations in aid; and the result had been that £8,000,000 had been appropriated not under the Appropriation Act at all, but by Treasury Minute, which it should not be. It was impossible to read the Report of the Auditor and Controller General without seeing that he censured that practice.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had always opposed this system as a bad way of dealing with the accounts, and the last Government when in Office always objected to this system of appropriation. He should certainly expect the support of Her Majesty's Government in objecting to it.
      DR. CLARKknew from experience that the Edinburgh Office more than paid its cost in stamps and was a gain instead of a loss. On the other hand, in the case of these County Courts they were losing money. What should be done was to put in appropriations-in-aid, if necessary for all of them. While in one case the fees came to much less than the cost, in another considerable profit was made.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, the practice had been going on for many years past. It originated in a suggestion of the Auditor and Comptroller General that the Civil Service Estimates should be gradually and steadily approximated to those of the Army and Navy. Since that time these exchanges, by turning receipts into ap-propriations-in-aid, had been steadily progressing in regard to the Civil Service Estimates being applied to fresh items from year to year. All that the Auditor and Comptroller General said was that it was necessary the matter should bo examined into by Parliament, but the practice should be continued under the sanction of the House.
      Vote agreed to.
      7. £1,300, Supplementary Register House, Edinburgh, agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      8. £207,864, Supplementary, Public Education.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, in reference to the grants-in-aid, in the case of some of these schools the managers had sent out circulars to the parents of the children asking for subscriptions in lieu of fees. He did not say that was illegal, but a feeling was aroused in people's minds that some sort of pressure was being used to compel even parents who paid fees to give subscriptions under threat of some kind that unless they gave money their children would not receive the same advantages as others. Unfortunately, the moment any question was raised the parties interested denied all knowledge and were careful enough to leave no proof behind them. What did the right hon. Gentleman think of such practices, and had he ever heard anything in the nature of threats or undue pressure being put on the parents of children? If he found himself in a position to condemn the practice it would have a good effect upon school managers and prevent them using such threats in future.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the Committee would notgrudge any extra expenditure for elementary education, but it would grudge any increase in the expenditure which was only caused by the worrying of those who carried on the elementary education of the country. The first item of this Vote included the salaries of an increased staff of officials, who had become a necessity owing to the increase of the amount of work to be got through. Some of the gentlemen in the Education Department would not have felt this increase of work so heavily if they had not been directed to spend their time in putting upon the managers of schools requirements which were unreasonable—if not in themselves, at least in the mode of their application. What he was about to say did not apply exclusively to voluntary schools. Those requirements were imposed just as much upon the Board schools as they were upon the voluntary schools, and therefore in saying this he was urging the case of the one as well as of the other. He was fully aware that the present was not the best time to raise such an im-

      379
      portant question as this, but he felt he could not take too early an opportunity to bring forward certain grievances which he wished to urge upon the attention of the Committee. Was it under the sanction of the Vice President of the Council that these measures were allowed, and, if so, were not he and the Department straining their power if the Department should refuse to pay a grant which had been legitimately earned because certain requirements made after these grants had been earned had not been carried out? He would only ask the attention of the Committee now to two special cases. The first one was that of the National school at Luton. There the allegation was that the grant for the year ending September 30 last had been kept back pending the submission of plans for certain improvements. It was said that the payment was delayed because the sanitary conditions of the school were not satisfactory, and because the managers had not carried out certain alterations which they had been called upon to make. He could quite understand that it was proper to bring strong pressure to bear upon managers, if that were the only way to secure the sanitary condition of the schools being kept up to the standard required. At the same time, however, the pressure used must be a legitimate one, and, in the present case, in his opinion, that was not the case. If the Department were to say to the managers of a particular school, "Unless such and such alterations are carried out by you, we shall not give you another grant," well and good, for in that ease the Department would be acting fairly. But to withhold a grant already earned because something, which was mentioned for the first time after the grant had been earned, was not done, was, he contended, most unjust. In the case of this school, the Annual Report for the year 1892 did not refer to any sanitary defects in the building which required attention. No notice was then given of the required improvements until November, 1893, yet the grant had been withheld from September until January of the present year. The other case was that of the school at Christchurch, Hants. There the Government had suspended the grant because the scheme for certain alterations then considered necessary by the Department had not been submitted for their
      380
      approval, and so it might actually happen that the salaries which had been earned by the school teachers would have to be kept back because those alterations which had only been suggested had not been submitted for the approval of the Department. These grievances might be very small in actual monetary figures, but he could assure hon. Members that it was a very serious matter to many of those who were directly coucerned; and it was the more annoying because it was a difficulty which could be easily remedied by a little care. It was the business of the House to see that these stretches of Departmental authority should not be allowed to continue. Of course, there might be parallel cases among the teachers engaged in the Board schools. The Department had no more right to withhold these grants from the schools than that House would have a right to withhold the salary of a Minister who might have incurred a Vote of Censure after his year of Office was completed. This was not a matter which had been going on for any long period in the Department, and he felt certain that the House of Commons would censure such a practice. He thought the Department should watch more narrowly the tendency of their Inspectors to manufacture grievances. He had always been an advocate of having all schools, whether Board or voluntary, in a state of complete efficiency, but at the same time he thought the requirements of the Department were not always enforced in a reasonable way. The Inspectors sometimes imagined that it was as easy to provide a playground in a crowded town as it was in a country district, and they put upon the managers requirements which, if they were not impossible to carry out, could not be acted upon without the expenditure of a good deal of time. He hoped that an alteration would be made in this respect, so that the great work of education could be carried out with as little friction as possible.
      MR. ACLAND: With reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), I from time to time receive letters stating that there is a certain amount of pressure placed upon parents in order to induce them to give subscriptions as a substitute for the fees from

      381
      which they have been relieved by the Free Education Act. I always say in reply to these letters that some proof must be offered that undue pressure is placed upon children, and I do not recall for a moment any case in which tangible proof of such undue pressure has been given. Of course, parents are perfectly at liberty to pay subscriptions, and unless proof were offered that the children have really suffered in some way I should not be inclined to interfere. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Talbot), I was glad to see that the question he raised with reference to the grievances of schools respecting the requirements of the Department apply alike to voluntary and Board schools. I can assure him, although I know that a great many places in the country will not believe me, that what I do to secure the sanitary efficiency of schools applies to Nonconformist, Church, and Board schools alike. I do not see how people can imagine that the Department would wish to treat one class of school differently from another. If the Department gave instructions for differential treatment of different schools we should very soon find the carrying out of its work impossible. I am very glad, therefore, that I am not charged with treating one school differently from another. I would like to indicate to the hon. Gentleman what the conditions are upon which grants are made. If he will look at that part of the Code which is headed "Annual Grants—General Conditions" he will see that the Code makes these grants subject to certain conditions, and one of those conditions is that the Department must be satisfied that the school premises are healthy, properly constructed, warmed, and cleaned, and so forth. The grant is in a certain sense forfeited if these conditions are not fulfilled. That is the view the Department has always taken, and they ask for an undertaking that the conditions shall be fulfilled before they pay the grant, which, unless the conditions have been fulfilled, has not really become due. I think that position is entirely justified by the provisions of the Code. I am not familiar with the particular eases that have been mentioned, but I would like to say that we never hang up the grant if the undertaking is given. All we want is a reasonable
      382
      pledge, by plan or otherwise, that the requirements are going to be fulfilled, and as soon as we get that we pay the grant as promptly as we can. With reference to playgrounds, I fully recognise that in a great many urban districts—and I am very sorry for it—playgrounds are practically almost impossible. I have just received a Report from one of our best Inspectors, the Rev. G. W. Sharpe, in which he points out the enormous disadvantages which apply to schools that have no playgrounds. There are schools within a mile or two of this place where play grounds do not exist, and cannot exist. Although much has been said which is thoroughly hostile to what the Department has been trying to do in these matters, I think that, on the whole, although there may be exceptions where the Inspectors have insisted upon fads and not upon essentials, the managers have foreseen that these demands would come, and most of them have willingly risen to the occasion. In one of the last Reports received one of our Inspectors nays that he has been invariably received with courtesy and kindness, and that in almost every instance he has found the greatest willingness shown to comply with his requests for the remedying of defects.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he could quite understand that in the case of very grave sanitary defects there might be some reason why the Department should withhold the grant until the defect had been made good. When, however, as in the Christchurch case, the grant which had been earned was withheld because a demand was made for the erection of new buildings, he thought the Department were going too far and doing a great injustice to schools. The Department had no right to demand that the plans should be agreed upon before the grant was made. The Department very often made very unreasonable demands, which it was the duty of the managers to resist, and it continually happened that the demands made by the Inspectors were not supported by the head of the Department. He would like to bring another very serious grievance forward, and that was the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman which forbade charges to be made for books. The policy and intention of the

      383
      Act of 1891 was that the financial resources of the schools as they then existed should not be interfered with. One mode of raising money was by fees; another was by contributions in regard to books used. The probability was that whenever there were contributions in respect of books the fees were lower. The charges were practically the same. Immediately after the passing of the Act the Department under the government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Sir W. Hart-Dyke) issued a Circular in which they said that if a school accepted the fee grant its liberty to make a reasonable charge for books would not be interfered with. What was meant by "a reasonable charge for books"? It was possible that the right hon. Gentleman would say that what was meant was charges for the use of books only. They could not have meant that. Charges for the use of books, which, no doubt, were one of the forms in which charges were imposed by schools, had been ruled to be fees. If they were fees they were subject to all the restrictions in the Act of 1891—that was to say, they could not be raised beyond the figure of the determining year. The Department in their Circular said that reasonable charges should not be interfered with, and should not be restricted by the acceptance of the fee grant. If those "reasonable charges" were fees for the use of books, they would be fees, and would be rigidly restricted to the sum they stood at in the determining year. The Department asserted that reasonable charges, not to be interfered with by the acceptance of the fee grant, were not fees, and were to be distinguished from fees. The Department must admit that if, as they had often asserted, charges for the use of books were fees, the charges the Circular referred to were charges for the use of books only. Therefore, there must be other charges in respect of books. He maintained that there were general charges in respect of books, the ordinary form of which was the charge under which the child paid instalments, and, in the end, became the owner of the books altogether. He did not think that could be denied. Every one who read the Act of 1891 must see that the charges referred to in Section 3, which were implicitly permitted, could not have been fees
      384
      The Department must admit that the charges referred to in the Circular must be charges other than those for the use of books. There was no Article in the Code requiring managers to provide the books; and Article 78 of the Code provided that a child should not be refused admission to a school except for a reasonable cause. The Department were not the supreme judges of what was reasonable; and in a case which was brought into Court the Judge held, in regard to a child who had not brought the usual fee, that he had jurisdiction to decide whether this was or was not a reasonable cause for exclusion. The right hon. Gentleman was driving people to take cases before the Courts; and if he persisted in his course, he would find that the Department were not the supreme judges of what was reasonable, and the Department would find that a great deal of the powers they exercised would be taken away. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in his course of injustice, and begged him to look carefully into this matter, and to endeavour to be more reasonable in his treatment of voluntary schools.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he represented a borough which was the largest in the country having no School Board, and desired to make a few remarks respecting voluntary schools. Considerable pressure had been brought to bear on voluntary schools, and certain reforms had been made which it was thought necessary to be carried out. When those reforms had been carried out by the voluntary schools the right hon. Gentleman himself made certain provisions, and the result was that the schools were screwed up to such an extent that their finances could not possibly last much longer. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he made the same requirements in respect of all the schools.
      MR. ACLAND: What I said was that I made no difference between the various schools.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he was not drawing any distinction between the different kinds of voluntary schools. He was equally interested in them whether they were Church of England, or Roman Catholic, or Nonconformist schools. From a political point of view, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman

      385
      would persist in the course he was following, because in Lancashire there was no better recruiting officer for the Tory Party than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department. He admitted that every sanitary requirement of a school should be met; they did not complain of that. What they complained of was that they were not only asked to carry out necessary requirements, but to adopt fads of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. AGLAND: What fads? Give some instances.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, there was one case of a Roman Catholic school in Preston where the work was well done and a large grant earned, and through which he was taken by the priest, who told him that even before the requirements of the Department had been carried out the Inspector had spoken in the very highest terms of the school. This was a very poor school, as Roman Catholic schools generally were.
      MR. ACLAND: But can you refer to one of the fads?
      MR. HANBURYsaid, one fad was that in a sort of large hail a large number of hat pegs had to be put up for each child's hat and cloak.
      MR. ACLAND: You call that a fad?
      MR. HANBURYthought so. Looking at it he thought it was unnecessary. In any case, that was the complaint made. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he dealt fairly between the Board schools and the voluntary schools he must be aware that it was a question of finance that was at issue. The Board schools ought not to be used for the purpose of squeezing the voluntary schools out of existence. The pressure which was put upon the latter schools necessitated a large amount of extra expenditure which was not felt by the Board schools, because they could draw upon the rates. If the right hon. Gentleman continued the course he had adopted he would find out what would be the result in Lancashire.
      MR. ACLANDsaid, that hon. Members might rely upon it that so long as he occupied his present position he would do his best to see that schoolrooms were kept in a reasonably healthy condition. Nothing could be more unhealthy or more likely to conduce to infection than
      386
      piling children's clothes together in heaps; and it was only reasonable, therefore, to require that each child should have its own hat peg. The voluntary schools received among them some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 from the State, while the private subscriptions towards their maintenance only amounted to some £750,000. In these circumstances, he did not think that the pressure placed upon the managers to keep the schools in a healthy condition was unreasonable. Most of the complaints of the noble Lord opposite were based upon occurrences that had taken place before his accession to Office, hut he could assure him that he did his best to prevent injustice being done.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought he saw an opportunity of settling this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to use the powers of the Department to declare what charges were reasonable, it would amount to a settlement, because the charges would only be allowed where reasonable.
      MR. ACLANDsaid, these charges were included in the fees. The payment by parents for the use of books that finally became their own property was not in the nature of the payment of fees, but was made in virtue of an arrangement that was entered into between the parents and the managers of the schools. Was it possible to contend that any payment of that sort could be considered a fee? The Auditors and the Public Accounts Committee had very carefully considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that the contribution of parents could not come under the designation of a fee.
      SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to refer to the grant for Training Colleges. It so happened that he had that day attended meetings of the Councils of two of the most important—namely, St. John's, Battersea, and the Girls' Training College at Tottenham. He believed it was the general opinion that while, in consequence of changes in the Code, the period of two years was now for a short time to be limited to 18 months, the curriculum should remain the same, hut the examinations should be made somewhat less severe. That was the wish of the Councils of these Institutions, and he hoped his right hon Friend would give it some con-

      387
      sideration. The next point he wished to refer to was the statements made by the hon. Member for Preston. They who were the friends of voluntary schools agreed that they ought to be reasonably healthy, and they wanted to do all they could to meet these provisions of the Department. But there was such a thing as over-doing sanitary regulations. The requirements of the Department ought not to be vexatious or pedantic. There must be some discretion exercised by the Inspectors, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to rely entirely upon their ipse dixit. He saw a case reported in The Guardian newspaper the other day in which the Inspector had directed that the doors of a school should all be made to open outwards. It might be desirable that the doors of all public buildings in this country should be made to open outwards, but to arbitrarily make a regulation of that kind in respect to schools amounted almost to tyranny. The Police and Sanitary Committee had made a provision that in some towns all future buildings should be provided with doors opening outwards, but they had not gone so far as to say that the alteration must be made in the case of existing buildings. When experience showed that a school was, on the whole, in a good sanitary condition, pedantic insistence should not be laid upon slight technical defects. Infinite distress was caused by such demands.
      MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, he only rose for the purpose of emphasizing the statements which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, the more so because he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President had hardly appreciated the ground of their complaint. He would not go into the question as to whether the requirements made were reasonable or were only fads, but he did say that it was a hard thing in the case of a school which had started the year well, and earned its grant, that an Inspector should go down and say that unless further requirements were fulfilled the grant would be withheld. He did not hesitate to say that some restriction ought to be placed upon a proceeding of that kind. If the Department were to say, "We give notice that unless these requirements are fulfilled next year we shall not give the grant," then there
      388
      would be no complaint. [Mr. ACLAND: That is precisely what we do.] But he could give cases where the grant already earned had been withheld until the managers had promised to fulfil certain new requirements. The right hon. Gentleman might have made no distinction between the voluntary and the Board schools in this matter; but if, as he said, he did not wish to crush out voluntary schools, he could not appreciate the difference between the two cases. The managers of voluntary schools had no rates to go upon, and the School Boards had unlimited powers of borrowing and rating. He knew a case where, the grant having been withheld, the managers had to give their personal guarantee to the bank for an advance to pay the teacher's salary. These managers were doing excellent service to education; but if such responsibility were thrown upon them, many would withdraw their support from the voluntary schools altogether. He trusted that in future the right hon. Gentleman would see that new demands were not made upon managers without timely notice being given and full opportunity for obtaining reasonable modifications of those demands.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he desired to add his voice to those of his hon. Friends in urging upon the Vice President the desirability of showing a little more latitude in dealing with the requirements of voluntary schools, because there was no doubt that the feeling throughout the country was that he was dealing with voluntary schools in an exceptionally hard way. If in the way he had acted he had only been following the course of his predecessor he did not see how this impression could have got abroad. It was very hard for the managers of a school, which perhaps had been built but a few years since in accordance with the then requirements of the Department, to be suddenly confronted with further demands upon their resources. He knew of demands of that kind being suddenly made, such as for cloak- rooms, without allowing any adequate time to raise the necessary funds. The threat of withholding the grant made it all the more difficult to carry out the alterations which were demanded, and it must be borne in mind that the demand made might be one which the right hon.

      389
      Gentleman himself would not consider requisite. A demand was made, in the first instance, simply on the ipse dixit of the School Inspector, and it was frequently found that all that was required might be done at much less cost and in a much simpler way than was suggested by the Inspector. He (Mr. Tomlinson) contended that no grant ought to be withheld until the ease had been brought before the Vice President himself. He did not desire to affirm that the right hon. Gentleman acted with the intention of exceptionally harassing the voluntary schools, and he trusted it would be found, after the discussion that had now taken place, that the work of the Department would be carried out with greater care and less harshness.
      MR. W. SIDEBOTTOMsaid, he did not rise to prolong the Debate, but merely to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to some of the fads he challenged the hon. Member for Preston to name. He did not mean the fads of the right hon. Gentleman, but those of some of his subordinates. One of the fads alluded to was the cloak-rooms. In many cases they were not useful places, being three outside walls without any sufficient heating apparatus, so that when the children's clothes were hung up—if a wet day they were put on again after school in a more wet condition than when they were first taken off. Such places were certainly not proper places in which to place the clothing of children while the children were at work. Then it appeared to him to be a great fad to insist in a mixed school that there should be separate cloak-rooms for the boys and girls. To him this appeared to be wholly unnecessary in a mixed school. Then with regard to the lavatories in connection with the schools, as a rule they should be placed at a certain distance from the main building, which could be easily accomplished in country districts, though it would, he admitted, be more difficult in large towns and populous places. Another fad was that with regard to ventilation. He had been in many of the schools as a manager, and had found a fearful draught which, instead of being beneficial, had, in many cases, given the children severe colds. To the masters and mistresses it might not be an inconvenience; but to the children,
      390
      many of whom had to work in hot factories, it was very detrimental, and he thought that these were all fads that might well receive the attention of the Department, but he should not have mentioned them if it had not been for the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to name the fads.
      MR. ACLANDsaid, he had first to allude to the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell), who referred to the Training Colleges. He might say that he had had a letter from the head of the admirable College at Aberystwith asking him to arrange to meet a small body of principals and others interested in education to talk over some of the points alluded to. He could assure the hon. Member he took the greatest possible interest in all their Training Colleges, and would do his best to meet the views of those directly interested in these Institutions. The hon. Member added some words that had been re-echoed by the Member for Suffolk, by one of the Members for Preston, and the Member for Derbyshire who had just spoken, warning him against what was called the "fad" methods of trying to deal with the healthy condition of the schools. He might say that the ipse dixit of the Inspector alone was not the only thing that guided them in their action. He quite admitted that occasionally there were demands made which might not always be adapted to the particular case in view, particularly in connection with country schools, but the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. W. Sidebottom) would agree with him that in many of the towns they could hardly be too careful in many of these matters. With reference to what the Member for Suffolk said, he agreed with him that in the main what they wanted was to give fair warning of these demands; but he might say that where they acted most stringently was, as a rule, where their warnings had been neglected. There were many schools where the 12 months' warning produced no effect whatever. When nothing was done the hon. Member would agree with him that they must use the only power they had—that of postponing the grant. But he assured the hon. Member he would have this particular question of postponing the grant carefully looked into. He was also glad to say that he agreed with the noble

      391
      Lord the Member for Rochester (Lord Cranborne), and these cases would now be in the quarterly list. He had now dealt in the main with all the questions put to him.
      Vote agreed to.
      9. £16,000, Supplementary, Science and Art Department, agreed to.

      CLASS V.
      10. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
      DR. CLARKsaid, he thought the Government ought to have given them the Report on the Uganda Commission so that they could have had the Debate on this Vote now. For some reason or other the Government were concealing it, but he understood that a pledge had been given, and if that was carried out they would have a full day given to them after Easter to discuss the question. He would not discuss the question that night, but would vote against it. A number of them had changed their position since the Vote was last before them, but he hoped they had not changed their minds. He did not intend to discuss any of the points until he saw the proposal made, but he might say a word or two from the economist's standpoint. Here there was an increase of about 60 per cent. The Government having given them a free hand they had been very free with the money, and the Treasury had allowed them to do as they pleased. He did not think the present Government were responsible for the two African Companies, but they were as favourable to them as their predecessors, and made things as easy as they could at the expense of the British taxpayer. On the ground that the money was not wanted and ought never to have been spent he should vole against it.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he understood they were to have a night to discuss this question later on; therefore, he agreed they should not to-night take up the time of the Committee in discussing this Vote, but there was a matter connected with it which he did not understand. When the £12,000 was voted
      392
      last Session it was an honourable understanding, he thought, that it was to cover the whole of the expenditure for this financial year—that it was the whole expenditure they would be put to until they got the Report and had an opportunity of discussing the matter in the House. They now found, however, that the amount was to be increased by £27,500, altogether making very nearly £40,000 preliminary expenses, instead of the £12,000 they understood was to cover the inquiry. He dared say they would be told it also covered other expenses in connection with Uganda, but they were expenses which had nothing to do with the question for which the taxpayers had to pay; and when they were told the whole expense would only be £12,000, it showed it was a very bad way of estimating the cost, and a most objectionable system of dealing with public money. They ought to have had some better explanation when they debated this matter 12 months ago; they ought to have been told they were going to buy a lot of stores of which they knew nothing, not even what they were at the present moment. There were many ways in this country by which the money might be spent more satisfactorily. There were all sorts of demands from the working classes and the agricultural classes. They refused to grant them money at a low rate of interest, but they could take the taxpayers' money and spend it for the benefit of these Chartered Companies. That was where the matter hinged. This was got up by a Chartered Company; they were drawn into it and asked to buy their stores, and take over matters in connection with their Company. All that was wrong. If the taxpayers of this country could afford to throw away their money by £40,000 at a time surely it would be better and wiser to give it to the poor people of this country—to give it by way of assisting the people of this country to better their condition. he must complain that they had not had the Report yet, though it had been in this country for some months. He did not know whether there was any disagreement over the matter; but if there was, he hoped the Jingo spirit of the Government had not been successful. The new Prime Minister was understood to be in favour of a spirited foreign policy. In such a

      393
      policy he warned him that he would not he supported by the Radical Party in this House and their supporters throughout the country. They did not want a spirited foreign policy. They did not want to holster up the British East Africa Company, and like companies. It was bad enough that these companies should plunder and rob this country through their share lists, but they might fairly object that public money should also be got hold of for the benefit directly or indirectly of these plundering companies. That was very strong language, and if he could find stronger language in regard to these companies he should be glad to use it. Nothing could be worse than these companies, from the Liberator downwards; they were all pretty much on a level. He thought the Government had acted very unwisely in committing them to this large expenditure without first asking their consent. Their consent ought to be obtained before the money was spent, and not afterwards, because it was all nonsense to say they had any proper control over the money after it was spent, and that was another reason why he objected to this Vote. He had not gone into the Uganda Question, as he believed they were to have an opportunity later on to discuss it; but if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should vote with him, for the purpose of protesting against this very bad system.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken of the East, Africa Company as a plundering company. He was afraid the hon. Member had not given much attention to the recent negotiations that had been going on between the Government and the company, otherwise he might have thought the epithet should have been applied to the other party, and not to the company. The hon. Member objected to pay for stores he had not an opportunity of examining. He was sure the Government and the whole House would be ready to give the hon. Member the opportunity of examining those stores if he would go to Uganda for that purpose. But he did not rise to oppose this Vote in any way. Last year when this Vote was brought forward the Opposition
      394
      stated they did not consider it in the least necessary to send Sir Gerald Portal to make the inquiry in Uganda; but as the Government decided upon that course of action the Opposition did not feel called on to dissent from it, in view of the expression of the Government that they had not sufficient information before them. As this Vote is in connection with the expenses of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, it would be the duty of the Opposition on this occasion, as on recent occasions, to support the Government against their own followers.
      MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, that all he desired to do was to warn the Government that in the event of their deciding on the policy of evacuating Uganda the Anti-Slavery Society, and those who took an interest in the diminution of slavery, would deem it their duty probably to oppose the Government, as they believed the policy of evacuation would encourage the Slave Trade. And if the Government proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the Sultan of Zanzibar over the district of Uganda the Anti-Slavery Society would also feel disposed to take a similar course, because it would be placing the Uganda district under the operation of Mahomedan law, and denying the right of protection to those inhabiting a British Protectorate.
      MR. LABOUCHEREdesired to say, in reference to the remarks of the last speaker, that if the Government did insist upon taking over Uganda there were several gentlemen who felt as strongly against slavery as his hon. Friend who would feel it their duty to oppose the action of the Government. Their views were so very ably and exhaustively stated by the right hon. Gentlemen who were now sitting on the Treasury Bench when they sat on the Opposition Bench a few years ago that it was unnecessary to re-state them. He believed that the Government had taken the Soudanese into their pay, and a good deal of this money had gone for the Soudanese who were acting as the British Guard. He had strongly opposed the expedition to Uganda. He thought it was a waste of money, and he was sorry they ever went there at all. The thing, however, had been done; and the British Flag having been raised there, if it was absolutely necessary that some action

      395
      should be taken, he did hope that we should not assume all responsibility there, but that we should hand over Uganda to the Zanzibar Protectorate, which came, in a secondary way, under our Protectorate, at the same time taking care that we did not increase in any sort of way the slavery that existed in that country. He thought, indeed, they ought to go further, and, having established a Zanzibar Protectorate, ought to do something with a view to lessening the amount of slavery which existed there. He did not know why they had not vet got Sir Gerald Portal's Report, because it was impossible to discuss the whole ease until they had such Report.
      SIR R. TEMPLEdesired to express his sympathy with the warning addressed to the Government by the hon. Member for Darlington. He would like to add to that warning what he feared would not have the sympathy of the hon. Member for Northampton, and that was that if Uganda should be evacuated there would be the greatest anxiety amongst that important class of their countrymen who were interested in Protestant missions. These religious missions were supported by a very influential body of opinion and amongst some of the very best classes of the British population. He spoke with confidence when he said that these Missionary Organisations regarded with great anxiety the decision at which Her Majesty's Government might arrive with reference to this important territory. Need he recall to the recollection of the Government the powerful agitation which was set on foot two years ago largely at the instance of those meritorious Organisations? He did not doubt that if a halting or retrograde policy were adopted by the Government now there might be a renewal of that agitation. Considering the great confidence that was expressed in the administration of the Foreign Department at that time, and considering that the noble Lord who was then Foreign Minister was now the head of the Government, they naturally felt great hope in his future conduct of affairs in this as in all other portions of the British Empire. He would venture to add another warning, and it was this—if there should be anything like an evacuation of Uganda, would not the
      396
      door be opened to some Foreign Power to enter there? ["Yes!"] If that was to be the case, then there would be a great agitation among all those who were interested in the defence of the Empire, and to whom Imperial interests were dear. As for making this territory over to Zanzibar, that would be a step greatly for the worse. That would induce a fresh Mahomedan complication. Already one of the difficulties there was the existence of large sections of the Mahomedan religion, and with that particular religion there arose the dissensions of the various denominations. What with the existing trouble with the Mahomedans, what with the complications of the Soudanese, many of whom were Mahomedans, and the introduction of a Mahomedan Power on the shores of the Great Lakes, there would be a political complication of a very extraordinary character, perfectly gratuitous, answering no practical or political purpose, and apparently adopted for no other reason but the hesitation to assume that responsibility which belonged to England. If there was to be peace kept between the various contending religious sects; if there was to be that harmony which ought to exist between them, such a happy situation of affairs could best be secured by the presence of British officers under the control, at all events, of a British superior. A British Commissioner or Plenipotentiary would be far more conducive to the peace of Uganda than any Mahomedan Power, including that of the Sultan of Zanzibar.
      COLONEL NOLANdesired to know what was to be the position of the Catholics, who were getting on vary well and had a moderate amount of arms, with which they did not kill anybody, when British officers went there and the Catholics were deprived of their arms? He believed they had been fairly treated since the arrival of Sir Gerald Portal; but their arms had not been restored to them, and if they wore left there unarmed and unprotected they would be at the mercy of Mahomedans, who had imbibed as much of the Koran as told them to kill anybody who stood in their way. If the Government were going to leave Uganda, in what position were they going to leave the Catholics? They had taken from them their arms, and left them ex-

      397
      posed to the Mussulmen, who had been brought down from all sides.
      MR. BYLES ()said, he understood from the earlier speeches that it was not intended to go into the question of the occupation of Uganda. He rose now to say he felt it his duty to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness on this question, because he thought it was hard to bring one's mind to sanctioning the spending of money for what was going on in Uganda. He wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the last two speeches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston rose to defend the Protestant religionists in that territory and to claim English protection and interference on their account; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had asked for the same protection for his Catholic co-religionists. The argument appeared to be that because these respective sects of Christians, both of whom were aiming at occupying the same paradise and arriving there by pretty much the same means, could not agree with one another, that they must have English officers and guns to keep the peace between them. This was, to him, an additional reason why the gospel of war and of occupation should not be preached to these quarrelling Christians. One was tempted to exclaim, "See how these Christians love one another!"
      SIR R. TEMPLEdesired to say that nothing was further from his intention, and he was sure from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, than to say they wanted to obtain protection to prevent Christians killing one another. It was to protect Christians of all denominations from the native tribes, whether Mahome-dan or native.
      MR. LAWRENCEthought the moral to be drawn from this Debate was that the extraordinary delay of the Government was altogether most disastrous. For many a, long year the matter had been before them, for many a long month the matter had been very closely brought home to Her Majesty's Ministers. He did not think there was any real occasion to send Sir Gerald Portal for information. They had all the facts necessary. The House had been promised a Debate after Easter, and he hoped it would not be de-
      398
      layed. If the hon. Member for Caithness had had a little more time to consider the exact facts he would not have spoken so hardly of the operations of the East Africa Company.
      DR. CLARKsaid, they could not know the exact facts until they saw Sir Gerald Portal's Report.
      MR. LAWRENCEwas surprised that the hon. Member should have criticised a company when he knew so very little of it. It would be very hard upon the company and on the people who lived in the district and had done so much to advance it if the Debate were postponed until near Whitsuntide, and he hoped, therefore, that it would be soon after Easter. The interests of individuals living in the district were seriously jeopardised; and so were the interests of this country. He had just heard that the King of the Belgians had established a station in the Nile Valley, and he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information how far foreign nations were trespassing on our sphere of action and were doing a great deal to prejudice the future of a country that they had taken under their protection?
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he could not imagine a more unjust and outrageous attack than that which the hon. Member for Shipley had just made on the efforts of the East Africa Company and those who had done such good work in Uganda. It was well-known (hat Captain Lugard, and others who represented the interests of civilisation and of order in that country, had succeeded not in promoting war and strife, as the hon. Member implied, but in preventing war, and in largely putting an end to those slave raids which had indicted such injury and ruin on that part of Africa. This was a very grave question of the future. Many grave questions, which were not apparent to the hon. Member, were raised by the fate of Uganda. At this moment in the North of Africa British influence, British administration, and British civilisation were predominant in Egypt. In the South likewise the influence of the British power was extending rapidly northwards. Already it, reached from Cape Town to the Zambesi, and even north of that

      399
      river, over Nyassaland. Comparatively small districts now intervened between the regions in the North and in the South which already were under British power and civilisation. Other nations, as they knew, were making great efforts to obtain control of the upper regions of the Nile just North of Uganda, and to interpose between the advancing forces of Great Britain. The French and Belgians both were at this moment sending strong expeditions into the Equatorial Provinces of the Soudan. An opportunity now offered for the extension and development of British influence and commerce in those regions, which was probably without parallel in the history of Africa. If this critical opportunity were not lost, we might very soon learn with pride that the whole vast region from Alexandria to Cape Town was under British hegemony. Any Member of this House who from pseudo-humanitarian motives would compel the natives of Uganda to continue in the internecine conflicts in which they had been engaged for so many years, and would prevent British influence and power from restoring order, and peace, and civilisation to those regions, and who would also close those regions which offered great openings to our stagnating commerce, was not only doing his utmost to deal a blow to the true interests of civilisation, but also doing his utmost to injure the commercial prosperity of his country. He (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) had no intention of speaking on this subject; but when he heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Shipley, evidently influenced by that malevolent pseudo-humanitarianism which was too common among gentlemen of his political persuasion, he felt bound to intervene with these few words. He trusted that the Government, in the settlement of Uganda, would bear in mind the great issues that were at stake. He trusted that they would look at this question not only from the point of view of the East Africa Company—a Company with which he had no interest whatever—or from that of the missionaries—English, and Scotch, and Roman Catholic, who had done a noble work in those regions—but that they would especially boar in mind the splendid Imperial interests now involved, and realise how important it was that British influence and power should not
      400
      now be withdrawn from this great and commanding position.
      SIR J. LENGsaid, he trusted the views of the hon. Member for Caithness would not be regarded as representing the views of the general body of Liberal Members, or more particularly of the Liberal Members for Scotland. If there was one part of the country more than another which had expressed a strong interest with regard to our maintaining the position in which we found ourselves in Uganda he thought it was Scotland. Captain Lugard nowhere had larger or more enthusiastic meetings than those which were held in the large commercial centres of that country. Not only so, but those meetings were attended by many earnest religious people—supporters of our great Missionary Institutions, who, by their expressions at those meetings, indicated that they considered any retreat from the position that the Government had taken up there would be not only a great blow to civilisation, but also to the advancement of our common Christianity. He understood that this Vote was simply to meet the expenses which arose in maintaining our position in Uganda. Inquiries had been made into the question by request of Her Majesty's Government, to enable them to come to a decision. The country at one time was in a state of anarchy. Wars were going on between the native tribes, and unless the interference that did take place had taken place, the results would have been most disastrous. He hoped there would not be, on the Liberal side of the House more particularly, a disposition on such an occasion as this to place the worst construction upon the actions of our own countrymen, and, as far as possible, to diminish our influence on that great Continent. They should have some regard to the manner in which our Empire had been made. It had not been made by a succession of retreats. The motto of Englishmen and Scotchmen everywhere had been "Forward." It should be so still. He, for one, was not for hauling down the British flag-wherever it had been properly hoisted. There was a great difference between mere Jingoism and true Constitutional views of the progress of our country and of our Empire; and it would be a disastrous

      401
      day for the Liberal Party if they forgot that it was a Party which in the past had identified itself with our Imperial progress. He, for one, had felt it his duty to enter his protest against what was the inclination of a small section of the Liberal Party, as he thought, to lower its position in the face of the country.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I certainly did not expect that so many points would have been raised in the course of this Debate, and I have no intention of in any way anticipating what the decision of the Government as to the future of Uganda is going to be. We have promised the House already more than once that this decision will be announced soon after Easter, and that we will afford every facility for a full discussion of that decision. I see from the present Debate that the Government have been very fairly and freely warned that whatever their decision may be, whether it be to stay or to leave the country, they must expect determined opposition from one quarter of the House or another. I do not know that this is a new incident for any Government. I think I can understand very well the reason why some Members should have expressed disappointment that Sir Gerald Portal's Report has not yet, been presented. But I should like to point out that unforeseen circumstances have occurred which have delayed the presentation of Sir Gerald Portal's Report. Sir Gerald Portal on his way to England revised his Report very adequately and completely, and it-was not received by the Government until a comparatively late dale. The Government then naturally felt that before making up their minds it would be an immense advantage to them to have the opportunity of close personal communication with Sir Gerald Portal himself. The House knows very well the sad circumstance that has taken place. Sir Gerald Portal's death has not only been a loss to the House and to the Government so far as this particular question is concerned, but his death is a distinct loss to the country as regards much future public service. But though the Report has been delayed, the delay has entailed no loss to the country. The
      402
      Government announced last year that they intended to maintain, pending the presentation of the Report, the then existing condition of affairs in Uganda, so that it might be possible either to take over the country or leave it. That freedom of choice has been kept perfectly open. Therefore, although the announcement of the decision may have been delayed, so far as the interests of this country in Uganda are concerned, they have been preserved at the present time as fully as they were a year ago, and the choice of hon. Members as regard their vote will be just as free throe or four weeks hence as it is at the present time, or as it would have been a year ago. The Government have instituted a policy of inquiry; and with regard to the policy of inquiry, some hon. Members on the other side of the House say they consider no inquiry is necessary. The hon. Member for Liverpool said so, and he was cheered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. Why did the hon. Member for Liverpool say that he considered no inquiry was necessary?
      MR. LAWRENCE: I stated that the facts were perfectly known on which a policy could be framed.
      SIR E. GREY: Yes; but the conclusion the hon. Member would have drawn from the facts is that the country should be retained; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean would have drawn the conclusion that it should not be retained. Surely that is a complete justification of the policy of inquiry. The hon. Member for Peterborough complained that the Government did not keep the pledge they gave when they took the Vote of £12,000 about a year ago. Put the Government never pledged themselves to come to a decision about Uganda in the course of a year or in any time short of a year. All they promised was that as soon as the inquiry was completed a decision should be come to, and until that inquiry is completed the future of Uganda shall not be pledged.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: Does this Vote go beyond the present financial year?
      SIR E. GREY: The Vote does not go beyond the present financial year. The hon. Member also thinks the expense has

      403
      been too great. He complained that we ought not to have taken over a lot of stores from the East Africa Company. The Government did not take over the stores because it benefited the East Africa Company, but because these stores were necessary for the Mission they had sent to the country. Surely the hon. Member would not have the Government reject these stores which were on the spot simply because they belonged to the company, and send for a brand-new lot.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: The hon. Baronet ought to have told us that he would want this extra money when he asked for the £12,000.
      SIR E. GREY: The Government could not possibly tell how long it would take to complete the inquiry and to investigate all the circumstances of the case. No pledge as to a limit of time was given last year. The hon. Member for Northampton remarked upon the fact that part of the money had been paid to the Soudanese in the country. The Soudanese were not brought into the country by Sir Gerald Portal; they were there before his Mission arrived. Here was a largo body of men in the country who could be employed to maintain the British position there during the temporary occupation necessary for the inquiry. They were the very men for the purpose in many ways, and, being on the spot, they were to be had cheaply. It was only reasonable, therefore, that if any people were to be paid to support the Mission in Uganda these Soudanese were the most-suitable. If these Soudanese had not been taken over there would have been turned loose in the middle of Africa an armed baud of men, excellent under discipline, but very formidable without discipline. It would be impossible to say what the conduct of those men would have been. They would have been a danger in any part of the country. At present the men are kept under control: and, if their services are no longer needed, they are now gathered together in one place and can be turned over to other employers, no one being the worse. As to the question of the Catholics, which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way, of course there is no need to say that as long as the present Government exercises any influence in Uganda they
      404
      will take care that it is exercised most impartially between the different Religious Bodies. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway admitted that since Sir Gerald Portal went to the country the Catholics have had no reason to complain of any unfair treatment. But he said that they had been left without any arms in their hands. To a great extent it is very desirable that masses of natives in Africa should be without arms; and I have no reason to suppose that the Catholic body was less well armed than their neighbours the Protestant body.
      COLONEL NOLAN: What are they to do against these Soudanese, whom the hon. Baronet says would be a danger if the British influence was withdrawn?
      SIR E. GREY: That will be a most appropriate question to raise when the future of Uganda is decided by the Government. The Government have pledged themselves that the present condition of things shall be maintained until their decision is announced, and on that occasion the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member can be discussed. With respect to the warnings given on behalf of the Anti-Slavery Society, they will be borne in mind. I think it a little unfair for the hon. Member for Peterborough to found upon the action of the Government in regard to this policy of inquiry a charge of indulging in a spirited foreign policy. When the Government came into Office they naturally knew nothing about Uganda. They had to go for any information about the country to the Reports of people who had been on the spot, and everyone who had been on the spot told them that if Uganda were abandoned it would become the centre of the Slave Trade, that massacres would follow between sections of the natives, and that then the Mahomedans would probably fall upon the survivors. They were further told that great possibilities of future trade would be lost to this country if Uganda were abandoned. Before the Report of Sir Gerald Portal is laid and before the decision of the Government is announced—I am not going to say anything as to how far those apprehensions were well founded or not, but that was the information that was given to the Government when they came into Office by everyone who had been on the spot. We had no means of disproving that at

      405
      the time, and we were bound—and it was the very least that we could do—before we left the country to send some responsible man on behalf of the Government to inquire into the condition of things in Uganda and see whether these apprehensions were well founded or not. Surely it was hardly fair to say that this rendered the Government liable to a charge of indulging in a spirited or perhaps a Jingo policy. The Government in sending this Mission of inquiry kept their word to both sides of the Mouse, both to those who were in favour of staying in Uganda and those who wished to withdraw, and I can assure the Committee that the Government is most anxious that there shall be no further delay in announcing their decision and having a discussion in the House, which shall settle—I hope for many years to come—perhaps for ever, what the future of Uganda is to be.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 9.—(Division List, No. 6.)
      11. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,567, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for sundry Colonial Services and certain Charges connected with South Africa."
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he observed that, we paid to High Commissioners travelling and other expenses. He wished to know whether the salary of the High Commissioner was paid by the Cape Government or by the Imperial Government, as there was no mention of salary in the Vote? If the Cape Government paid the salary and the Imperial Government the expenses, it was an anomalous position. He thought the salary ought to be paid by the Imperial Government.
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, the salary of the High Commissioner was paid from three sources: £5,000 from the Cape Government, £3,000 as High Commissioner, and £1,000 from Imperial funds, making £9,000 in all, which he thought, under the circumstances, was a living wage.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Dundee was a little hard on the Liberal Government, for,
      406
      from his point of view, the Liberal Government was not sufficiently Jingo. Whatever it might be elsewhere, in Africa it was persistently Jingo. They, who were opposed to! all this annexation and massacre of black people, were less anxious when a Conservative Government were in than when a Liberal Government were in. He supposed the reason was that the Conservative Government did not want the whole Opposition or the Front Bench attacking them for their policy, and, therefore they did not encourage these enterprises in Africa. But when a Liberal Government, were in they encouraged these enterprises, knowing that they had the whole of the Conservative Opposition to support them, with a certain number of their own Party. Having a quiet time at home, they offered up on the altar of their happiness a certain number of African blacks. In this sum there was an item for the Bechuanaland Police Force. He did not intend to go into everything that had taken place in Matabeleland. He had already expressed his views on that subject, and would now only refer to two points to show why he was opposed to this particular Vote. The origin of this war was that the Chartered Company, finding' themselves almost ruined by Mashonaland, of which they had possession, determined to obtain the neighbouring country, which they thought was rich, or thought they would be able to persuade people was rich, and thereby obtain their money. Of course, a pretext was necessary. Therefore, Lobengula was asked to come into Mashonaland to chastise certain of his Mashonaland subjects. This Lobengula did, and did very cruelly no doubt, being a savage. The officers of the Chartered Company then told the men that they must clear out of Mashonaland within an hour, and within three hours they pursued them, killing and wounding a large number. Upon this Lobengula complained of the action of the company, and the company complained of the action of Lobengula, saying that he intended to return to Mashona with a large force. Lobengula wrote to the High Commissioner, and did all he could in order to convince the company that he did not desire to engage in war lint, of course, the object of the company was to seize Matabele-

      407
      land in order to restore their damaged finances, and so the war was forced on. This war was waged with great cruelty. The Chartered Company had a number of Maxim guns, and the Matabele being very bravo advanced on these guns and were mowed down. he had often asked about the wounded, mainly for the reason that he found in a telegraph Despatch from Mr. Rhodes that the killed and wounded numbered 3,000, of which2,000 wore wounded; and that over 30 wounded were brought into Buluwayo. They had been told that the wounded Matabele were carried away by their friends, but that was absolutely impossible. Out of 4,000 Matabele, 1,000 were killed, 2,000 were wounded, and 1,000 were neither killed nor wounded; and they were asked to believe that the 2,000 wounded were carried away by the 1,000 who were neither killed nor wounded from under the fire of the Maxim guns.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTdissented.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Gentleman, as usual, knew nothing of the subject. His whole stock-in-trade consisted of general, vague abuse of everyone on the Ministerial side and the waving of the British flag, although he believed the hon. Gentleman was an American, not an English citizen. ["Ob, oh!" and "Order, order!"] Well, he did not like these Americans. He contended that the war was cruelly waged. Lobengula sent two Envoys to Mr. Dawson, and they were killed by "an unfortunate accident," as it was called. He was bound to say that the war was carried on in a manner altogether inconsistent with the rules of civilised warfare—even against blacks. No doubt there were honourable men in the company's forces. There were always a number of honourable men who for the love of adventure more than anything else were ever ready to accompany these expeditions. But these did not represent the mass of the company's forces. The terms of service of some of the forces of the Chartered Company was that they should receive a certain portion of land, a number of mining claims, and a certain share of loot—the word "loot" was actually used in the agreement. He challenged anyone acquainted with military matters to say that those were
      408
      the sort of men who should be properly enlisted to serve in conjunction with Imperial forces. He called them, as he had always called them, filibusters and desperadoes, who only went there with the object of obtaining loot and land and destroying the proprietors of the soil. The military kraals of the Matabele were burnt, and at last the company's forces arrived at Buluwayo, and, so far as he understood, the whole country had been seized. Lobengula and many of his men had been driven into the jungle or swamps, where they had died of starvation or small-pox. Surely it was reasonable that some few Members in that House should protest against any forces of the Imperial Government engaging in war for the sake of a company. After all, a company was only a collection of individuals. The question was, what was the action of the Government in this matter? They recognised the war on the part of the Chartered Company, and ordered Sir Henry Loch, he believed, to direct the Bechuanaland Police Force to be strengthened in order to join in the attack on Lobengula. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that they were informed that the Bechuanaland Police bad been fired on by certain of the Matabele, and that this was the reason for the war. That did not appear in the Blue Books. He had looked through them and had failed to find anything about it. It appeared to him that the allegation was dismissed when it had served its turn.
      MR. S. BUXTON: It is in the earlier Blue Book.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that oven if it was in an earlier Blue Book what did it amount to? No attempt was made to inquire into the matter. Lobengula was not asked to give up the men who had fired on the company's forces, but war was declared against the Matabele. One of the reasons given in the Blue Book why the Bechuanaland Police wore reinforced and ordered to advance to the frontier was on account of a fear which was stated to exist lest liquor should be introduced into Khama's country. Well, Matabeleland having been conquered, the question was, to whom did it belong? On what grounds could it be contended that this country, which was as large as France, had become the pro-

      409
      perty of the Chartered Company? The Solicitor General gave it as his opinion that no Chartered Company could acquire by conquest property which had been brought under the British flag. The hon. and learned Gentleman laughed at the idea that it could become the property of the company. If individuals acquired territory by conquest, it became the property of the country of which those individuals wore subjects. Then his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies fell back on certain concessions. He (Mr. Labouchere) inquired about those, too. He had asked the Solicitor General if the case had been put before him, and he had said that it had not, and that, therefore, he could not answer it. He had asked the Under Secretary if he would put it to the Solicitor General, and his hon. Friend declined to stale a case, probably because there was no case to put. The Colonial Office appeared to the in the position of being obliged to accept every trumped-up statement put before it by the Chartered Company. In regard to the mining concession, not in the name of the Queen, but the Queen herself wrote to King Lobengula stating that if he would agree to the concession—which he subsequently said he had been cheated out of—she would pledge her word that he should in no sort of way be damnified thereby, and that the persons enjoying the concessions should not exercise any jurisdiction over his subjects, and that the former should only dig for gold where he permitted them to dig. Surely the Government were bound to support and respect the pledge of the Queen, and to step forward, not to help the company, but to defend Lobengula. The Under Secretary said that these matters concerned the late Government, but he should think that if any policy ought to be continuous it ought to be one which was based upon the pledged word of the Queen. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Fer-gusson) would have bounded into the air with indignation if it were suggested to him that the pledges embodied in the Queen's word given under a Tory Government were to be thrown aside when a Liberal Government came into power. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, would look at the questions put
      410
      in the House and the answers returned, he would find that there had boon no continuity of policy. None of the concessions gave the right to acquire land, but that which this Chartered Company possessed under the Treaty with Lobengula in cases where they were mining by the permission of the King. There they were allowed to take land, but nowhere else. But it seemed to the company more simple to go and take the land. It was never intended that the company wore to compel the Native Chiefs to make concessions of land to them under duress. Beading through the Blue Book it seemed to him that the Colonial Office were terrified by Mr. Rhodes. They wrote to the company saying that they should do so-and-so. Mr. Rhodes laughed at them, and then they backed out. What value had the company put upon the land which they had acquired through these forced concessions? At a meeting of the shareholders of the company that was held in London the shareholders voted £1,000,000 worth of shares to Mr. Rhodes and his fellow-promoters, whilst they voted £1,500,000 to themselves in the way of bonus. Even presuming that the view of the Government with regard to the rights of the company to obtain this land was well founded, why in the name of wonder should the taxpayers of this country be called upon to pay this sum of £80,000 in order to enable the company to enter upon this land, which they described as flowing with milk and honey and teeming with gold, when the company themselves wore voting away millions? The company were well able to pay it themselves; and if it were advanced at all, why was it not advanced as a loan, and made a charge upon the company's funds? He therefore moved to reduce the Vote by £80,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That Item Q, of £S0,000 (Bechuanaland Grant in Aid), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,)said, that the hon. Member for Northampton had just made a speech of a very different nature from that which he had made when the subject came up before, because he had now dealt with the matter rather

      411
      from a practical point of view and with less of those personal attacks upon the Company which he would not say graced his former speeches. He would not go over again the whole question as to the origin of the war, nor into the question as 1o the way in which the operations had been conducted. The Committee were perfectly well aware that the view taken by Her Majesty's Government in relation to this matter did not agree with that of the hon. Member; and, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member, he could only repeat what he had already had occasion to state as clearly as he could. He had already stated that, so far as he could judge, and in the opinion of the Government, the war had not been provoked by the Company: further, that, as a matter of fact—though very probably at some time or other the Company might have come into conflict with Lobengula—as regarded last autumn, at all events, the war was to the Company very unwelcome and unexpected. And all he could say was that the information that had reached him since he made that statement confirmed its accuracy. The war was very inconvenient at the time to the Company; and he was convinced that the only desire of the Company was to live in peace with Lobengula, and to endeavour to develop Mashonaland, before any extension was made into Matabeleland. He did not deny that at some time or other it was likely that the Company would have extended their operations into Matabeleland. With regard to the way in which the war was conducted, the hon. Member had said that it had been marked by great brutality. Well, he had endeavoured to obtain every possible scrap of information, anonymous and otherwise, and he said, speaking with a full sense of responsibility, that, broadly speaking, the operations were conducted with humanity and propriety. He did not say that there might not have been isolated cases of barbarity and inhumanity. Unfortunately, war was brutal and brutalising, and the incidents of no war would bear a microscopical examination; but he believed that these hostilities would compare favourably in that matter with any other of our native wars. He asserted, at all events, that the leaders of these operations—those who were responsible
      412
      for them—did desire, having no hostility to the Matabele as such, while carrying out the operations successfully, to do as little harm and hurt to the Matabele as was possible under the circumstances. As regarded the question of the wounded, his hon. Friend appeared to know exactly how many wounded there ought to have been——
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Excuse me; I cited a telegraphic Despatch from Mr. Rhodes himself.
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, that that particular telegram he had never been able to see. Perhaps in the excitement of the moment; there was exaggeration in Mr. Rhodes's estimate. But, however that might be, it was quite clear from the accounts received that the number of killed and wounded did not approach anything like the 3,000 mentioned by his hon. Friend; indeed, the official information showed that it did not reach half that number. Further, the fighting was in no respect of the nature described. The greater part of the fighting was mainly in the bush and at longish range, and the Matabele had ample opportunity of carrying off their wounded, while those left on the field received, he fully believed, succour and help from the Company's troops, so far as their limited means permitted—and their means were very limited. he did not wish to go further into the question, because the hon. Member had only raised it incidentally, but he thought it only just, from all the information he had been able to obtain, to say so much in regard to these two matters. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that as the Company were going to take possession of the country, the cost of the war ought to fall upon the shareholders. But the whole sum which the Government were now asking for was incurred for Imperial purposes, and to enable them to carry out their Imperial responsibilities. He did not think that anybody would deny that when difficulties arose between Lobengula and the Company it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take care that the lives and property of those within the territory for which the British Government was responsible should be protected. This expenditure for which the House was asked to provide was primarily for Imperial purposes, and only secondarily

      413
      for the benefit of the Company. To their success, when hostilities had begun, we could not. be indifferent. And he ventured to say that the presence and action of the Imperial force had effected a very material diversion, and had done much to ensure the success of the Company's columns. He could hardly think that his hon. Friend was serious in suggesting that the bill should be sent in to Mr. Rhodes. His hon. Friend said that if the Company obtained the country they ought to pay the cost. But they would take it over burdened with considerable administrative expenditure, for the Government would insist upon the introduction of a satisfactory system of administration and securities for the protection of the natives. Looking at the matter from the Imperial point of view, the British taxpayer would largely benefit. The great cost of Bechuanaland had arisen from the necessity of keeping up a large and expensive police force on the border, owing to the proximity of the warlike and restless Matabele, and in future the expenditure could be considerably reduced. One cause of expenditure had been the heavy cost of transport, and he hoped that, when the time came, the Government would have the support of his hon. Friend in the matter of the railway extension.
      MR. LABOUCHEREasked if the question of the railway would he submitted to the House?
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, the railway was still a matter of negotiation, hut the Government pledged themselves that nothing would be done to commit them until the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to it. There was only one further matter to which his hon. Friend had referred, and that was the question of the concessions. They discussed that on the last occasion at some considerable length, and the position which the Government had taken up in regard to that matter, and the position they were bound to take up, was that these concessions were recognised and confirmed by the late Government: they had been confirmed and acted upon for some years past, and they had really never been repudiated, but had been recognised by Lobengula himself. That being so, it would have been quite impossible for the Government, coming
      414
      in at the eleventh hour, to repudiate those concessions, even if they had wished to do so. As to the final disposal of Matabeleland itself, he had hoped before this Debate came on to have been in a position to lay the settlement before the House for their consideration. He regretted to say, however, that there had been unavoidable delays, and the Government had not been able to decide the matter finally in all its details so as to lay it before the House He would, however, state broadly what the proposals of the Government with reference to Matabeleland were. On going carefully into the matter they found that there were nominally two alternatives before them—namely, the creation of a Crown Colony on the one hand, or the utilisation of the existing machinery of the Charter on the other. Though there were, in his opinion, great advantages in the Crown Colony system over government by a Chartered Company, broadly speaking there was really no alternative before the Government. They had to utilise the existing state of things under the Charter, and they could not create a. Crown Colony in Matabeleland, because they found that the Charter did absolutely include Matabeleland as well as, and as much as, Mashonaland. It was the evident intention when the Charter was granted that the Company should at some future time administer Matabeleland as well as Mashonaland.
      DR. CLARK: But not steal it.
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, those districts had been administered under a regular form of government for some time, and, when the necessity arose—as it did arise after the war—of deciding under what form of government Matabeleland should be placed, it became in the view of the Government essential, in the circumstances, to extend the operations of administration under the Charter. Looking at the question all round that was the conclusion which the Government came to; and this certainly was the strong opinion in the colony itself. Though they ought not to accept colonial opinion if it was thought to be inconsistent with justice and right, they ought to take it favourably into account in considering such a question as this. Broadly speaking, the proposal

      415
      of the Government was this, and he wished to add that the Company had met the Government loyally in the matter. They proposed to supersede, both for Mashonaland and Matabololand, the old loose, experimental system of Government by an administration on a stronger and a more definite basis. There would be a Governing Body consisting of an Administrator, a Judge, and three Members of Council, who would have practically the power to administer both countries as one. The Administrator and Judge would be nominated by the Company, but appointed only with the direct assent of the Secretary of State, and the Judge would be irremovable, except by the Secretary of State. As to the natives, who were their chief care, their laws and their rights would be carefully preserved, while their material position would be dealt with by a Land Commission, consisting of three members, one the Judge, a second nominated by the Secretary of State, and the third by the Company. That Commission will report to the Secretary of State, and its decisions will be subject to revision at home. The first duty of that Commission will be to see that sufficient and suitable land is allotted to the natives, and that their agricultural and grazing requirements are fully complied with. Under these circumstances, the Government believed they would have a system of administration which would be of advantage to that part of South Africa, and wore clear in their minds that the rights and necessities of the natives would be fully met. Looking at the matter broadly, whatever might be thought of the hostilities, their causes, and the way in which they were carried through, there could be little doubt that the Matabele themselves, relieved of a cruel yoke and a grinding blood tax, would, with sufficient land, cattle, and water, be able to settle down peacefully, and would certainly be better off than before. With regard to the subsidiary tribes, the Mashonas and others would be relieved from what was to them a frightful tyranny, barbarity, and slavery, and they, too, would be far better off than before. He did not say that in justification of any war which might not in itself be just, but he contended that the war was not premeditated by the Company, and that
      416
      when undertaken it was carried through with skill, success, and humanity. He was sure that since the war the natives had been treated with the utmost possible consideration, and all the evidence in the possession of the Government went to show that the Company, so far as it had had direct dealings with the natives, had treated them with kindness and consideration. In defending the Vote, he would not put it on the ground that this was the smallest Vote ever proposed for a native war—some of them had cost millions, most of them hundreds of thousands of pounds—but would merely say that the operations had been conducted skilfully and economically, and the upshot would be to the benefit of the Europeans and no loss of the natives themselves.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTremarked that after the satisfactory speech of the Under Secretary he should not have troubled the House with any observations but for the fact that the Member for Northampton, in the course of his speech, saw fit to make what he thought he was justified in describing as a gross personal attack upon himself. The attack was altogether unworthy of notice, and he should only notice it because these statements, if not contradicted, undoubtedly tended to create prejudice against the person who was attacked. He would only say this to the Committee—that his ancestors were entirely English, that he had a legal claim to be a British subject, and that he was a British subject.
      MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am loth to interrupt the hon. Member. What he says is true, that an attack was made upon him, and I was on the point of rising to call the hon. Member for Northampton to Order when he made that attack. It would be undesirable to continue the subject, and it would certainly be out of Order.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I withdraw it with pleasure.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTshould say nothing more as to that matter, having said all he wished to say. The hon. Gentleman in his statement to the Committee had made a very different speech to that which the House was accustomed to hear from him. They had heard from the hon.

      417
      Gentleman before very grievous attacks upon our colonists in Mashonaland and upon the conduct of the war. On previous occasions the hon. Member had brought charges of gross barbarity against the colonists, and the men who carried out a campaign of unexampled success against a very numerous and very well-organised enemy, but they had heard no attempt on the part of the hon. Member to-night to justify the statements he had made before.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Do you want me to?
      SIR E. ASHMEAD -BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Member asked him if he wanted him to. He told him he did not believe he could. The hon. Gentleman by his attacks had caused most grievous suffering to the relations of these gallant Englishmen who had been engaged in defending the interests of the country and the Empire, and their own homes in Mashonaland. When the Vote came on to-night the hon. Member made one or two vague statements about the massacre of wounded, but he had not in any way attempted to justify the gross and absolutely unjustifiable attacks which he had made upon previous occasions against our colonists who were engaged in that campaign. He was not surprised that the relations of the gallant men engaged in the expedition should have challenged the statements of the hon. Member in language which could not be misunderstood and which he was bound as a Member of the House and an honourable man to answer. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated in his place that no war was ever conducted with greater consideration for the vanquished compared favourably with other wars. As the hon. Gentleman had stated, everyone knew that in warfare there must always be instances, however small, of treatment of the vanquished which every humane man in peaceful times would regret. The hon. Member for Northampton, however, had done far more than allege there were these casual instances. He had over and over again in this House and in the Press brought charges of general cruelty against our colonists who had carried this war to a successful termination, and he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) declared that the hon. Member had not said one
      418
      single sentence in justification of these charges, and he did not believe he had any facts at his command upon which he could justify them. The hon. Gentleman had said it was impossible to carry away the wounded men, but the Under Secretary bad shown how the conditions of this campaign differed from ordinary European warfare. Our fellow-countrymen in that campaign were a small body—from 600 to 800 men. They had to fight in laagers, the enemy attacked them, and only on one occasion after attack did a small body of mounted men issue from a laager. On all other occasions they assumed the defensive, and simply repulsed any attack that was made upon them. Undoubtedly the Matabele suffered heavily, and though they were barbarians whose whole past had been cruel, and who had inflicted heavy sufferings on their fellow tribes, still they regretted that many of them should have been killed and wounded. It was perfectly evident, however, that in a struggle of this kind that, if the enemy had once reached the British laager and come to close quarters with our men, it would have been a question of the entire annihilation of the British force. But to say that the Matabele, who numbered thousands, as against a few hundred white men, were not able to carry off their wounded was utterly absurd. The wounded were carried away by their comrades just as were the wounded in the Soudan. The Soudanese attacked our forces and were repulsed, and many wounded lay on the field of battle, but they were invariably carried off by their comrades. Some thousands of the Matabele survived, and to suggest that the survivors could not carry off' the wounded was an utter absurdity. The hon. Gentleman had altogether failed to substantiate the charges against our colonists, and he wanted this £80,000 for the extra Bechuanaland police imposed upon the Chartered Company. Was the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chartered Company had been put to great expense by this campaign, an expense far greater than the sum of £80,000 which was now asked for? The result of the action of the Company, as had been well said by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken on behalf of the Government, was the destruction of a

      419
      barbaric organisation which was a continual source of danger to neighbouring tribes and of peril to our English settlers. In the future the number of the Bechuanaland police could he considerably reduced. He regretted, having regard to the remarkable sacrifices made by our colonists and to the great success of this war, that no reference had been made to the subject in the Queen's speech; and he believed that our colonists in South Africa would feel aggrieved at the omission. Gentlemen who were disposed to underrate the great. Imperial work that had been done by the Chartered Company in Matabeleland should note the remarkable pronouncement just issued by General Joubert, who had informed the people of the Transvaal in a public Proclamation that by the conquest of Matabeleland British supremacy in South Africa was established for all time. Was that a slight advantage? The operations of Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company had not brought us into conflict with the people of the Transvaal, but had so far secured British influence over the territory south of the Zambesi. A vast region had been opened up to British commerce, and the Chartered Company and Mr. Rhodes had done more than any act of the Government for the last few years to secure for this country great openings for its trade, and he believed the great mass of the people of this country were grateful to the Company and to Mr. Rhodes, who was undoubtedly an Imperial statesman of the highest order. He would only say one word as to the action of the Government in this matter. The hon. Member for Northampton had consistently endeavoured to attribute blame to the Chartered Company for this war. The Under Secretary of State had just told the House with very great accuracy that the war was not sought for by the Chartered Company; that it was most inconvenient to the Chartered Company, that it was a great cost to the Company, and it had yet to be proved that the results of the war would increase the revenues of the Company. But he would say this with regard to the action of the Government. He had studied the Blue Books with great care. Before the second Blue Book was issued last August and September he confessed he
      420
      was disposed to attribute the cause of this war entirely to the Matabele King, Lobengula. He thought, however, that the Blue Book recently issued entirely acquitted Lobengula and the Chartered Company of responsibility for the war, but it did not acquit the Government. Lobengula did not desire war, and the Chartered Company did not desire war. What was wanted was an agency to bring about an understanding between Lobengula and the Chartered Company. Dr. Jamieson, the Administrator, formerly at Salisbury and now at Buluwayo, wrote a Despatch to Lobengula, in August, in which he distinctly put forward the demands of the Chartered Company in plain language, but how was he treated? Lord Ripon, from the Colonial Office, sent out a telegram to Sir Henry Loch instructing him to tell Dr. Jamieson and Mr. Rhodes that no communications were to be made to Lobengula except by Her Majesty's Representatives. What did the Government do?
      MR. S. BUXTON: I should like to interrupt the hon. Member for one moment. I do not know that the matter is of great importance. As a matter of fact, Dr. Jamieson had instructions given him, but it so happened that Mr. Rhodes gave the same instructions before we had done so.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, this did not in the least affect his argument. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Government sent instructions to Dr. Jamieson telling him there was to be no communication between him and Lobengula except through Her Majesty's Representatives. How were the communications made? Lobengula sent message after message asking the Government to toll him what was their complaint against him, and they sent him no practical reply. They sent vague general statements by native runners. Had they sent a reliable agent with a clear statement of policy the war might have been averted. Had they, even at the conclusion of the war, sent a man like Dr. Moffat, the unfortunate episodes that had happened since—the destruction of Captain Wilson's gallant band and the death of the unfortunate Matabele Monarch himself—might have been averted. But it was only a case of

      421
      drift, drift, drift! with Her Majesty's Government. They were asked for their policy, but they would not take the responsibility. When they were begged in August and September last to take responsibility for the lives and property of our colonists in Mashonaland and Matabeleland they parried the question. He remembered the late Prime Minister making him a long answer in which he refused to take responsibility. He did not refuse responsibility, but he refused to take responsibility, which was the same thing. He remembered another occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House when the war had been triumphantly concluded and our colonists were in Buluwayo, and then he had said, "We assume responsibility." He only wished, in conclusion, to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had, after making the grossest charges against his fellow-countrymen in Mashonaland, absolutely failed to substantiate them, and in this respect he had, in his humble judgment, been guilty of conduct not worthy of a Member of that House. And in addition to what he had just said, if Her Majesty's Government had assumed responsibility sufficiently early in the day, and had sent a reliable British agent, whom Lobengula could have trusted, to Buluwayo, this unfortunate and sanguinary war might have been prevented.
      DR. CLARKsaid, that after the speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, he should support his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton in voting against this sum. From the beginning this subject had been brought before them under clouds of misrepresentation. The original concession, they were told by Lobengula, was got by fraud and misrepresentation; the Charter was got by misrepresentation and fraud. The war began under conditions of fraud and misrepresentation, and now they would to-night vote fraudulently—there was not the slightest doubt about it, by a, large majority—£80,000 also by misrepresentation and fraud. They were asked to vote £80,000 for the defence of Bechuanaland, and nobody ever attacked Bechuanaland or attempted to attack it, but they attacked a neighbour and an ally, and be-
      422
      cause they did so, said they were defending themselves. What was the position of affairs? Lobengula was the King of the Matabeles. We were very anxious to be on friendly terms with him. We sent Envoys and messengers of various kinds from the Imperial Government and from the Colonial Government in order to treat with him. We had some six or seven years before secured Tati. We had got some British subjects who went there and got a concession from him. He said he did not understand the words which he had signed because they seemed afterwards to be quite different; and he sent two of his Indunas here; he sent Ambassadors to this country, and the Queen sent back a message to him and Lord Knutsford. The Secretary for the Colonies wrote a letter to him, and in that letter he was to be protected by the Queen. Her Majesty's subjects were only given permission to do as we wanted them; and the King took away the forces he had. A number of her subjects settled in Mashonaland, and now these subjects of ours, this Chartered Company, went to war with our ally the King of Matabeleland, and we were going to vote £80,000 for our share in the war. How did the war come about? The Chartered Company said some of his subjects had stolen our property and we took from them some of the King's cattle. The King said—
      "Do not take my cattle from these people. If you have anything to complain about tell me and I will chastise them."
      And then they complained that some more of his people had been cutting the telegraphic wires and asked him to chastise them. He sent forces to chastise these subjects, but the Company had them shot down. They were told that a shot was fired. A shot was always fired. There wore two causes for the two wars, the war for the Imperial Government and the war for the Company. The pretext for the war for the Company was that a shot was fired. Who fired that shot? Nobody fired that shot. Who was hurt by that shot? Nobody. It was a myth manufactured here to delude credulous people. What was the pretext for the war between the Imperial Government and the Matabeles? It was a defensive war he supposed. The pretext was that there was some trouble in the North be-

      423
      tween the Company and the Matabeles, and we sent a portion of our forces into Matabeleland. Why should we send a portion of our forces into Matabeleland? Why were these Bechuanas sent to the Macloutsie River at all. They ought to have been in Bechuanaland. Three men of that force, a corporal and two men, were far away in Matabeleland at Macloutsie River, and these sent back a statement that they saw some Matabeles and a shot was fired. That was outside the British Protectorate.
      MR. S. BUXTON: It has always been disputed territory up to some 18 months ago or so, when it was brought under our protection and came under the British Protectorate, and it was on the borders of that territory that those shots were fired.
      DR. CLARKsaid, they only had information that one shot was fired. Nobody was hurt, nothing else occurred, and there was only a telegraphic rumour in the last Blue Book, and there was no more information. They only heard indirectly that three men were out scouting. They saw Matabeles, and a shot was fired. They were going to have a war with an ally that they wore very anxious to get on their side, and there only excuse was that some three or four men were in their territory and a shot was fired. What did the King reply?
      "From Lobengula to the High Commissioner.—I am tired of hearing lies which come to me every day. How many of your people have my people killed? You say my people fired on yours twice. How many are dead? Are your people stones that bullets do not kill them? You hear what your people say. Lend two of your men to me, and I will give them what assistance I can to find out who were the people who have done this. Your people must want something from me. Why do not you catch the people who fired upon you and bring them to me? There are none of my people who have been firing on you either at Victoria or Macloutsie. When these reports are made to you, do not you ask how many of your men are killed? This is not right. They see the things which may lead to what their hearts wish for. I have no people out of my border. My people are sick, and stay at their homes. When you make up your minds to do and know it is not right to blame it on my people you send me no answer to all the letters I send you. I do not understand this… I hear your people have taken more of my cattle. This is now four times my cattle have been taken."
      Now they were to vote £80,000 for the defence of Bechuanaland, because a shot
      424
      was fired by the Matabeles. And the King said—
      "Who were they? They are none of my people. Send someone to me, and if any of my men have done wrong I will give compensation."
      But they never sent a man nor a message. They asked Lobengula to send some of his men, and how did they treat them when they got them? They were basely murdered, and never got to the Chief Commissioner. The man that came to London to see Her Majesty's Government we sent at the very beginning to settle this matter; but unfortunately, before he got to our territory, or wherever he came across the white men, he was attacked by disease. He had a very bad attack of dysentery. It was thought by the Matabeles that he was being poisoned. There was our own Commissioner; there was the gentleman who had been born in Matabeleland, and whose father had been a missionary to Lobengula's father, and who talked the Matabole tongue better than he talked English. He had been there for two years until the plot began. He had been a Representative of the British Government. He was sent to Lobengula two years ago; he was a resident with Lobengula; and then he was resident with Khama. He could have settled the matter in five minutes; but that did not suit Mr. Rhodes nor the men who wanted this land; and any man listening to the defence made by his hon. Friend to-night would come to the conclusion that, after all, there was some justification for the story always heard on the Continent—that we were a brigand nation, a nation of thieves, and stole everything we could. He said that when the Government gave that Charter, when they allowed them to come into Matabeleland they anticipated that Matabeleland also would be taken as well as Mashonaland—anticipated they would steal it, and hence gave them power to do so. The war was entirely unjustifiable; it was a war for loot and plunder; and the Government had aided and abetted in it either from weakness or some other cause. There had not been one word of justification for granting this money except that it was for Imperial purposes. They had attacked their old ally, and they had collared and stolen

      425
      his country. As to the new method of governing it, they were to have the old story, a commission of three to divide the land between the white men, who had no business to be there, and the natives. A dozen years ago a similar game was played in Bechuanaland, which was made a British colony. He went there 12 mouths after the delimitation had been determined between the white men and the natives. Was this to be a repetition in Matabele-land of the game that was played in Bechuanaland? If that was so, it would possibly have the same results. We took all the watered land and left the natives all the dry land, and when he was there men and cattle were dying for want of water. That is the way in which the people were driven out of the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had attacked his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. His hon. Friend had told them the truth, and he was not a man to mince his words. Apparently the hon. Gentleman had not read his Blue Books, and had not attended to their Debates, or he would have known better, and he would have known that there had been earlier complaints of cruelty by British officers, one of whom had been denounced by the Under Secretary as a murderer. They had heard of the cruelties of Captain Lendy. [An hon. MEMBER: he is dead.] They had the Under Secretary of State denouncing him as a murderer. [An hon. MEMBER: He is dead.] He could not help that. The Government had admitted the cruelty of this officer. There was an inquiry, but these inquiries were merely of a whitewashing character, like the inquiry into the murder of Lobengula's Envoys. There never had been a native war as bad as this, or undertaken with so little reason, but it was only adding one more to the many crimes we had committed in South Africa.
      MR. MAGUIRE (Clare, W.)said, he must protest against the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down. They were natural only to an ex-official of the Transvaal Government, and in the hon. Member's remarks he caught an echo of the proclamation of General Joubert already alluded to. But he rose mainly for the purpose of challenging some portions of the remarks of
      426
      the hon. Member for Northampton. What the hon. Member said about the general policy and conduct of the Chartered Company he was quite at liberty to say. These questions had been thoroughly gone into not only in previous Blue Books, but in course of Debates in Parliament. The general relations between the Chartered Company and the Government and the final opinion which was to be passed upon the policy of the company was a question for the company alone. His remarks were addressed to the character of the forces which carried out the operations of the company. The hon. Member stated that he considered these men were filibusters and freebooters, and were promised certain rewards and benefits if the operations turned out to be successful. The force under Commandant Raaf were recruited outside the territory, and he had nothing to say of them. They were not very actively engaged, but they acted like brave and honourable men. The force which bore the brunt of the war was the force known as the Salisbury and Fort Victoria columns, and they were the pick of the colonists of Mashonaland. They were men who had gone with their lives in their hands, and they went out literally to protect their homes and their property. To say that these men were influenced by the prospect of "rewards" was a ridiculous charge. The "rewards" were sold, some of them for £30 or £40, before the campaign commenced. Then there was the hon. Member's charge of the practice of great cruelty. He made these charges boldly enough, but he brought no evidence in support of them. He based his argument upon figures supplied in an unofficial telegram from Mr. Rhodes as to the killed and wounded. He thought these charges were sufficiently refuted by the Despatches of Sir J. Willoughby and Major Sawyer, the latter an independent authority, who was in the country. In any case, he would ask Members of the House not to believe the worst of their countrymen based on figures and garbled extracts in regard to which no proof whatever had been offered.
      MR. BYLESsaid, he intended to go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) against the Vote, because he felt

      427
      that in voting the money the Committee would be practically justifying the operations of the war in Matabeleland. Although he was speaking the opinion of very few Members of the House, he thought he was speaking that of a very large number of people in the country when he said that the incidents of that terrible campaign had given a shock to English feeling, and had made men feel that they wore a scandal and a discredit to their country and to their religion. The hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the brave English colonists, who he said had been defending their homes in Mashonaland, but he had not spoken of the very much larger number of black natives who had been defending their homes in Matabeleland. The hon. Member who had last spoken, and the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division, had spoken of the deaths of the natives as if they were speaking about the pawns on a chess-board, and with very little interest or feeling.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg pardon. I distinctly said in my speech that I greatly regretted the loss of life among the Matabele.
      MR. BYLESsaid, that most of the black men who had been killed had been practically unarmed. [Cries of "Oh!"] Surely it would be admitted, when their arms were compared with the arms of precision which the British troops took against them, that the natives were practically unarmed. What chance had they with their poor arms against the Maxim guns and other weapons used against them? The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that if we had sent an Envoy the war would have been prevented. Well, Lobengula had sent Envoys, and they had been slaughtered. More than that, the aged King had been driven into the mountains, where he had met his death. These were shocking things. The King had trusted the White Queen of this country, and had believed that he would be honourably treated. All that had been done in the war had been done avowedly in the pursuit of gold, of diamonds, and of dividends. Something had been said about missionaries. The Rev. Mr. Moffat went as a missionary to the territory adjoining Matabeleland, and did a great deal towards civilising the people amongst
      428
      whom he settled. He taught the people the use of the spade and other implements of civilisation, and made friends with the natives. He did not quarrel with the natives or take Maxim guns to destroy them. It seemed to him (Mr. Byles) that the true policy of our country was the policy adopted by Mr. Moffat, and not that of depending upon implements of war, and, by destroying the people, bringing discredit upon the English name. He knew perfectly well that he should be taunted with being a member of a "Little England" Party, and called unpatriotic; but he protested in the name of many Englishmen and Englishwomen against such barbarous proceedings as had been carried on in Matabeleland. He did hope that the policy of running the Empire by Joint Stock Companies, as it had been described, would be put an end to.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had been surprised to hear the proceedings in Matabeleland described almost for the first time as a native war. They were told a few mouths ago that it was simply a question of policy, and that the Chartered Company were defending themselves against an attack made upon them by Lobengula's people. The Under Secretary (Mr. Buxton) now admitted that it was a native war. He wanted to know what right the Government had to be engaged in a war at all without asking the consent of the House? He had always understood that it was the principle of Radicals that the House of Commons should be consulted before war was engaged in, and he thought it ought to be the principle of Radical Governments also. As a matter of fact, it was part of the constitution that the House should be consulted. If, then, this had been a native war, the Government ought in some way to have asked for the consent of the House, either by proposing a Vote on Account or in some other way. It was quite clear to everyone except the shareholders and those otherwise interested in the company that the war had been got up by the company for the purpose of bolstering up its finances, which had sunk to a very low ebb indeed. He did not desire at all to blame the officers and soldiers who conducted the war. He had no doubt that they did as they were

      429
      ordered and that they could not help themselves. It. was those who gave them the orders that he complained of. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary had not given the information he had promised to the House. His hon. Friend said distinctly some time ago that he was going to make an inquiry, and that the House should have the information. The information, however, was not given until the Marquess of Ripon had come to a decision to whitewash those who were responsible for the death of the idunas. He had come to the conclusion that the Envoys were frightened and exasperated, and that, as a result, they gave some supposed cause for shooting them down. It was said that the object of getting rid of the men was that they should not carry back information as to the state of our troops, and no doubt that was the reason why they were got rid of. It was disgraceful to us to carry on this sort of warfare, or rather this sort of murder. No doubt the Marquess of Ripon was afraid to allow the House to discuss the matter before he whitewashed those who wore responsible. The House, however, had been fully entitled to have the Correspondence before it before the Government came to a decision in the matter He should vote against the expenditure of the money, because he thought the Chartered Company ought to find it, if anybody did. The poor taxpayers ought not to be called upon to find money for company promoters when the Government were always refusing money for the improvement of the country.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 145.—(Division List, No. 7.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      12. £6,400, Supplementary, Superannuations and Retired Allowances, agreed to.
      CLASS VII.
      18. £4,500, Supplementary, Temporary Commissions, agreed to.

      ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY).
      14. £195,000, Supplementary, Additional Expenditure on Army Service.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.)explained that the items of this Supply Estimate wore required by a considerable increase in the numbers of the Militia beyond the anticipation formed at the beginning of the year: by the high price of forage owing to the drought of last summer; and by the settlement of the price to be paid under arbitration for the purchase of Maplin Sands.
      MR. JEFFREYSwished to know whether it was a fact that most of the forage had come from abroad, and that the hay came from Canada, although it might have been got at the same cost from Ireland?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the Department had bought the hay where they could get it cheapest.
      COLONEL NOLANasked how much was paid for it?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that they bought hay where they could get it cheapest. So long as they could get it on any reasonable terms at all they procured it from England and Ireland. But there was some Canadian hay, although he thought not so much as had been supposed. In fact, he had seen rather strong comments upon the War Department for not having bought a great deal more Canadian hay. In 1891–2 the rations of forage worked out at slightly more than 1s. 1d. per day, in 1892–3 at slightly more than 1s. 3d., and in 1893–4 at over 1s. 5d.
      MR. W. LONGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the War Department had bought the hay where they could get it cheap, and that where they could get the English hay as cheap they bought it in this country. Did he mean that the matter was left to the contractors, or was any attempt made to ascertain that English hay could be bought in the neighbourhood as cheap as Canadian hay? because an impression prevailed in the country that discretion was largely left to the contractor.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)said, the greatest care had been

      431
      exercised throughout to obtain hay of the best possible quality. Every kind of hay was submitted to the severest test. Fortunately the drought of last year only affected certain localities in the country, and (hey were able to get hay of excellent quality from Ireland, Scotland, and the North of England. With regard to Irish hay, immediately it was found out that it was at a low price, contractors went over to Ireland and purchased it at a considerably enhanced price to the grower. But with regard to the Canadian hay, it came in most serviceably. The most stringent precautions had been taken throughout to get the best hay.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had quite answered the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Long), because the point which his hon. Friend put was this—that there was a danger that the contractors might have made a better price for themselves than if the Government bought locally. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether they had extended the operation of buying locally.
      MR. JEFFREYSpointed out that the Secretary for War had said that the hay was purchased in the cheapest markets, whereas his colleague had said that they had purchased the best hay. The hay purchased in the cheapest markets was not always the best hay. Canadian hay was notoriously the worst hay, and was very bad for young horses, and it was false economy to buy that kind of hay to feed young horses.
      MR. WOODALLsaid, the statements made by his right hon. Friend and himself were perfectly reconcileable. Under exceptional circumstances they had had to deal strictly economically in obtaining the best article they could at the lowest price. The local purchases had been very large indeed, a considerable amount having been paid in the way of direct purchase.
      Vote agreed to.
      15. £100, Ordnance Factories (Supplementary) agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered,—
  That the Select Committee on Standing Orders do consist of Thirteen Members: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Coddington, Mr. J. E. Ellis, Sir T. Esmonde, Mr. Halsey, Mr. James Lowther, Sir J. Lubbock, Sir J. Mowbray, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Stansfeld, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Storey, and Mr. Whitbread were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee.—(Sir J. Mourbray.)

  SELECTION.
  Ordered,—
  That the Committee of Selection do consist of Ten Members:—Sir C. Cameron, Sir J. Doring-ton, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. A. Williams, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wodehouse, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee.—(Sir J. Mowbray).

  EAST INDIA (PENSIONS.)
  Return [presented 13th March] to be printed. [No. 28.]
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES.)
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1882 to 1891–2 (Twentieth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.)
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 324 (United States, Liquor Traffic) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 4, 1894).
  Copy presented,—of International Sanitary Convention. Signed at Dresden 15th April, 1893, and Protocol recording accession of Great Britain 13–15th July, 1893. Ratifications deposited at Berlin 1st February, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1894)
  Copy presented,—of Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between Great Britain and Muskat. Signed at Muskat 19th March, 1891, with a List of British Colonies which have acceded thereto under Article XXI. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.