Commons Sitting of 12 March 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LIVERPOOL NEW CATTLE MARKET AND RAILWAYS BILL.
  On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill—
  MR. W. FIELDsaid, that feeling that the Rules of the House, and the circumstances under which the Bill was carried over from last Session, prevented him from making a Motion for its recommittal, he proposed to move its rejection on the Third Reading.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the Motion for recommittal would not be in order, but that the hon. Member would be in order in moving that the Bill be read that day six months.
  MR. FIELDsaid he moved the rejection of the Bill on public grounds. It was proposed by the Bill to transfer as a monopoly a public market for the gain of private shareholders, for the market in question was private property. The proposed removal would mean an increase of taxation on the sale of native produce. With the exception of a market at Crewe, this was the only such private cattle market in the whole of the North of England, and the majority of the Members would doubtless agree that such a market in so large a city as
  720
  Liverpool should be controlled by the Corporation, for the protection of the public interests. Under this private ownership illegal charges had been levied in the market for 20 years past, four-pence per head on beasts and 2s. per score on sheep being charged where only half that amount should have been levied. But these extortionate charges were made the basis of the future schedule of charges to be imposed at Bootle, and the result would be that a protective rate would be paid at Birkenhead on foreign imports to the disadvantage of the native or Irish produce. He was not a Protectionist, but at least the common sense of the House would condemn any system of Protection as against the native producer. The reason why the market was to be changed was that the owners had found it convenient to sell or change the position of the market rather than to embark upon an expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000 to meet modern requirements, now that the market was included within the Liverpool boundaries, the sanitary conditions of the market having been neglected in the past. The whole of the trade were opposed to the change, and it was an extraordinary thing that by this change a large city like Liverpool should be deprived of a market for the sale of native produce. The market was for the sale of Irish and Scotch live stock, not only for Liverpool, but for all the great commercial and industrial centres of the North, and it was proposed to change the market from a position where it had given satisfaction for a number of years in order that the owners might escape the expenses necessary to comply with modern requirements. He asked the House to consider these important points—that 1,000,000 people of Liverpool were to be without a market for the sale of native produce in future, that their native produce was to be at a disadvantage, and that foreign importations should be sold in Birkenhead at a lesser cost and with more convenience than their own produce at Liverpool. The retention of the market in Liverpool was an absolute necessity for English, Irish, and Scotch producers of stock, and he would like to remind the House that although they heard a great deal about foreign competition, as a matter of fact Ireland sent more live stock to Great Britain than all

  721
  the other countries in the world, and yet, here was Liverpool, which was the greatest market for Irish stock in the three kingdoms, proposing to disestablish the market and place the dealers in Irish stock at a disadvantage as compared with foreign competitors. That he thought was a very strong argument which should weigh with the House in its consideration of this matter. It might be asked how it came about that this market should be moved. It was alleged that where the new market was to be placed in Bootle would be more convenient for the importation of Irish live stock, but that all hung upon one circumstance, and that was that a landing stage should be established lower down the river. The Irish sea captains who brought over the stock, swore before the Committee of the House of Lords that they could not land the live stock, particularly at the season of the year when the larger portion came from Ireland, at the landing stage opposite Bootle. But in addition there was opposition to the Bill by reason of the fact that the live stock would have to be driven through the streets of Liverpool for a long distance. The London and North Western Railway Company had provided facilities at the Prince's Landing Stage, so that any one desirous of avoiding the driving of the cattle through the streets could, with a very little extra cost, have the stock brought up to the market from the stage by train. The Railway Company had a splendid service from Stanley Market to all parts of the kingdom, and by reason of that fact there was no cattle market so suitable as the Liverpool one for the Irish or Scotch live stock trade. Failing a landing stage at Bootle, he would like to point out that the live stock would have to be driven right along all the most congested portion of the quays and it would be next to impossible to get live stock down to Bootle from the Prince's Landing Stage. This was a more important question than would seem at first sight. It meant this, that the greatest market in England for Irish stock was about to be disestablished upon false and flimsy pretences. The reason why he had been desirous of re-committing the Bill was that new matters of fact had arisen which ought to be brought under the consideration of the House or of the
  722
  Committee which would have to consider the subject. The cattle salesmen who were most interested, did not appear before either House. The gentlemen had been paying double tolls for a period of 20 years, and they had paid these illegal tolls believing them to be legal. They never saw the Act of Parliament which was passed in 1832, and when they appealed to the directors of the market upon the matter, they were told that there was an Act of Parliament which enabled them to charge these double tolls. The salesmen took their word for it, but after the Committee of the House of Lords had given their decision on the Bill they found that they were being charged double tolls. They then appealed to a magistrate at Liverpool, but the case was dismissed. Then they were advised to take proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the County of Lancaster. This they did, and on the 29th of November last the Vice-Chancellor of that Court declared that the owners of the market were only entitled to charge 2d. per beast and 1s. per score of sheep, instead of 4d. and 2s. respectively as they had been doing all this time. The owners of the market were not satisfied with this decision and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court had unanimously affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor and declared the tolls that they had been charging were illegal. There ought to be an objection in a popular assembly like the House of Commons to handing over any monopoly of public rights to private individuals, and whatever might have been the tenour of things in 1832, surely those who represented popular constituencies in the House should not perpetuate a monopoly by handing over a public market to a private company. There was one extraordinary point which he had almost omitted to mention. It was this, that the owners of the Liverpool Cattle Market absolutely controlled for seven miles from the centre of that city the sale of everything in the nature of live stock. They levied a charge upon the sales whether they took place in the market or outside of it, and they did this absolutely without the power being conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. He wanted to know whether in the year 1896, the House of Commons

  723
  was going, by solemn Resolution, to perpetuate a monopoly and powers which ought not to be granted to private individuals for the purpose of private gain. That was an absurd proposition and he trusted the verdict of the House would show it was so. He trusted all those Members who represented the march of progress would declare war against monopoly, against private gain upon public interests, and would assist him in the endeavour he was making to put an end to this system, which had so long been the curse and bane of Liverpool. He would remind his hon. Friends from Ireland that this meant an imposition upon what unfortunately was almost the only trade they had left to them, and it would be another tax put upon the shoulders of Irish producers for the benefit of a body of private speculators. He, therefore, begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORseconded the Motion for rejection. He thought there were two observations of his hon. Friend which would meet with the assent of all sections of the House. The first was that it was desirable, as a general principle, that such a municipal want as a market should be in the hands of a public rather than of a private body. The second was that as between the cattle of Ireland and the cattle of foreign countries, if any preference was to be given in accommodation and facility for sale, it should be in favour of Irish cattle, and not of foreign cattle. The danger his hon. Friend pointed out was this. The present cattle market was comparatively close to the docks where the cattle were landed. The new market was at a very considerable distance from where the cattle were usually landed. The fear of his hon. Friend was that the inconvenience of getting Irish cattle to the new market would act as an inducement to a large number of salesmen to buy American cattle rather than Irish cattle. It was not to be supposed that any hon. Member would desire to increase the sale of American cattle at the expense of the Irish cattle trade. The second point in his hon. Friend's complaint was that the amount of tolls and charges upon the landing of cattle must have very considerable influence on the cattle trade, and the schedule of tolls
  724
  fixed for the new market were based on the charges hitherto illegally charged. The tolls originally fixed were 2d. per head of cattle, and 1s. per score of sheep, and these were raised by the Acts of 1869 and 1876 to double that amount. The charges for the Stanley Market were not considered exorbitant by traders, but since then litigation had been carried from court to court, and it had been found that the authorities of the old Stanley Market had acted illegally, that in fact they had charged double the amount they were entitled to, and therefore the whole basis of the proposed charges was removed. What his hon. Friend desired was that the new schedule of tolls in the new market should be fixed, not upon the exorbitant and illegal rate, but upon the old and legal rate of 2d. per head for cattle and 1s. per score of sheep. But his hon. Friend was in the difficulty that the Committee had decided, and it was unlikely that the House would reverse the decision of its Committee. His hon. Friend was precluded by the Rules of procedure from moving the recommittal of the Bill. Under the circumstances all that he could expect was that the Minister of the Crown who was responsible for matters of this kind—the Minister for Agriculture—would bring his influence to bear in favour of the view of his hon. Friend, and in the interest of the Irish cattle trade, and those responsible for the Bill should give an assurance that the views of his hon. Friend should have full consideration in another place.
  COLONEL SANDYSobserved that as he had the honour of introducing the Bill to the House, and as it affected his constituency, he had felt it incumbent upon him to ask the House to agree to the Third Reading. The request that had been made by the hon. Member for Dublin was one which ought not to have been put forward, and he would shortly state why. This new Liverpool Cattle Market was to supplant the old or Stanley Market. The old market was insanitary, badly situated, it was not roofed, the soil was pervious to every kind of moisture, it was in the midst of a densely crowded part of Liverpool, had been objected to by the medical authorities and the District Council and though it had 14 years of a lease to run,

  725
  granted by the Corporation, the latter did not intend to renew the lease. The site of the old market was 7½ acres. The site of the new market was 30 acres and power was given to take 15 additional acres, if it should be requisite. The old market was four miles from the landing stage, cattle were now landed in a weak state from the ships, and had to be driven in herds through crowded streets to the market. So much for the question of convenience. On the other hand, the new market was close to the North Docks of the River Mersey, the cattle could easily be landed, a special landing stage would be built for the purpose and the market would be provided with every modern convenience and every humane appliance. There was another reason why the Bill should be read a Third time. A great deal had been made by its opponents of the increase of toll as illegal. He would point out that this Bill was before a Committee of the House for six days and its opponents did not then think it worth while to allude to the increase of toll. The Bill was read a Third time in that House without opposition; it went to the House of Lords, passed its Second Reading there and was for four days before the Committee in the other House, and not one word was said about the increase of toll. Indeed the Measure would have been read a Third time in the Lords, but for the Dissolution, at which time it only wanted one day to complete its final stage. It was in these circumstances that the Bill now came before them, and to make this opposition to it was practically an abuse of the forms of the House. The Bill had already, as he had explained, been read a Third time by the House of Commons, and if it were to be thrown out now the House would be stultifying the verdict it had previously given.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEdid not intend to go into the general question, but the question of tariff was an important one and one of which the House should have cognisance. The standing charge of the Stanley Market had been found to be 50 per cent. higher than was the legal charge. In the Bill promoted by the new company the Stanley Market shareholders were entitled for every £20 value in that concern to rank as holding
  726
  £100 in the new market. That calculation was made on the basis of the fees which the Court of Appeal had declared to be 50 per cent. above those legally due. If the company came into existence with the shares of the Stanley Market capitalised in the new market at that figure, then the new company would be over-capitalised, with the result that in its fees to the new market the public must pay an extra tax in order to provide the increased dividends for the overcapitalised stock. He submitted, therefore, that this matter ought to be fully gone into and on public grounds this was a question which ought not to be overlooked. It was important that the fees of the cattle market should not be excessive, and in the long run the general consumer was keenly interested in seeing that such fees were fixed on a fair and equitable basis.
  MR. FIELDobserved that the hon. Gentleman had stated that the charges had been increased by 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, they had been increased by 100 per cent.
  MR. ALBERT SPICERas one who sat for six days on the Committee before whom this Bill was considered, desired to say a word or two, as he might possibly take a more impartial view than either the hon. Member for Dublin, who had moved the rejection of the Bill, or the hon. Member for Bootle, who had supported the Third Reading. It was perfectly true that this was merely a question of one monopoly or another. There was an old company and a new one. The next question was that of the suitability of the site. All who sat on the Committee had been convinced that Liverpool had outgrown the present site of the Stanley Market, which on several grounds was unsuitable, one great objection being that the cattle had now to be driven through a residential district. He did not say that the Bootle site was a perfect site. There was a doubt in the minds of the Committee on the subject. But the site would be suitable if a proper landing stage could be arranged for cattle. There was conflicting evidence as to this and consequently the Committee only passed the preamble of the Bill subject to the insertion of a clause that the cattle market at Stanley should be kept open and in working order for the space

  727
  of at least two years after the completion of the new cattle market, etc. The term ''plant'' was to be deemed to include the erection, with the approval of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, of suitable landing stages conveniently near the site of the market, and the certificate of the Board of Agriculture was to be conclusive evidence that such landing accommodation had been provided. That clause showed there was doubt in the minds of the Committee as to the perfect suitability of this site. With regard to tolls, he was informed that it had been proved that since the Committee sat the tolls at Stanley Market had exceeded the legal amount. But he understood that only the legal charges would be permitted by this Act. The weight of evidence before the Committee was distinct as to the unsuitability of the Stanley Market site, and that provided proper landing stages could be arranged, Bootle Market would be better than Stanley Market.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he would not enter in any respect into the merits of the Bill. But before the House decided to reject the Bill it should bear in mind that this Bill went through all its stages last year; that a Committee sat six days upon it in that House, that it passed the Report stage and its Third Reading, and then went to another place where it also passed all its stages except the final one. Under the new Standing Order the House was seised of the Bill again, and he ventured to submit that before the House rejected a Bill with such a history, an overwhelming case should be made out, and it should be shown that something or other had happened in the interval which would justify the House in throwing out a Bill which had passed through all its successive stages. Had such an overwhelming case been made out?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORreminded the hon. Member that legal proceedings with regard to the amount of tolls were pending at the moment the Bill was before the two Houses, and therefore the opponents of the Bill were unable to oppose the part of the Measure relating to them. They were only now able to do so by a decision of the Court of Appeal.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he was coming to that point. As a matter of fact, he believed that while the Bill was in the House no question had arisen as to the legality of the charges. The question did not arise until June or July. Had any overwhelming case been made out for the rejection of this Bill? The question of legality of charges was litigated. A decision was given which had recently been upheld to the effect that these charges were excessive. But, for the future, the charges at the Stanley Market would continue, not on the old basis, but on a new basis. The Stanley Market would no longer be able to make charges which a Court of Law had declared excessive. The charges would be those laid down in the original Act of Parliament. Not only that, but by a clause of this very Bill these charges were to be continued by the new company, during the period of erection of their new premises, and two years besides. The question arose whether the Committee which settled these charges and tolls had all the material upon which to arrive at a decision? The Committee considered the tolls and charges levied in similar markets in other parts of the country. The markets in Glasgow and Birmingham were specially referred to and the scale was fixed after considering these. The Local Government Board had also drawn their attention to them. He had only entered into the merits of the case to show that no such overwhelming case had been made out which would justify the House in throwing out a Bill which, in the ordinary course, but for the interposition of the General Election, would have become law. It would be a dangerous thing, whatever their view of the merits of the case might be, to throw out a Bill which had passed all its stages in that House, and nearly all its stages in another place. He hoped the House would read the Bill a third time, leaving the opponents of the Measure to raise their points in another place.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEESsaid the House would not take the extraordinary course it was asked to do, of rejecting a Bill of this kind unless exceptional circumstances were shown. If some new matter had arisen or some great principle was involved, the House might

  729
  possibly reverse the decision of its Private Bill Committee, which gave painstaking and judicial consideration to every matter brought before them. The only argument the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had advanced was that the effect of the Bill would be to drive the business in cattle from Bootle to Birkenhead. He only hoped the hon. Member was a true prophet, but for himself he had never heard that the people of Birkenhead anticipated any extraordinary flow of benefit from this Bill. He hoped the House, considering all the circumstances and recognising that only grave arguments should induce it to upset the decision of its Private Bill Committee, would read this Bill a third time.
  MR. W. FIELDsaid, that having heard the discussion, in deference to the wishes of the House he would withdraw his Motion.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question:"—Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to:—Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PETERSHAM AND HAM LANDS AND FOOTPATHS BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid, the Bill sought to violate what had been for many years the definite settled and uniform policy of Parliament as declared by a long series of Acts with regard to the enclosure of Metropolitan common lands. His Amendment dealt solely with the question of principle, which was the only ground on which those who had any knowledge of Private Bill Procedure could feel justified in asking the House to oppose the Second Reading of such a Bill. The principle hero involved was a very important one, and the ground of opposition to the Bill was the manner in which it dealt with common lands. So far back as 1845 Parliament recognised the vital importance of metropolitan interests in the preservation of commons, and it
  730
  adopted a policy which had been confirmed by subsequent legislation; it laid it down as its duty to preserve open spaces and commons within the metropolitan area and in its immediate environs. In 1864 a strong resolution was passed by the House of Commons declaring that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to preserve these commons and open spaces. In the following year a Select Committee went exhaustively into the question, and the outcome of their Inquiry was the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866, which expressly exempted metropolitan common lands from being made even the subject of recommendation for enclosure under the Enclosure Act. It further gave the inhabitants of the Metropolis the right to apply for a scheme by which any open space or common might be regulated for their use. In 1876 an Act was passed to provide for cases of enclosure and for the regulation of commons, and metropolitan common lands were expressly exempted from its enclosure provisions. So by a series of public enactments metropolitan common lands had been excluded from the limited power possessed by the Board of Agriculture with regard to rural commons. This was the position of Parliament, and it was a strong position. This Bill was promoted by Lord Dysart's trustees, and the estate they represented was a wealthy one; it consisted partly of lands on the banks of, or adjacent to, the river Thames in the neighbourhood of Petersham, Ham, and Richmond. Some of these lands were freehold, and there were other lands over which the trustees had only manorial rights. In particular there was a piece of land, about 200 acres in extent, known as Ham Common Fields, over which the trustees had manorial rights and which it was the object of this Bill to seek to enclose. These were lammas lands, on which rights could be exercised only for a portion of the year; but that restriction did not make them any the less common lands. He did not labour that point, because he did not suppose there was any question about it; and, indeed, the Act of 1869, which extended and amended the Act of 1866, expressly declared that lammas lands were common lands. If these lands were not common lands, why was a Bill introduced to enable the promoters to enclose and

  731
  make use of them? They proposed to extinguish common rights over these lands, to seize and enclose them, and to add them to what was already an enormously wealthy estate. It was proposed to give compensation to persons who had common rights, but only if they had exercised their rights within three years. That was an extremely cool proposition. This was an attempt to subvert the settled and declared policy of Parliament in respect of metropolitan common lands, and, moreover, it was an attempt to do so by means of a private Bill promoted by persons who were chiefly interested and concerned in the development and improvement of this estate. No doubt there would be given to the House a glowing account of the benefits to be conferred on the locality in return for the passing of this Bill. It would be said that the Richmond Corporation would have the benefit of a water logged meadow, and that the district council of Ham would receive £15,000 in hard cash and the gift of Ham Common, which for generations had been the subject of conflict, and even of actual physical struggle, between the villagers and the representatives of the estate. It would also be said that in return for the stopping up of a number of footpaths over these lands the promoters were to make certain, other footpaths and carriage roads, which would improve the neighbourhood and possibly make it more convenient for the well-to-do classes. Whenever people desired to get hold of land of this kind it was because they were philanthropic and wanted to confer benefits on a locality—but such pretensions usually meant one for other people and two for themselves. The question was not whether certain ratepayers were going to receive good value for the support they were giving this Measure, but it was whether the House was prepared to go behind the settled policy of Parliament and to allow the enclosure, by a private Bill, of metropolitan common lands. The Bill was petitioned against by the commoners of Ham, by the London County Council, and by the Society for the Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces; and the opponents ought not to be put to the cost of opposing the Bill in Committee. He asked the House to uphold the rights
  732
  it had affirmed by a long series of public enactments, and he concluded by moving:—
  "That, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 and 1869, this House is not prepared to entertain a Bill for the enclosure of metropolitan common lands."
  MR. J. BIGWOODin seconding the Amendment, said he felt that a principle of great public importance was involved. A report issued that morning described the footpaths threatened as ill-defined and unnecessary tracks and paths by which people roamed all over this estate; and the question was whether Londoners were to be deprived of this privilege. He was sure that Parliament, after having passed a series of Acts for the protection of such lands, would not allow a private bargain, such as the Bill proposed, to deprive Middlesex of one of its few recreation-grounds. ["Hear!"]
  MR. T. SKEWES-COXsaid, he rose on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, to support its Second Reading. He could not understand why this Bill should not be allowed to follow the usual procedure of Private Bills—to be read a Second time by the House and then referred to a Committee upstairs—as there was nothing against its principle. [Cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] It was a most debateable point whether the lands in question were common lands within the Act of 1866. They were not ordinary pasture lands on which lammas rights were enjoyed. They were let to tenants from year to year, and were used as market gardens. But, in any event, lammas rights, such as they were, were recognised by the Bill, and those who were entitled to them would receive just compensation. With regard to the riverside, the trustees had entered into an agreement vesting in the Thames Conservancy enough of the land to enable them to double the width of the towing-path from Richmond to Teddington Lock. The lands between the enclosed lands and the river were 17 acres in extent. Of these no fewer than 14 acres would remain open for the public to walk upon, and on the remainder no buildings were to be erected. For years past questions of dispute in

  733
  respect to the rights over Ham Common had arisen; and therefore, while the rights of Ham commoners were reserved, the trustees proposed to vest the management of the common in the Ham District Council. That body was young, and was imbued with local patriotism, and had succeeded in getting from the trustees good terms for the benefit of the whole parish. The trustees were to invest £4,000 in the schools.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these schools are not voluntary schools?
  MR. SKEWES-COXsaid, they were national voluntary schools—[ironical Opposition cheers]—and were the only schools in the parish. [Ministerial cheers.] They were also to invest £2,500 for the benefit of almshouses already erected but poorly endowed; to contribute £5,000 towards the cost of sewering the parish; and to give a site free of consideration for an addition to the parish burial-ground. All these terms represented about 2s. 6d. in the pound on the rateable value of the parish.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I right in saying that they are also to give a site for a vicarage?
  MR. SKEWES-COXsaid that was so, provided the District Council required the present vicarage for their offices. He had not forgotten that, but he did not mention it, as he thought he was wearying the House by demonstrating the generous way in which the trustees were treating the parish of Ham. Then there was the question of footpaths through Petersham Meadow, which was within the boundary of Richmond. There were various paths, some new, some old, and some which led to nowhere from nowhere. For many years the public were allowed to wander at their own free will over the whole of King's Meadow, which was in front of the historic house of Ham. The Richmond Council, therefore, said to the trustees that if they proposed to enclose any of those paths they should supply other paths in places more convenient, and that the trustees were going to do. Petersham meadows were to be conveyed to Richmond, and kept as open spaces; the object was to prevent their being built upon, as they formed the chief feature in the foreground of that celebrated view, and if they were
  734
  built upon, the beauty of that lovely scenery would be absolutely spoilt. It was said that the meadows were sometimes waterlogged. Only four of the 22 acres were submerged, and by erecting a concrete wall they would be able to render those four acres sound. He denied that the changes proposed by the Bill would affect the view from Richmond Hill. The trustees had looked after the rights of Londoners; and, as there was nothing in the Bill, which had the sanction of the Court of Chancery, to differentiate it from other Private Bills, he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading.
  MR. JOHN BURNStrusted that the Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of Party or locality, would seriously consider the propositions of this private Bill. For the benefit of Members from provincial constituencies, who did not know the extreme beauty of the locality affected by the Bill, he might say that one standing on Richmond Terrace, and looking away over the river west and north-west, saw a view which had been sung by many poets, and which the average Englishman admired and cherished probably more than any other view within a hundred miles of London. It was proposed by the Bill to concede Petersham Meadow, immediately underneath the terrace, and thereby sacrifice the beauty of that unequalled scene.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that no part of the lammas land whatever can be seen from the hill.
  MR. BURNSsaid that, unfortunately for the hon. Member's contention, he had had the pleasure the other day of walking from Wellington Barracks to Richmond with a battalion of the Cold-stream Guards, to see how their boots wore on the way—[laughter]—and he took the opportunity while the men were resting of looking at this particular view from the terrace. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that the proposals of the Bill would take away certain lammas rights, and would materially injure the beauty of the view from Richmond Terrace. This Bill sought—under the guise of giving £5,000 for sewage purposes, £4,000 to a school, the site for a vicarage, part of which might be used for local board offices, and relief of rates up

  735
  to 2s. 6d. in the pound—to take away from the whole of London and Middlesex one of the best views within 20 miles of the Metropolis. They were also told that certain low-lying lands might be conceded to Richmond Corporation; but that was land on which, probably, dwelling-houses would not be allowed to be built. The London County Council, by the Bill of 1894, prevented low-lying lands of this description from being built upon; and, if the Corporation of Richmond attended to the sanitary interests of its locality, it would schedule this land and prevent buildings being erected upon it. The local authorities of Richmond and Ham should, he maintained, have sought to co-operate with the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council in bringing in a Public Bill to compensate the Dysart trustees for injury sustained by them, whilst, at the same time, maintaining the common and lammas rights, that ought to be inalienable, and which this district had enjoyed for generations. He objected to the Bill because it closed public footpaths. It enclosed land, at present unenclosed, which had been reclaimed from the river. This was given to Richmond Corporation as a concession. What was the concession? For the purposes of navigation and pleasure, the Thames Conservancy had been compelled to dredge the river at this particular point, and the sand and ballast that they had taken from the river had been dumped down on the banks. The Dysart trustees were so generous that they were prepared to give the Corporation of Richmond this sand and ballast. The fact was, they should be suspicious of this local authority having been squared by a contribution of £15,000 to concur in this Bill. But what Richmond and Ham got at the spigot, London lost in the beauty of the place at the bunghole. It might be convenient for Richmond and Ham to receive £15,000 for drains, schools, and other purposes; but he believed that if the London County Council, the Middlesex County Council and the City Corporation had been approached, they would have co-operated to buy out the Dysart trustees. As a London boy, who cherished Richmond Park, Petersham Meadows, Epping Forest, and many other parks and open spaces that had
  736
  been preserved to the people of London by the Metropolitan Public Commons Act, he asked the House to recognise that this Bill was going to destroy the rural and picturesque appearance of the river between Richmond Bridge and Teddington Lock; and it was substituting for the picturesque rusticity of that spot, cheap-and-nasty houses. These houses were to be within 38 feet of the river, and that space was not to be occupied with a towing path, but by a macadamised road. If there was one thing which Morris or Ruskin would plead for in this stretch between Richmond and Teddington, it would be for the preservation of those apparently insignificant waste pieces of land, with a green fringe, that made the River Thames so beautiful at this spot. He hoped County Members would help London Members to retain this beauty-spot by voting against the Bill.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had very properly taken the point of principle, but as the Debate proceeded they had condescended to matters of detail. The House would recognise that, constituted as it was, it could not settle such matters as the question of terms. That question could only be decided by a Committee after hearing evidence and, if necessary, examining the spot. Upon the question of principle he thought it was his duty, being partly responsible for the conduct of Private Bill legislation, to say a word. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill took the general principle that no Metropolitan commons had been enclosed since the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act, and that the House by passing that Act had clearly shown the spirit in which it intended that these lands should be dealtwith. No donbt these lands were technically commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, but they were not commons in the usual sense of the word. These lands were all market gardens.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Does the hon. Member deny that?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: That shows the difficulty of discussing these matters in this House. In Committee the hon. Member could be cross-examined upon oath. [Laughter.]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am prepared to take an oath now. [Laughter]
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I am afraid I am not in a position to administer an oath to the hon. Gentleman. These lands were used as market gardens, and that if the hon. Member went on them he would be a trespasser. The number of persons who held lammas rights over these lands was very small, and he would point out what he considered a very grave danger in the interests of the public. Suppose the lord of the manor were to buy up these lammas rights. They were, he believed attached to particular tenements, and if the Dysart trustees purchased these tenements they would sink these rights in the freehold. Then what would become of the right of the public? It would be gone. The trustees would be able to enclose these lands without giving the public a single acre in exchange. With such a very small number of holders of common rights the rights of the public were in a very dangerous position. He was certain that if the Bill went to a Committee the rights of the public would be fully considered. On the other hand, he thought the public might be damnified if the House were to throw out the Bill, for the Dysart trustees, who were very rich, might then be induced to attempt to make terms with the few holders of these limited rights, and would then become absolute possessors of the land. He had given the matter his most careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion that neither the rights of the lammas holders nor the rights of the public were likely to suffer from a thorough investigation by a Committee, while an opposite result might be arrived at if the Bill was not read a second time.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the case of the opponents of the Bill was that a principle of public law would be invaded by this Bill. Although it was perfectly true that a very small number of persons apparently had rights over these lammas lands, it was equally true that as long as one person would not sell his right over these lands or could not be found, the trustees could not build over them. As these 200 acres consisted of good building land, it might be taken that if the trustees had been able to buy up the rights of the persons referred to
  738
  they would not have come to that House for a Bill of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The London County Council and the Middlesex County Council had petitioned against the Bill in order that they might be represented before the Committee. The inquiry before the Committee would involve a very large expenditure, and hon. Members ought to be sure that no principle of public law was invaded by the Bill before they required the authorities to send money in opposing the Measure. The bargain embodied in the Bill was a thoroughly unfair one and was greatly to the advantage of the trustees. They were told that the towpath was merely a narrow strip of land, but there was a large space between it and the hedge over which a large number of people roamed. He was told that there was so much room between the towpath and the hedge that a legendary ghost chose it for his nightly walk [laughter], and yet by this Bill everybody, as well as the ghost, would be driven off the land. [Renewed laughter.] This was one of the finest walks in the neighbourhood of London, and it would be utterly destroyed if the Bill passed. ["Hear, hear!''] Ham Fields were 22 acres in extent and Petersham Fields were 170 or 180 acres, and, therefore, the proposed bargain would be most advantageous to the Dysart Trustees. The opponents of the Bill spoke as Londoners, and they said that the whole course of modern, legislation was based on the principle of preserving open spaces within a given area round London. In these circumstances, he hoped that the Bill would not be allowed to pass. ["Hear, hear."]
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid that the House ought to emphasise the principle which was laid down in the Act which Parliament had passed some 30 years ago, which prohibited absolutely the enclosure of metropolitan commons. ["Hear, hear!"] The question, therefore, was, Did this Bill propose to decommon a metropolitan common? If it did, the promoters of the Measure were attempting by means of a private Bill to set aside public law. ["Hear, hear."] If the House came to the conclusion that this was a metropolitan common they must reject the Bill at this stage, and in that case he should feel himself compelled to vote against the Measure. He, however,

  739
  would suggest that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to examine into the question whether the lands proposed to be dealt with by the Bill were common lands within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, and, if so, to strike out all the clauses applying to such lands. In the absence of such a proposal on the part of the promoters of the Measure, a strong prima facie case having been made out that the lands in question were common lands, he should be compelled to vote against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!'']
  MR. ALFRED HOPKINSONpointed out that it was practically admitted that this was a Metropolitan common, and the Legislature would stultify itself if it were to pass this Bill after having passed an amending Act for the express purpose of bringing lammas lands, such as those now proposed to be dealt with, under the operation of the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866. In 1866 a definite proposal was made and carried through the House, which had been acted upon for 30 years, that the Commissioners should not entertain any application for the enclosure of metropolitan commons. It was perfectly clear that Parliament had laid down a definite course of policy for dealing with commons within the metropolitan area. Was it right, then, by private Bill, the discussions on which involved great expense and outlay to those who were willing to put forward public rights and defend them, to interfere with a public Act of Parliament? For these reasons, he submitted that it was right and necessary to pass the Resolution proposed from the other side of the House.
  MR. E. R. WODEHOUSEsaid, that the rejection of a Bill of this character at this stage was an extreme course, to which the House very rarely lent itself. The House had confidence in the competency and impartiality of its Committees upstairs, and it had, moreover, the safeguard of the Third Reading. If the Bill came down from the Committee in such a condition as was not generally satisfactory, it could be rejected at that final stage. Without referring to the details of the Bill, he would point out that there was
  740
  nothing in it which precluded the scheme being made, in its passage through Committee, satisfactory to all parties, and the interests of the public, and if such a result could be secured, it would be a pity to throw away this chance of gaining it. The opposition to the Bill was founded on the general principle of the policy of the Act of 1866. It was quite true that that Act did prohibit the entertaining of an application for the in closure of any metropolitan common or any part of one; but it was well to remember the particular evils which had to be contended with at the time of the passing of that Act. In 1866, encroachments on metropolitan commons by builders, and their neglected condition as regarded drainage and their want of protection as open spaces for public use and enjoyment, were the special evils which called for remedy; and the vital principle of the Act of 1866 was declared to be the provision of machinery to call forth and organise local effort for the proper protection and management of commons. The interest of the locality was held to be the best guarantee for care and preservation of the commons; and as this Bill contained full provision for control by local authorities, he believed that it might be made to fulfil the purposes of the policy of the Act of 1866.
  MR MICHAEL BIDDULPHsaid, that although he had no authority to speak on behalf of the promoters, he believed that he was in a position to say that if this Bill were read a second time, they would agree to the Instruction to the Committee, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard. He therefore trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 262.—(Division List, No. 42.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  "That, having regard to the policy of Parliament, as declared by the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 and 1869, this House is not prepared to entertain a Bill for the inclosure of Metropolitan common lands."

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  HOUSING AND THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (ABERDEEN) BILL.
  Verbal Amendment made; Bill read 3a, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON, Londonderry) moved:—
  "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, relating to the urban sanitary district of Armagh."
  MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained that the Government had taken a very inconvenient course. On February 18 they had introduced a Provisional Order Bill bearing exactly the same title. The effect of the introduction of this said Bill would be to involve the opponents of the Provisional Order in serious additional expenditure. Did the Government wish to embarrass the people of Armagh? He thought that the Government ought to have given some explanation of their action. The Bill emanated from the Local Government Board for Ireland, of which the Chief Secretary was the head, and its introduction was the act of the Government, and they were responsible. Why was this second Bill required? The first Bill failed to provide for the suitable representation of the people of Armagh in connection with the matters with which it dealt. Was it the object of this Bill to remedy that defect? There were in Armagh 7,500 inhabitants.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the representation of Armagh on the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Bill affected the urban sanitary authority of Armagh, and that the urban sanitary authority in that town was identical with the Corporation.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman was entirely out of order.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it would be possible afterwards, on other stages of the Bill, to discuss the point?
  MR. SPEAKER: My ruling applies only to what is before me.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid in that case he would defer his observations until the Bill was before the House. At present he protested against the Government placing on the opponents of these Bills the additional expense involved under the Standing Orders in lodging a petition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): If the hon. Member had only ascertained the dates of these proceedings, he would have seen there was no ground for his complaint against the Government. The first Provisional Order was made on the 16th August 1895. A Bill to confirm it was introduced and ordered to be printed on the 8th February 1896. The second Provisional Order was not made till nearly a month afterwards, namely, the 3rd March 1896. It is difficult to see why the Government should be requested to anticipate the result of the initial proceedings m reference to the second General Order which has just begun, and delay the introduction of the Bill to confirm the first Provisional Order, until they had ended.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaw no reason why the two sets of Provisional Orders should not be introduced in one Measure. The Government surely knew that there was a likelihood of this second Provisional Order being necessary.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 86.—(Division List, No. 43.)
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour; presented accordingly, and read 1a; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Bill 140.]

QUESTIONS.

  SLAVERY AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government can give the House any information with regard to the trial at Zanzibar of Ali bin Abdullah, an influential Pemba Arab, who has been sentenced by the Judge of the British Court to seven years' imprisonment, a fine of 5,000 rupees, and subsequent deportation, for gross cruelty to his slaves?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General reported on the 26th of January, that Ali bin Abdullah had been arrested on an order of the Sultan, on a charge of gross cruelty to one of his slaves, and by arrangement with the Sultan was to be tried by Mr. Cracknall, Her Majesty's Consular Judge in Zanzibar, with two Arab Cadis as his Assessors. A report of the result of the trial has appeared in the Press, but the official account from Mr. Hardinge has not yet reached us.

  OPIUM CULTIVATION.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the Government have any information as to the progress made by the Government of India in arranging that the Behar Opium Agency shall, as the Benares Agency already does, deal direct with the cultivators of opium instead of dealing through middlemen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The latest report from the Board of Revenue, dated February 1896, shows that the plan of dealing direct with opium ryots is being tried this season, at the time of making payments, in selected sub-divisions of the Behar Opium Agency. As soon as experience has been gained of the new system, both by ryots and opium revenue officials, it can be introduced gradually into the whole Agency.

  CUSTOMS STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, with reference to the proposals recently submitted to the Treasury for the reorganisation of the Statistical Department of the Customs, and in respect of which an inquiry by a Committee was made, he can state how the question now stands, and when the decision of the Treasury will be communicated to the Commissioners of Customs?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R, W. HANBURY,): Certain questions relating to the future organisation of the Statistical Department of the Board of Customs are now under consideration by the Board of Treasury, and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  MULLINGAR ASYLUM BOARD.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether His Excellency has received a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Mullingar Asylum Board, at a large meeting of governors on 4th April 1895, asking him to appoint Most Rev. Joseph Hoare, Bishop of Ardagh, a governor of the asylum, vice Most Rev. Dr. Woodlock, resigned; and, if so, why it is that His Excellency has refused to make the appointment; and will he now reconsider his decision and make the appointment; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND, Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The resolution referred to was received by the late Lord Lieutenant, who undertook, in the event of a vacancy among the County Longford representatives on the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum Board, that the recommendation made on behalf of the Most Rev. Bishop Hoare would have careful consideration. The present Lord Lieutenant will be happy to favourably consider the case when the opportunity indicated arises.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL,asked whether the opportunity for the appointment was not at the commencement of the year when the Board was reconstituted.
  Mr. GERALD BALFOURreplied that that was not sufficient ground for removing a gentleman who occupied the position which the hon. Member wished to see occupied by the Bishop.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether he was to understand that the Lord Lieutenant had decided not to appoint the Most Rev. Dr. Hoare to the Board of Asylum.
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, that would be very incorrect.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLintimated that he would call attention to the matter on a future occasion.

  PARCEL POST.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the rate for the smallest parcel conveyed by parcels post from England to the Continent, viz., for a three pound parcel, is considerably higher than the rate for the largest parcel, viz., an eleven pound parcel, conveyed between France, Germany, Austria, and Italy; whether France and Germany extend favours to each other in this matter which they have not hitherto extended to England; whether the charge of 10d. upon an eleven pound parcel, made by the English railways to the English Post Office, exceeds the whole postal rate from Berlin to Bordeaux, or Cologne to Buda Pesth; and, whether steps can be taken to remedy these disadvantages to English commerce?
  MR. HANBURY: The total charge on a three pound parcel sent from England to Germany is higher than the charge on an eleven pound parcel exchanged between France and Germany, or Germany and Austria. It is the same as the charge on an eleven pound parcel from France to Austria, and it is lower than the charge on such a parcel from Germany to Italy, which is 1s. 5d., and a delivery charge of 3½d. I am not aware that France and Germany make more favourable arrangements with each other than they do with this country. The total charge on a parcel from Berlin to Bordeaux is 1s. 1d., and from Cologne to Buda Pesth 8½d., including delivery
  746
  in both cases. As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the disadvantages to which he refers are due to the geographical position of this country, which involves a charge for sea postage on parcels exchanged with the Continent, and to the statutory payments which have to be made to the railway companies on parcels conveyed within the country.

  GIBRALTAR.
  MR. CHARLES BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has come to any decision with reference to the scheme prepared last year by the Admiralty Director of Works for the construction of a mercantile mole at Gibraltar, in compliance with the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce in that port?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): The Government are considering ways and means for the construction of a new mercantile mole at Gibraltar, and I hope they will announce their decision very shortly.

  LABOURERS' ACTS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cottages have been built up to the beginning of this year under the Labourers' Acts (Ireland) 1885–6, what is the average annual charge on the rates of the locality for each house, and whether he can see his way, by a simplification of the machinery of these Acts, to place their working on a more satisfactory economical footing?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The last annual Report of the Local Government Board shows that on March 31, 1895, 10,848 cottages had been provided under the Labourers' Acts, and that 802 others were in progress or contracted for. The next annual Report of the Board will bring this information down to the 31st instant, and they are unable at present to say precisely how many cottages had been built at the beginning of the year, but estimate the number at 11,500. The annual charge on the rates

  747
  in respect of each cottage varies in different unions, having regard to the class of building provided, the rents charged, and the scarcity or otherwise of building materials. The general average cost of providing these cottages may, however, be taken at about £125 for each cottage, and the average rent charged is only about 1s. a week, or £2 12s. a year. The annual loss to the ratepayers during the term of a loan of £125 for 50 years (the maximum period) would be about £3 per house, without taking into account the cost of repairs, collecting the rents, insurance, taxes, arrears, &c. These form a considerable item, often exceeding the rents paid by the tenants, and the Local Government Board do not think it would be very wide of the mark to put down the average loss to the ratepayers at about £5 per cottage per annum. This loss to the ratepayers does not arise out of any defects in the machinery of the working of the Acts, which, no doubt, is cumbrous, but from the low rent charged as compared with the cost of construction and the necessary outgoings.

  CONVICTS ON LICENCE.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, both as regards the Metropolitan Police District and the rest of the county respectively, how many convicts liberated on licence are under obligation to report themselves, and how many actually report themselves; and, how many persons sentenced to a term of police supervision are now under obligation to report themselves, and how many of them actually report themselves?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,: It would take some time to collect the information which the hon. Member asks for. There would be no difficulty I think in giving a return, if the hon. Member moves for it, of the number of persons at large under police supervision, as licence-holders or supervisees, in each police district as on pages 190 to 193 of the criminal statistics for 1893, and the number of those who either are allowed to report themselves by letter
  748
  or have had the obligation to report remitted. No useful results would, however, be obtained I think by attempting to compile returns of the number of those who report themselves or of those who omit to do so. If a person under police supervision fails to report, his arrest is at once attempted—if he cannot be found, it is impossible of course for the police to say that he is actually in the district and, therefore, to include him in the return.

  PRISON ILL-TREATMENT (ALLEGED).
  MR. F. A. NEWDIGATE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to a lecture, delivered on Thursday, 5th March, at Coventry, in which the lecturer, Mr. Donald Stuart, described as late Captain 86th Regiment, who, condemned to imprisonment for three years in 1893, did seven months at Wormwood Scrubbs and the rest of the time at Parkhurst, alleged that murders and outrages, of which the outside world knows nothing, are frequently committed in prisons, and that prisoners are kicked and beaten in the most brutal fashion; and if the Secretary of State for the Home Department will cause an Inquiry to be made into these allegations?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called by the hon. Member's Question to the report of a lecture delivered by this man. Inquiries are always made into charges of this kind if particulars are given. Without some particulars it is impossible, of course, to proceed very far, and the allegations made by Stuart were entirely general in character. It is only fair to the prison officials to add that it is not uncommon for prisoners and ex-prisoners to make charges of an atrocious character which investigation proves to be wholly without foundation.

  CYCLISTS IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the number of carriages and equestrians during the last few weeks that frequent the road on the north side

  749
  of the Serpentine, to the imminent danger of bicyclists, who have been granted the use of that road up to 12 o'clock; whether he will deem it advisable either to limit the number of carriages and equestrians, or exclude them altogether; and whether, in the event of that not being conceded, he will cause to be prepared and railed off a strip of Rotten Row for the use of bicyclists?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I am sorry to say that I cannot agree at present to any alteration of the arrangements for bicycling in the Parks. After I have seen their working during the summer months, I will consider the matter further in communication with H. R. H. the Ranger.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Elementary Education Act this Session, with the view of limiting and lessening the expenditure of the London School Board?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): It is not proposed to deal exceptionally with the London School Board.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND.)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the average rate of result fees per pupil earned in Cavan District No. 23 in the years 1885 and 1895, and the total result fees in same district and years; also the number of cases in which National School Teachers in this district have appealed to the Education Commissioners against the examination of their pupils in 1885 and 1895. And, whether, in the cases of such appeals results fees have been paid on the marking of the district inspector appealed against, or of the head inspector sent to examine the school; and, if on the former marking, why?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet received full information in reply to inquiries which I have made arising out of this Question, and must ask the hon. Member to repeat it tomorrow.

  RIFLE RANGES (VOLUNTEERS.)
  MR. CHARLES COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the fact that the Government propose placing the new rifle in the hands of the Volunteers at an early date, they are prepared to undertake any consequent alteration in ranges; or, whether, failing that course, Commanding Officers of Volunteers would have power to borrow money for the construction or reconstruction of ranges and butts under the Bill entitled "a Bill to amend The Military Lands Act, 1892."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Commanding Officers of Volunteers have already power, under the Military Lands Act of 1892, to borrow, subject to the Secretary of State's sanction, for the purpose of acquiring land for ranges. The general question of ranges is one on which I hope to touch in introducing the Estimates.

  IRISH MAILS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Tipperary, Mr. T. J. CONDON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the great inconvenience suffered by people of Cahir, Clonmel, and Carrick-on-Suir arising from the frequent and long delays in the arrival of the morning mails from Dublin. And whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay with the view to have this irregularity prevented in future?
  MR. HANBURY: The delays referred to by the hon. Member arise chiefly from the inability of the Water-ford and Limerick Railway Company to keep back the Waterford train at Limerick Junction when the mail from England is from storm or other cause late in arriving. The Post Office has

  751
  communicated with the Railway Company on the subject, but owing to the line being single there is much difficulty in arranging for a detention of the Waterford Train at the Junction on the occasions in question. The matter will not, however be lost sight of. I must add I have answered almost the same question on February 28.

  FACTORY WORK (RELAXATION OF RULES.)
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he can give an assurance that the rules contained in the Factory Act, by which the giving out of work in the shirt trade and similar industries is controlled, will not be relaxed; (2) whether he is aware that the relaxation would lead to the reintroduction of sweating in the trades referred to; and, (3) whether he will cause careful inquiry to be made into any petitions in favour of the relaxation of the rules which may have reached him, with a view to ascertaining how far they really represent the views of the actual workers in the trade?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am unable at present to say more in answer to the hon. Member's Question than that the whole subject is engaging my consideration and that the inquiries suggested in the last paragraph of the Question are being made.

  TRAWLING IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Moray Firth Fisheries Association, complaining that the service of sea police has proved inefficient for the purpose of suppressing beam trawling in the Moray Firth, and recommending the employment of two or three fast steamers, similar in build to trawlers, manned partly by local fishermen acquainted with the fishing grounds, and under the direct control of the Fishery Board; whether he has given consideration to the facts and arguments adduced in support of this recommendation by a body representing a large number of practical fishermen; and, whether he will state what objections, if any, there are to the course proposed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The Secretary for Scotland has received the memorial referred to, but he cannot admit that the service of the sea police in the Moray Firth has proved inefficient. Through the co-operation of the Admiralty, gunboats have assisted in the suppression of trawling, and the Secretary for Scotland does not consider that the advantages of the proposal suggested in the memorial would be commensurate with the heavy additional outlay it would involve. Various suggestions have been received both from the memorialists and from other sources, all of which will continue to receive careful attention.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that illegal trawling is usually carried on with greater vigour on Sundays in the Moray Firth and around the Western Islands, and that the gunboats, to which the duty of protecting the line fishing industry is assigned, frequently remain in harbour on that day, arrangements will be made for these cruisers to exercise proper vigilance every day in the week?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Without admitting the assumptions of fact on which this Question is based, I may say that according to my information the attention of the Commanders of cruisers engaged in fishery superintendence has been specially directed to the fact that trawlers are addicted to Sunday fishing, and the Commander of H. M. S. Cockchafer has reported that, when the weather permits, he is at sea two Sundays out of three.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will furnish the names and addresses of the persons authorised to receive complaints of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

  ARMY RECRUITING.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any explanation can be afforded of the causes of the falling off in recruiting of 10,537 for the past three years, 1892–5.
  MR. BRODRICK: The explanation is that more men were required to complete the establishment in 1892 than were wanted in 1895. In each year the establishment was completed, as many recruits being forthcoming as were required.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will state the amount expended in recruiting in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland during the current financial year?
  MR. BRODRICK: To the end of January the expenditure was £732 15s. 2d.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether attention has been directed to the high percentage of rejections of recruits who presented themselves in the past three years for medical examination; and whether in the year 1895, with 55,698 presenting themselves for medical examination and 22,839 rejected, only 29,059 is the total number of recruits who joined; and, whether the 3,800 recruits who passed the medical examination, and who did not join, were rejected for other, and, if so, for what reasons?
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures quoted in the Question are accurate. The number of rejections is attributable to the care with which applicants for enlistment are examined. The 3,800 who passed the medical examination, but did not join, consisted of men who either failed to appear for attestation or were rejected by approving officers on grounds of unsatisfactory character, &c.

  FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has any knowledge of the identity of the English Military Officers who are reported from Madrid as having volunteered their services to Spain in the event of possible hostilities between Spain and the United States of America; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent English Officers, Naval or Military, declaring or acting under similar circumstances against a friendly Power?
  MR. BRODRICK: No such report has reached the War Office. Service under a foreign Government against a
  754
  friendly Power would bring a British subject under the penalties laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD CRUISER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of times the Scottish Fishery Board's cruiser New Vigilant has broken down since she was purchased, and the amount which has been expended on her repairs?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed that the vessel referred to has never broken down since she was purchased, but on one occasion she sustained some damage during a storm. The sum expended on her in repairs since her purchase is £238.

  PORT NESS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, on completion of the works now in progress at Port Ness, the breakwater will be 240 feet in length as originally designed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The original design was 250 feet which was finally reduced to 125 feet, because a substantial contractor could not be found to undertake the original design for the £15,000 granted for the purpose.

  TRAWLING OFF WILKHAVEN (ROSS SHIRE).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to state whether any steps have been taken to prosecute the owner or master of Trawler No. A 560 for trawling within the three-mile-limit off Wilkhaven, Tarbet, Ross-shire, on the 11th ultimo?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: My answer to this is in the negative, the matter being under the consideration of the Crown Authorities.

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. R. McKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Command Paper, France, No. 1, 1896, containing the Treaties between France and China, signed at Peking on the 20th June 1895, will be circulated to Members?
  MR. CURZON: It will be distributed this week.

  CUSTOMS (STATISTICAL OFFICE).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the recent advertisement in the London daily papers for clerks for employment in the Statistical Office, Custom House, at initial salaries of 30s. a week, whether, considering the fact that the initial salary of Second Division Clerks is only equivalent to 27s. a week, and that there are a number of such clerks at the present time awaiting employment at the Civil Service Commission, he can state the reason why the services of these Second Division Clerks are not utilised in the Statistical Office, and the corresponding saving of salary effected?
  MR. HANBURY: There are only eight unappointed Second Division Clerks, and all of these are already in Civil Service employment, mainly as temporary Copyists. Even had such clerks been available, their employment in the Statistical Office would have been open to considerable objection. The work of the Office requires some preliminary training, and to assign it to unappointed Second Division Clerks who are liable to be withdrawn at a week's notice would mean a continuous and inconvenient exchange of trained for untrained officers.

  ARMY MAJORS (RETIREMENT.)
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the fact that the professional prospects of a great number of Majors in the Army are very seriously injured by the extension of the term of command beyond four years, now granted in many cases to Lieutenant Colonels commanding regiments and battalions, the Government have any intention of endeavouring to compensate for this injury by improving the conditions under which Majors can retire, as, for instance, by re-introducing the provision, recently abolished, by which a Major could retire on a pension of £300 a year after seven years' service in that rank?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce the very expensive system under which Majors could retire, after seven years' service in the rank, on £300
  756
  a year. Promotion has hitherto been sufficiently maintained without it. It is not anticipated that the occasional extension of terms of regimental command will render it necessary to resort to any measure of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

  MONAGHAN ASSIZES.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, (1) if the attention of the Government has been called to the empanelling of the Rev. A. N. Haire-Forster, J. P., as a grand juror at the present Monaghan Assizes; (2) is it legal for a clergyman in Holy Orders to be sworn a grand juror; and, (3) is it the case that, when some years ago the Rev. A. H. Packenham was summoned on the Antrim Grand Jury, the going Judge of Assizes refused to allow him to be sworn?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The answers to the first and second questions are in the affirmative. As to the third question it is the fact that the Rev. Mr. Packenham, on being sworn on the Antrim Grand Jury in the year 1860, was objected to, and then withdrew. But I have been unable to ascertain whether any decision was given on the question of qualification. I may mention that the Rev. Mr. Forster has not held any ecclesiastical office for a period of 12 years, and that he is a large landed proprietor.

  ARTILLERY HORSES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what is the effective strength of horses on the British establishment of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery together at the present moment, and what were the corresponding numbers in 1876, 1877, 1878, and 1879?
  MR. BRODRICK: The effective strength of horses on the British establishment of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery together is at present 4,420. The corresponding numbers for the years in the question were—in 1876, 5,964; 1877, 5,950; 1878, 5,950; 1879, 5212. The Horse Artillery has been reduced in the interval since

  757
  1876 by seven batteries, and this accounts for 730 out of the total reduction. In 1879–80 a reduction of about 700 wagon horses was made in the field batteries. It may also be observed that there is now a reserve of horses which did not exist in the earlier years named.

  ASSESSMENTS FOR INCOME TAX (BELFAST).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Belfast Grocers' and Spirit Dealers' Association complaining of the large increase in the assessments for Income Tax by the present surveyor of the city on small traders, and if a Return of the annual assessments from Belfast for the last five years can be granted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): My attention has not been called to the Resolution mentioned by the hon. Member. Individual assessments cannot of course be given, but there is no objection to stating the number of assessments and the total amount of profits assessed for each of the past five years, if the hon. Member desires it.

  VESTED SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why funds are no longer available to enable improvements to be made in the case of vested schools in Ireland; and will Parliament be asked to increase the provision?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The sum voted for this service for the current financial year has already been expended, and the Treasury, acting on the recommendation of the Irish Government, have agreed to ask Parliament to increase the provision in the coming financial year.

  POSTMASTERS.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether non-official members of postmasters' families, who reside in the post
  758
  office, are required to make a declaration of secrecy; and, if not, what steps are taken to prevent them having access to letters and telegrams?
  MR. HANBURY: The declaration which persons in the employment of the General Post Office are required to make by law can hardly be described as a "declaration of secresy," but all persons dealing with letters and telegrams are required to make it. The sub-postmaster of every office is held responsible that no information shall be divulged and would be severely punished if it were divulged by members of his family or persons in his employment.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the interests of national education, he will take steps to shorten the period of retirement, on full pension, of Irish teachers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As at present advised, I am not prepared to take any further steps for the purpose indicated in the question.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether steps have been taken to place the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund upon a solvent basis?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The steps taken to secure the solvency of the fund are still the subject of correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government.

  STREET PREACHING (SLIGO).
  MR. THOMAS CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state for what reason the citizens of Sligo, charged at Sligo Assizes with obstructing the street preachers who came to cause disturbances in the streets of Sligo, have been refused the prompt and speedy trial to which they are entitled; (2) whether he is aware that Colonel Cooper, the foreman of the Sligo Grand Jury, protested against the withdrawal of the police from country stations to protect strangers who came to make a "bear garden" of the streets of Sligo; (3) if he will say to what town the venue is to be changed; and (4) will he explain the reason for the change?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The trials in these cases have been postponed in order to give an opportunity for an application to be made to the Queen's Bench Division to change the venue on the ground that owing to the local prejudice and excitement, and especially to the comments in the two local newspapers, the Sligo Champion and the Sligo Independent, a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained in the local venue. I believe the foreman of the Grand Jury did make use of language to the effect stated in the second paragraph, though I am unable to say whether he used the words quoted in this connection. The place to which the venue will be changed is a matter to be decided by the Court of Queen's Bench.

  FLANNAN ISLANDS LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state whether the Estimates for the coming year of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, which include a sum of £3,500 towards the erection of the Flannan Islands Lighthouse, will receive the sanction of the Board of Trade in time for the work to be commenced early in the summer?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Estimates of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses will, I hope, receive the final consideration of the Board of Trade during the present month. I am not yet able to say what proposals for new works will be sanctioned, because it will be necessary carefully to consider all these with regard to the state of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the many competing claims upon it.

  THROWING A STONE AT A TRAIN.
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has his attention been drawn to a sentence of three years' penal servitude inflicted on two youths at the Westmeath October Sessions, for dropping a stone of about four ounces in weight from a bridge on a passing train; and, whether, as there was an entire absence of evidence that the act was committed with a malicious intent, he will have an Inquiry made
  760
  into the case with the view to a reduction of the sentence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that at the Quarter Sessions held at Mullingar, in October last, two young men, aged about 21 years, were convicted and sentenced to a term of three years' penal servitude on a charge of having thrown a stone weighing about a pound at a passing train. A memorial praying for a remission of the sentence has been received from one of the prisoners within the past few days, and this memorial is at present under the consideration of the Lords Justices.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (GALWAY).
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the letter of the Bishop of Galway and Kilmacdaugh, in the Freeman's Journal of the 9th inst., suggesting that the State will reconstitute the Queen's College at Galway on lines that will afford Catholics to enter without a strain of conscience: and, whether, considering the counties of Galway and Mayo, apart from the other western counties, have a population of considerably upwards of 400,000, he will so reconstitute the College as to enable the Catholics of Connaught to take advantage of the education facilities which the late Sir Robert Peel intended for them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question raises an important issue which would require more consideration than I have yet had an opportunity of giving it before I should feel myself justified in offering an opinion.

  COUNTY CARLOW ASYLUM.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state why the hon. Member for North Kildare was not re-appointed this year as one of the governors of the county Carlow Asylum, which is the asylum for the counties of Carlow and Kildare: Whether he is aware that he has been for some years one of the governors of this institution, and that he was one of the most regular attendants at the meetings of the board of governors;

  761
  and, whether, considering that he is one of the largest cess-payers in the county of Carlow, and is one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Kildare, he will consider the desirability of re-appointing him?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: asked whether it was not a fact that the Member for South Belfast had not been re-appointed this year one of the governors of the Co. Down Asylum from which he was dismissed by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the hon. Member for South Belfast is in the affirmative. Under a rule which has existed for some years, it is not the practice to select a Member of Parliament to be a representative of the Lord Lieutenant on a District Lunatic Asylum Board. His attendance in London in connection with his Parliamentary duties would, of necessity, interfere with his attendance at the Asylum Board meetings.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the right hon. gentleman whether it was not the fact that a vacancy at present existed, and how it was intended to fill it up.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  LIGHT-KEEPERS.
  MR. J. DILLON: On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Petitions presented by the Irish, English, and Scotch light-keepers, whether he can state about what time he expects action will be taken in the matter; whether he can say when the Departmental Committee will be in a position to present its Report; and, if the Report will be circulated?
  MR. RITCHIE: As a matter referred to in the question is one which has to be dealt with in the first instance by the different lighthouse authorities and not by the Board of Trade, I am not able to say when action is likely to be taken. I understand that the Committee will be in a position to make its report at an early date, but until that report is received I am not able to make any definite statement as to its circulation.

  ELECTORS (NORTH GALWAY).
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, MR. D. SHEEHY, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of electors in North Galway exceeds by 325 the number of inhabited houses in the constituency according to the last census, while there are only 15 freeholders and leaseholders and rent-chargers on the register; whether he will inquire as to the causes of the extraordinary increase of the electors from the poor law and county officials responsible for the production of the lists; whether any other Irish constituency exhibits a corresponding increase in its electorate; and, whether, seeing that the addition of nearly 3,000 names from 1891 to 1895 adds to the amount of the candidate's security to the sheriff at a Parliamentary election from £400 to £700, strict inquiry will be made as to what officials are responsible for this addition to the electoral strength of the constituency in a county in which the population has been steadily decreasing in recent years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is
  necessary to make inquiries from the Clerks of several Poor Law Unions in the constituency referred to, and I do not think I shall be in a position to reply to the hon. Member's question until Monday next.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Army Medical Officers after resigning on receipt of a gratuity are liable to be recalled to serve up to the age of 55; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds; whether Combatant Officers resigning on gratuity are also liable to be recalled up to the same age; and, will he explain on what grounds the names of Army Medical Officers appear on the Monthly Army List (Active List) mixed up with those drawing pension?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is part of the contract under which officers serve and are paid that they should, if retiring on retired pay or gratuity, be liable to be

  763
  recalled up to the age of 55 to serve in case of emergency. This applies to Combatant Officers unless they retire as lieutenants or captains, when the liability only extends to the age of 50 years, beyond which it is not considered that they would be efficient in those ranks. The names of medical officers on the retired list with liability to further service appear in the Army List after those on the Active List as a matter of convenience, because there are a number of home appointments for which such officers are eligible.

  IMPORTED CATTLE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any further cases of transit pneumonia have been reported as occurring in cattle imported from Canada and the United States; if the affection is clearly specific, or merely caused by hardship and exposure; and whether there is any infective power; and, if so, of what degree?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The cases to which I understand the hon. Member to refer are the cases in which contagious pleuro-pneumonia has been discovered in cattle brought from Canada and the United States. Of these, there have been, in all 88 cases—viz., 72 from the United States and 16 from Canada, since October 1892. The disease is undoubtedly a specific one and of an infectious character, but the degree of infectivity is relatively low.
  DR. TANNERasked whether it was a fact that the sanitary officers in the United States and also in Canada, had cast serious and grave doubts upon the infectious character of the disease?
  MR. LONGsaid, he did not know whether the sanitary officers cast those doubts, but certain doubts were cast. The question was raised and it was proved conclusively in this country that the disease was infectious.
  DR. TANNERasked whether those doubts were not embodied in the very latest return issued by the Board of Agriculture?

  POLICE (FIXED POINT DUTY).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state if constables on fixed point duty outside public-houses are expected to exercise supervision as regards the protection of property in the vicinity of their posts; and whether, in the event of the repeated destruction of property in the vicinity of such a post, some special protection can be afforded the owner of the injured property upon application at the nearest police station?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: All constables on fixed point duty are instructed to render assistance in every case in which police duties and powers require them to act. In the event of destruction of property immediate attention would be paid to an application for protection on its being made at the nearest police station.

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY (NEW LINES) ACT, 1880.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why the Highland Railway Company have failed to construct Railways Nos. 2 and 5 (one of which is a railway of two miles only), as provided under the Highland Railway (New Lines) Act, 1890?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the Company, but have not yet received their reply.

  OCCUPATION OF LAPA BY GERMANY.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether 50 German marines are engaged in surveying the harbour and island of Lapa, and in bringing the roads into good order; and whether the necessary soundings and surveys having already been made at Quemoy, an act of annexation is imminent?
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to a report contained in a leading Berlin journal that the Chinese Government have ceded

  765
  Lapa, therein referred to as a treaty port, to Germany; and whether he has any information on the point?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have received no such information in regard to Lapa or Quemoy. They have, however, telegraphed to Peking to inquire.

  NAVY (NEW CONSTRUCTION).
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, to what extent each of the four further Votes, in the Navy Supplementary Estimate, provides for "New Construction"?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The provision for New Construction under the several Votes is as follows, viz.:—

  £

  8.

  Sec. I.

  …

  …

  …

  72, 129

  8.

  Sec. II.

  …

  …

  …

  287, 500

  8.

  Sec. III.

  …

  …

  …

  280, 000

  9.

  …

  …

  …

  202, 500

  £842,129

  BOARD OF WORKS LOANS (IRELAND).
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is his intention to introduce legislation during the coming Session to alter the rate of interest charged on loans made by the Board of Works in Ireland to a sum more in proportion to the present market value of money, and to fix a rate of interest on these loans that will insure the Department against loss, but will not provide a large and substantial profit to the Government; if he will extend the provisions of such legislation to corporations and town commissioners, in order that they may be able to borrow money on such terms as would make it possible for them to build artisans' dwellings in Ireland, and let them at a reasonable rent; and, would he also state what are the various rates of interest charged to the different public bodies in Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: The various rates of interest on loans advanced by the Board of Works in Ireland are given in
  766
  Appendix E to the Board's 63rd Report, issued in 1895, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. As I stated in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for West Mayo on the 9th instant, any reduction in the present rate of interest on Government Loans would seriously endanger the solvency of the Local Loans Fund as at present constituted.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware that the extra officers of Her Majesty's Customs are in receipt of 21s. and 19s. only per week, and are liable to work 72 hours and 60 hours respectively, without any possibility of a rise in wages or pension on retirement; and, if so, whether he will advise Her Majesty's Government to grant these men a uniform wage of 24s. per week for 48 hours' work, and the same advantages both as regards sick pay and retiring pension as are now accorded to other servants doing similar work in Her Majesty's Customs?
  MR. HANBURY: Under the present system, some of the London extra men are ordinary casual labourers, paid 3s. 2d. a day when employed, but with no claim to continuous employment or retiring allowance. The others, who are classed as permanent labourers, are liable to employment from 8 to 4 in summer, and from 9 to 4 in winter. or longer if the public service requires. If their usual daily attendance exceeds the hours mentioned, they are paid 21s. a week; if not, 19s. They get a week's notice before their employment can be discontinued, and after sufficient length of service may receive retiring gratuities under certain conditions. The work is generally of a light character, not involving hard physical exertion. The whole subject is now under consideration in connection with the proposed establishment of a class of persons to be known as "Customs Watchers," consequent on the abolition of the grade of outdoor officers. The watchers are designed to take the inferior kinds of duty which now fall to outdoor officers, and which include, generally, duties on which extra men are employed.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Sir Jacobus de Wet is absent from Pretoria, and has entrusted his responsibility for British interests, during his absence, to a Dutch gentleman who has taken the oath of allegiance to the Transvaal Government?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir Jacobus de Wet was granted a fortnight's leave of absence for reasons of health on February 18, and has now probably resumed his duties. During his temporary absence the High Commissioner arranged that those duties should be performed by Mr. Advocate Cloete, of Pretoria, a member of a highly respected Cape family, who have always been noted for their attachment to the British Crown, and some of whom have rendered distinguished services to Her Majesty and her predecessors. I am not aware whether Mr. Cloete has taken the oath of allegiance to the South African Republic, but, if he has, it is no bar to his temporary employment as our representative at Pretoria.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he intends to introduce into the coming Land Bill a purchase clause of a retrospective character, so as to ameliorate the condition of those tenants who, through stress of circumstances, were compelled to purchase at high prices, and who now find it very difficult to keep their engagements with the Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only answer I can give to this question is to say I cannot disclose the provisions of the coming Land Bill prior to its introduction.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, about what date he expects to have the proposed Irish Land Bill printed and ready for circulation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Bill will be circulated, following the usual course, when it has been introduced.

  SALE OF HOLDINGS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Court Valuer who visited Lord Annaly's Co. Long-ford estate in January 1895, with a view to reporting on the proposal of the tenants to purchase their holdings at the following prices: under £10 valuation, 16 years' purchase; under £30 valuation, 17 years' purchase; and under £100 valuation, 18 years' purchase, has yet sent in his report to the Commission: and, if so, was it favourable to the sanctioning of the purchase, and what is the cause of delay in this case, which affects a large number of tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In replying to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 27th ultimo relating to this matter, I stated I would inquire whether anything could be done to expedite the proceedings. I have since been in communication with the Registrar of the Land Judges' Court, and have been informed that the solicitor having charge of the sale of the property hopes to be able, during the next sittings, to bring the proposal of the Land Commission before the Judge, and so to close the sales to the tenants. It is a fact that, to facilitate the preparation of the rental and the sale of the holdings, the Land Commission departed from their usual course and had the estate inspected prior to the preparation of the rental. As a rule, the Inspector's report of his inspection was favourable. I may add that, in a police report received by me this morning, it is stated that a number of purchases have been completed on this estate at Rathcline.

  IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if Ireland's portion of the Budget surplus which was applied under the Education (Ireland) Act of 1892 to free education in the National schools, has been applied in such a way as to make all the schools really free; (2) has his attention been drawn to the fact that, while 10s. per pupil is paid in lieu of school fees for every child in average attendance at an ordinary English school, only 4s., or a little over, is paid for every child

  769
  attending an Irish school, and that, while the average income of an English principal teacher is £137, that of an Irish principal teacher is only £97; (3) whether the salaries paid to the teachers of small schools in Ireland (previously paid from the ordinary Education Grant), the bonuses paid to certain assistant teachers, and other special payments, are made out of the Parliamentary School Grant under the Act, and is it the intention of the Government in the present Session to make these payments a charge on the ordinary Education Estimates, and pay the money now given for those purposes as an increased residual Capitation Grant; and, (4) what other steps do the Government intend to take to raise the incomes of Irish teachers to an equality with those of English teachers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As to the first paragraph, the Act of 1892 provided that in any school receiving aid from the School Grant where the average rate of fees received in 1891 was in excess of 6s. for each child, fees may be charged, but so that the average rate of fees shall not exceed the amount of such excess. Thus, if 10s. was the average rate in 1891, fees may still be charged, but so that the average rate shall not exceed 4s. per pupil. About 1,000 schools are authorised to charge "excess fees" under the Act of 1892. In answer to the second part of the Question, I have to say that the School Grant for Ireland for the current financial year if distributed on the principle of capitation, as in England, would yield about 9s. 9d. per pupil. No proper comparison can be drawn between the incomes of teachers in England and Ireland, as 34 per cent. of the incomes of the former and only 7 per cent. of the latter are derivable from local sources, and the fixed salaries of Irish teachers vary according to their class. The public grants, moreover, are paid to Irish teachers individually and directly, whereas in England the funds are at the disposal of school managers. The answer to the third Question is that the salaries of the teachers of small schools are still paid from the ordinary Education Grant, the only change being that these schools share also in the benefits of the School Grant, which makes provision for bonuses to assistants quite
  770
  independently of what is termed in the question "the ordinary Education Estimates."

  ALDERSHOT (ARMY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the serious complaints frequently made about the inadequate hospital accommodation at Aldershot is receiving attention; and, if so, how; whether a hospital for infectious diseases has been built; and, whether any, and if so, what steps have been taken to provide a hospital for soldiers' families?
  MR. BRODRICK: The subject of the hospital accommodation at Aldershot has been duly considered. In a few weeks 104 additional beds will be ready for occupation at the Cambridge Hospital. A hospital of 251 beds for the Marlborough lines is in course of erection. A hospital of 48 beds for infectious diseases—half for men, half for women and children—will be ready in the summer. A contract is about to be made for building a hospital of 50 beds for soldiers' wives and children. The plans of this hospital are completed. Half the accommodation will be for maternity cases.

  ASSISTANT OVERSEERS.
  MR. PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the case of powers having been conferred upon an Urban District Council by an Order of the Local Government Board, under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894, to appoint and revoke the appointment of assistant overseers, an existing assistant overseer in any such urban district who has been appointed by vestry and justices holds office on the same terms as before, his appointment being only revocable by the vestry?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Act, 1894, by Section 33, provides that, in the case of a transfer of powers under that section, the Local Government Board shall make such provisions as may seem necessary and

  771
  just for the preservation of the existing interests of paid officers; and it has been the practice, therefore, of the Board, when they have issued an Order conferring on an Urban District Council the powers of a Parish Council as to the appointment or revocation of the appointment of an Assistant Overseer, to provide that the Assistant Overseer in office at the date of the Order shall continue to hold office on the same terms as was previously the case. The appointments in such cases are only revocable by the vestry.

  RECRUITMENT OF LABOURERS (CONGO).
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that in recent years some hundreds of British subjects have been engaged within the Sierra Leone and Gold Coast spheres of British Government (in many cases through the paid agency of a native of Sierra Leone, named Porter) under contract for service as labourers at Boma, in the Congo Free State, for a period of two years; (2) whether the labourers have been subsequently employed without their consent as soldiers, and, although British subjects, compelled by force to go on expeditions to distant parts of the Congo territory to be employed in war; (3) whether these men or many of them have been compelled to remain beyond their contracted period of service; (4) whether they have been subjected to most cruel floggings, and in some cases actually murdered by Belgian commissioned and non-commissioned officers; arid, (5) whether the engagement of these native subjects of Her Majesty has been made with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives in those colonies?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government is aware of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph; and complaints have been received of these British subjects having been employed without their consent as soldiers, and of their having been cruelly flogged, and in some cases shot; but not of their having been compelled to remain
  772
  beyond their contracted term of service. They were engaged with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives, and every possible precaution was taken in their interests; but, in consequence of the complaints received, the recruitment of labourers for the Congo in the British West African colonies has now been prohibited, and the attention of Vice-Consul Arthur, who has now reached his post, has been specially directed to the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

  DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if an official Inquiry has been held into the case of the death of a man named Mahony, of 112, Brandon Street, Walworth, where the deceased was attended, as it is alleged, by an unqualified medical practitioner, and where the order for burial was granted by Coroner Wyatt, of Surrey; and, if the Home Office has come to any decision as to the necessity for holding an Inquiry?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: An Inquiry into the case was made by the coroner, who was satisfied, as a result, that death was due to natural causes and that no inquest was necessary. I have obtained a full Report on the case and can discover no grounds for any action on my part.

  NEWCASTLE PIER (COUNTY DOWN.)
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will state the amount recommended by the Board of Works as required to restore the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, and whether he will mention the amount proposed to be given by the Treasury toward this object?
  MR. HANBURY: The estimated amount required to restore the pier is £12,000 with a margin of £1,000 more for possible contingencies. The maximum amount which under certain conditions the Treasury might consent to provide would be £5, 000.

  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION AT MALTA.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, (1) whether the hospital accommodation at Malta has been frequently complained of in consequence of certain sanitary defects;(2)whether, as in the last Report a considerable increase in the number of cases for hospital treatment is given, an Inquiry into alleged defects will be made;(3) whether the high ratio of cases invalided, 210·76 per 1,000, can be explained; and (4) what was the entire number of cases under treatment?
  MR. MACARTNEY: No complaints of the nature stated in paragraph 1 of the Question have been received, but it was decided in 1894 on general grounds that the sanitary arrangements of the hospital did not comply, in all respects, with modern requirements. Various works are being gradually carried out to meet this want, and they will be completed in the ensuing financial year. The increase in the number of cases for hospital treatment is due to the augmentation of the force on the station. It is desirable in the interest of the Service as well as beneficial for the individuals to invalid promptly from Malta to England, in order to faciliate speedy recovery and resumption, of duty. There were 1,448 cases under treatment in 1895. No Inquiry of the kind suggested appears necessary.

  ARMY PENSIONS.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the case of No. 4,443, Private Benjamin Ball, aged 62 years, who served 9 years 262 days in the Rifle Brigade, of which he spent one month at Malta, 13 months in the Crimea, including siege of Sevastapol, and two-and-a-half years in British North America, being eventually discharged as unfit for further service, and only received 6d. a day for two-and-a-half years; that, having endeavoured to earn a livelihood since his discharge, he is now certified as being totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, owing to chronic bronchitis and lung disease; and that he has been refused any compassionate allowance on the ground that he
  774
  did not complete the necessary period of 10 years' service; whether it was through the exigencies of the Service and not his own fault that he did not do so; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of considering this and all such cases on their merits, irrespective of the length of service?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): There has not been time since the hon. Member addressed his question to the War Office to ascertain the facts of Ball's case, but, assuming that they are as stated in the question, Ball is not entitled to a special campaign pension as he did not servo 10 years. One difficulty in the way of removing the 10 years' limit is that it would give rise to a heavy additional charge upon the non-effective Vote, it being estimated that there are still over 15,000 soldiers with Crimean service alive; to pension all of them would cause a charge of nearly £250,000 per annum.

  HOLLOWAY SANATORIUM.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Commissioner appointed by his predecessor to inquire into the circumstances of the death of Thomas Weir, a patient at the Holloway Sanatorium, whilst confined in a "dry pack," and to the opinions there in expressed and recommendations made as to certain features in the management of that institution, also to certain charges and allegations of other serious occurrences since at the same institution, and to the Report of Messrs. Bagot and Needham to their fellow Lunacy Commissioners in respect of their investigation into these occurrences; whether those making the charges and allegations had any notice of this inquiry, or were afforded by Messrs. Bagot and Needham any opportunity of in any way sustaining their statements; (2) whether the Lunacy Commission has come to any conclusion or taken any action on the report of their colleagues; and (3) whether, having regard to the state of things disclosed by the Report of the Commission of 20th April, 1895, and that of Messrs. Bagot and

  775
  Needham of the 30th October, 1895, he proposes to take any steps with respect to the management of the Holloway Sanatorium?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is that the friends of the patients whose cases were inquired into by Messrs. Bagot and Needham received notice of the inquiry, and had the opportunity of attending either in person or by their legal representative. The report of Messrs. Needham and Bagot was adopted by the Lunacy Commissioners, and in the recent revision of the regulations of the Sanatorium they insisted on the insertion of a stricter definition of the duties of the medical staff, and of provisions to insure more careful personal supervision by the superintendent of the patients individually, and of their medical and other treatment. I believe that the recent investigations, and the steps which have been taken in consequence of them, will put the management of the Sanatorium on a more satisfactory footing.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what is the present number of midshipmen borne on the active list of the Royal Naval Reserves; whether that list is full; and whether there are any qualified candidates, and, if so, how many, waiting for appointment; and, whether, in considering applications for appointment as midshipman in the Reserve, any special consideration is given to those coming from sons of naval officers?
  The FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The present number of midshipmen on the list of the Royal Naval Reserve is 440. It is now full. There are 27 qualified candidates who have applied for appointment. The fact of a candidate being the son of a naval officer is, together with other points, considered, but the appointment must depend upon his general qualifications for a commission in the Royal Naval Reserve.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick O'Neill, lately deported from London to the North Dublin Union; whether he is aware of the fact that this man, an artist and sculptor, was 43 years a ratepayer in London, and at one time paid rates in three different parishes; that, owing to ill-health and other circumstances, he was obliged to seek parish relief; and that he was forcibly sent to Dublin, and separated from some unfinished work and his tools, which if in his possession would enable him to resume employment; and, whether he will inquire into this case and bring about a change in the law regarding the deportation of those Irishmen and women who have spent their labour-lives in Great Britain?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have made inquiries as to the case of Patrick O'Neill. I am informed by the Guardians of the parish of Camberwell, by whom he was removed to Ireland in December last, that for some years prior to August, 1894, he was continuously in and out of the workhouse, under the name of Joseph Jones, and that he again became chargeable in November, 1895. From a communication which I have received from the Lewisham Union, it appears that he was removed to Ireland by the Guardians of that Union in October last, and that the request that he might be removed to Ireland came from himself solely. He subsequently returned from Ireland to England, and it was on his return, when he became chargeable to the parish of Camberwell, that he was again removed. Prior to his removal by the Camberwell Guardians, inquiries were made at the addresses where it was stated that he had clothing and tools, but it was found that they were of little or no value, and that the persons holding them declined to give them up unless certain amounts owing, for which they were detained, were paid. Similar statements were made by the Guardians of the Lewisham Union as to the results of their inquiries with respect to the property alleged to belong to him. I have no confirmation of the statement of the man that he had been a ratepayer for 43 years in London,

  777
  and at one time paid rates in three different parishes. As regards the question as to the law of removal, I cannot add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. Member on 25th February last.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ART, DUBLIN.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any steps are being taken to provide suitable buildings for the Royal College of Science and Art, Dublin, and to extend and promote technical training and education in Ireland up to the industrial and scientific requirements of the present day.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first part of this Question should be addressed to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and as to the latter part of the Question I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the similar inquiry he addressed to me on Friday last.

  BALTIMORE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL (IRELAND.)
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any attempt will be made during this Session of Parliament to provide a remedy obviating the discharging boys at 16 years of age from the Baltimore Industrial School; whether the suggestion of their detention until the age of 18 has been frequently and strongly advocated in the reports of the Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in Ireland; whether the practice of sending boys to learn practical work on the sea under 14 years of age has been found successful; and, whether the Government will undertake to provide some remedy dealing with the subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools has recommended the detention of boys who desire to follow a seafaring life until they reach the age of 18 years. No boys under the age of 14 are sent to sea in the fishing boats belonging to the School. Legislation would be required to extend the
  778
  period of detention as proposed, and I am not able to give any undertaking to deal with the matter during the present Session.

  CHARGES AGAINST AN ARMY SURGEON-MAJOR.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Standard of the 10th March, as to the case of Surgeon-Major Clarence Smith; whether the allegations contained in that statement with respect to the gravity of the offence charged against Surgeon-Major Smith, the action of the Government of Madras and of the late Secretary of State are correct; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission appointed by the late Secretary of State to investigate this case?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The offence for which Surgeon-Major Smith was required to retire from the service was more serious than would be gathered from the article alluded to, and there was on that point no difference of opinion whatever between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. A Commission had been appointed before I took office to inquire into the accuracy of the allegations made, and their Report was only received a short time back. The delay that thus occurred in settling the case resulted in a postponement of the date of the retirement of the officer in question, which secured him, according to the existing regulations, certain advantages in respect of pension. It would be contrary to the practice both of the War Office and of the India Office to make public any papers affecting the conduct of an officer upon which the Secretary of State has passed orders, and I am not prepared to depart from that practice in this case.

  CUSTOMS EXTRA MEN (LIVERPOOL).
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have had under consideration certain complaints made as

  779
  to pay and hours of the extra men employed by the Department in the port of Liverpool; whether the proposed remedy of the entire abolition of casual employment has now received consideration; and, whether any new system has yet been decided on as to the carrying on of the work hitherto done by extra men?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Customs have not received any memorial from the Liverpool extra men as regards their pay and hours since I answered the hon. Member's Question of the 3rd September on the same subject. The Board are fully alive to the desirability of reducing casual employment to a minimum, but they do not think it possible to dispense altogether with it, or with the services of extra men. The question of the conditions of such service is, however, now to some extent under review in connection with a rearrangement of the junior class in the Outdoor Department, and any representations from the Liverpool casual extra men will be considered in the same connection.

  PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, considering that the Second Reading of the Prison-made Goods Importation Bill is persistently opposed, and that under such circumstances there is no chance of its being passed into law without the assistance of the Government, he can see his way to promise any facilities for its discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not see much chance of my being able to find time for this Bill, for at present I have not succeeded in finding time for the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I may add that if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had had the foresight to put it down on a certain Friday night, the Second Reading would now have been obtained.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great interest is taken in this Bill in many parts of the country?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am aware of that, and I hope great interest is also taken in those Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech to which I have referred.

  MEMBERS' DINNER HOUR.
  MR. T. LEGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will consider the advisability of making arrangements by which a fixed interval of one hour may be allowed for dinner?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If my memory serves me right, there was a proposal made by the late Mr. W. H. Smith to the effect that the House should sit every night till one, and that there should be an interval of one hour, between eight and nine for dinner. The dinner hour was given up and the House got to bed an hour earlier in exchange [cheers], and I cannot help thinking that if the same alternative were to be put forth now, the same decision would be arrived at. [Cheers.] At the same time, I am decidedly of opinion that the practice of counting the House during that time has been greatly abused, and, if I saw any means of putting an end to that abuse, I would gladly take advantage of it.
  MR. LEGHasked was not Mr. Smith's proposal abandoned out of consideration for new Members, and also whether there was any ground for the assumption that new Members were of a more modest and retiring disposition than the Gentlemen who sat in previous Parliaments? [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I suppose my hon. Friend alludes to the fact that the dinner time affords a suitable time for new Members to practise their oratory, and I imagine they are no less anxious to practise oratory in this than in previous Parliaments. [Laughter.] Though I should be sorry to confine them to the dinner hour, it would be very hard to deprive them of that time. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]

  SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.
  MR.GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has

  781
  been called to the statements in the Spanish press that, in the event of a war with the United States, resulting from a recognition by the latter Power of the Cuban insurgents as belligerents, Spain will fit out privateers to prey on the United States commerce; and has the Government taken into their consideration the fact that Spain, not being a party to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which assumes to declare that privateering is abolished, would be within her rights in thus acting; and that Spain would be within her rights in capturing, whether by privateers or by men-of-war, all United States property found on the high seas under a neutral flag; whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the situation which would thus be created for Great Britain, which, by adhering to the Declaration of Paris, has waived her right to capture enemy's goods under the neutral flag when herself at war, while, when herself at peace, her own carrying trade would be so seriously interfered with in the case contemplated; and, whether, in view of the complications and injuries which would arise, either during a war between Spain and the United States, or between Great Britain and any other Power which has not acceded to the Declaration of Paris, Her Majesty's Government will submit to the consideration of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and will itself consider, the whole effects of the Declaration of Paris, and the advisability of exercising the right of Great Britain to withdraw from it by another Declaration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no reason to question the view of international law expressed in the first paragraph by my hon. Friend, who has made a special study of this subject. In view, however, of the fact that no privateers have been used in any war since 1856, even by those Powers who did not accede to the Declaration of Paris, and in view of the fact that the doctrine that the neutral flag covers enemies' goods, except contraband of war, has received general acceptance of recent years, it may, perhaps, be doubted whether the Spanish Government would actually resort to such measures as are suggested. As to the last two paragraphs, while fully admitting that the eventuality mentioned by my hon. Friend may have an important bearing on the
  782
  interests of neutrals, I do not think anything can be gained by an expression of opinion on the part of the Government regarding what is after all only a hypothetical case. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware of any more general acceptance of the principle than was involved in the Declaration of Paris itself, and, also, if he would reply to the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have given no further expression of opinion on the part of the Government except that this is a hypothetical case, on which a declaration of opinion at the present time would, perhaps, not be expedient. I have not failed to consult the authorities to which my hon. Friend refers, and I believe I am correct in saying there has been a general acceptance by all the Powers—though not embodied in a formal treaty—of the view that the neutral flag does cover enemies' goods, except contraband of war. ["Hear, hear!"]

  ANTI-TOXIC EXPERIMENTS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that admission has been refused to a committee of the Wembley Urban Council to a building called the Poplars, in their district, where a nuisance was believed to exist; (2) whether the Poplars is used as a laboratory for experimenting on animals, and, if so, for what kind of experiments; (3) whether in that case it is registered as required by the Act; and, (4) whether, as the local authority has been refused admission, he will see that it is properly inspected and controlled?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Poplars is duly registered under the Act, but hitherto it has been used exclusively for the production of anti-toxic remedies and testing their efficacy. Whether the processes carried on there are experiments within the meaning of the Act, is a difficult legal question which is engaging my consideration. The place has been visited by the inspector under the Act, who, on each occasion, found the

  783
  premises in good order and the animals well cared for. He also has instructions to visit and report to me upon the place from time to time. I am informed that in refusing admission to the committee of the district council, the occupiers acted deliberately and under legal advice. This matter, however, does not appear to come within my jurisdiction under the Act, and I will refer it to the Local Government Board.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL, 1895.
  MR. DILLON,referring to a Motion standing in his name for a return giving a list of all the evicted tenants reinstated under the Evicted Tenants Act of last Session, and giving in reference to each case (a.) name of landlord and tenant, (b) name of county in which the farm was situated, and (c) terms on which the tenant had been reinstated, asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether a return could be granted in that form after the period for the Evicted Tenants Bill of last year had elapsed. The return was necessary for future discussion of the subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think there will be any objection to granting the return in the form suggested when the applications for reinstatement have been dealt with. I could not give the return until then.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of Vote 1 of the ordinary Navy Estimates not being reached until midnight, he proposes to take it after that hour?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir. It is partly due to the necessity for getting Vote 1 to-night that I am going to ask for the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. ["Hear!"]
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will to-day be included in the computation of 20 days which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to devote to the consideration, of the Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; neither to-day nor last Monday. We practically devoted nearly the whole of last Monday
  784
  to the consideration of the Navy Estimates, but in consequence of my having put down a Bill first on that day it will not count as one of the 20. The first orders to-night are Supplementary Estimates, and they are deliberately excluded from the purview of the new rules. The House will remember that last Friday there was a great deal of time taken up by a private Bill, and I therefore deliberately put down a small Bill on the paper on Monday so as to make up for the time lost to Supply on the preceding Friday.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I desire to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the report in The Times of this afternoon that the questions which have arisen between Great Britain and the United States with regard to Venezuela have been settled?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I have no information to that effect.

  EDUCATION BILL,
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say when the promised Education Bill will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope it will be before Easter: but I confess I do not take a cheerful view of the prospects of any Bill before that date, so slow has been the progress with the necessary Supply.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Minister for Agriculture say whether it is his intention to proceed with the Diseases of Animals Bill to-night?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That Question carries with it its own reply. [Laughter.]
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Then I must ask the First Lord of the Treasury when this Bill is likely to be taken. ["Hear, hear!"] Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that it will be proceeded with at a period of the evening when full discussion will be possible?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY: I cannot fix any date now.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will a day's notice be given of the intention to go on with the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, certainly.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved:—
  "That the Proceeding on Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 115.—(Division List, No. 44.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the chair.]

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1895–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £601,300, 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 1896, for Additional Expenditure on the following Army Services, viz.:—

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

  £ 8,500

  Vote 2. Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.

  2,500

  Vote 5. Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances

  496,300

  Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

  57,000

  Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  27,000

  Vote 8. Clothing Establishments and Services

  10,000

  Vote 9. Warlike and other Stores

  —

  Total

  £60l,300"

  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,)said, that, with the exceptions of items for the Volunteers and the Artillery, the Estimate was for the Ashanti expedition. The total Estimate was one of unusual magnitude. The sum of £120,000 supplemented the Vote for the Ashanti Expedition, about which he did not propose to trouble the House, for two reasons. It was only a temporary charge, and a portion of the expense of the expedition had been already included in the Colonial Vote. The sum now charged would be repaid
  786
  as the balance of what had been previously paid by the Colonial Government to the Treasury. Therefore, although it was necessary now to vote the sum of £120,000 in order to defray the charges which had been actually incurred, that sum would not remain a permanent burden on the Exchequer. It was only necessary for him to allude to one point in the Estimate which was not made clear upon the face of it. Having regard to the work done by the troops and the laborious nature of the operations, it had been thought right to give a donation to the troops of one month's pay ["Hear, hear!"]; and he did not think the Committee would grudge a gift of that kind, which was in accordance with what had been done in the past for expeditions of a similar kind. Looking to the manner in which the operations had been carried out, which reflected credit not only on the officers and men actually engaged, but also on the officers charged with the equipping of the expedition, he thought there would be a consensus of opinion in favour of making the grant. With regard to the Estimate for the Volunteers, it was necessary to explain how it was that the Committee was asked for the payment for what was practically a whole year's Capitation Grant. The condition of the Volunteers with regard to their finances had long been a matter of serious consideration to the War Office. From time to time appeals had been made to the House on behalf of Volunteer corps whose officers were struggling with indebtedness and found it difficult to maintain their position. By the proposals now submitted to the Committee it was desired to effect two objects. First, it was wished to redress what was complained of as a long-standing grievance as to the date of the payment of the Capitation Grant. Secondly, it was desired to take effective steps towards the filling up of vacant commissions, which now numbered 1,800 among officers of Volunteers. The chief expenditure of the Volunteers was between April 1 and the end of October. A Committee of 1864, of which Lord Eversley was Chairman, recommended that a grant should be given to Volunteer corps because it was found that voluntary contributions would not suffice to maintain them. Parliament decided, in

  787
  April of that year, to give a Capitation Grant, which was to be based on the efficiency shown in the preceding year; and it was specifically stated that it was a grant in advance for the year then beginning. That had been the theory ever since, that the grant was for the work of the year then going on and was paid in advance. But theory and fact had not run together, and, as a matter of fact, many corps when they got the first grant were already in debt. From year to year the grant had been relied upon to discharge the obligations incurred, and in the interval debt was again incurred, or advances were obtained from bankers, to whom in many instances £50 a year or more was paid in interest. He could give numerous instances of officers who, on entering a corps, were asked to sign a guarantee with the other officers for the whole expenses of the year, and it was not everyone that would care to put his name to what, practically, was a bond for £1,500 or £2,000. The war authorities believed that to this system of pecuniary responsibility was due the difficulty experienced in obtaining officers for Volunteer corps, and in order to meet it they proposed to pay to the corps £500,000 in March instead of the £500,000 or thereabouts due in April, and £250,000 in April, making in all £750,000, or half-a-year's extra Capitation Grant. The result of this would be that, taking the War Office view, the corps which began their year in November and now got Capitation Grant in April, six months after the beginning of their year, would get it genuinely in advance; while in the case or corps who owed the Grant, they would pay their debts and start clear in April, with half their expenditure for the year in hand. They proposed to meet another grievance, which had frequently been brought under the notice of Parliament, by paying an equipment allowance of 30s. to those Volunteers who had received no equipment allowance on joining within the past six years. That meant a charge of £18,000, and would meet the case of corps who had had an increase of strength since 1890. Beyond that the War Office desired to make the position of corps better in regard to officers by giving an equipment allowance of £10 to officers on entering corps, a further £10 in the event of their attending a school,
  788
  passing some equivalent examination, and, in order to facilitate their attendance at school, the lodging allowance during the time they attended school should be increased from 5s. to 8s. per day. It had also been brought under the notice of the war authorities that officers of Volunteer corps going into camp incurred heavy charges. It was therefore proposed that the allowance of 2s. per day should be increased to 4s. per day, and that it should be paid to the officers themselves. In making those concessions to the Volunteers, Lord Lansdowne felt that the time had come when Volunteer corpsmust be called upon to give, in some respects, greater attention to financial matters, and also to place themselves more under the rule of the War Office in this respect than they had done up to the present time. The financial position of most of the corps was very satisfactory; but there were some in which expenditure had not been checked in the same way, and as the war authorities asked Parliament to sanction those large concessions to the Volunteers, they desired to secure that Parliament should not be called upon to make similar concessions in the future. They therefore proposed that the advance of £250,000 to the Volunteers should be devoted, in the first instance, to the discharge of liabilities which could not be at once met out of the funds of the corps; and for the future new forms of accounts, showing receipts and expenditure, would be furnished to each corps, a periodical inspection of accounts would be instituted, and no debts for which officers were responsible would be allowed to be incurred by a corps without the sanction of the War Office. It was also the opinion of the military authorities that while it was not desirable to make the medical examination on joining the Volunteers too strict, it was necessary to secure that men physically unsound in regard to sight, hearing, chest or heart, should not be included in the ranks. As a further condition of efficiency it was considered necessary that in the third or fourth year of service Volunteers who now only attended nine drills should be called upon to attend 12 drills. It would also be required of officers who had drawn equipment allowances that they should give three years'

  789
  service, or return to the State a sum proportionate to the time in which service had not been given. Turning to another question, he could assure the House that the state of the Artillery had received the most serious consideration of Lord Lansdowne. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year it was stated by the Secretary for War in the late Government that new batteries were formed; but no explanation had been given as to how it was done. As a matter of fact, what was done was this—each existing battery had a depot, and from these depots 20 guns were taken; in addition six batteries having six guns each were each reduced to four guns; and with the 32 guns thus made available eight new batteries of four guns each were formed, while the House was led to believe that the force had been considerably increased. [Laughter.] The position of affairs last year was, in the Royal Horse Artillery, ten batteries of six guns, and one battery of two guns, making 62 guns; in the Field Artillery 31 batteries of six guns, making 186 guns; 14 batteries of four guns, making 56 guns; and as a reserve for these 242 guns there was a depot of two guns. [Laughter.] It was not the intention of the late Government to leave things permanently in this position, but the process they proposed would have left us for many months without the equipment of some batteries. There were altogether 306 guns on the list last year. The present Government proposed to re-arm the Horse Artillery, and to use the existing guns as a reserve for the Field Artillery; and to convert the guns of the Field Artillery into 15-pounders. By April 30th they would have 30 of the new guns of the Horse Artillery—that was to say, an equipment of two Army corps. What time they would have the remainder of the 68 guns for the Horse Artillery they were not able accurately to say, because they had given a certain number of orders to the trade, but they hoped that before many months they would have the whole equipment and reserve of the Horse Artillery. They also hoped that by April 30th they would have converted 180 guns of the Field Artillery, being sufficient for two Army corps, and that by June 1st they would have 78 more guns, or 258 guns altogether. The position, then, would be that in the autumn we would have instead of 62
  790
  horse artillery guns as last year, 60 with the batteries and eight in reserve, making 68. As regarded field artillery guns we would have 258–43 batteries of six guns, 258; two howitzers of six guns, 12; four reserve batteries of 24; and 22 other surplus guns. We would, therefore, have 46 reserve guns, and the total of the artillery would be 387 guns as against 306 last year, giving us a surplus of 81 guns. He trusted that would be considered satisfactory by the Committee, and he confidently hoped the process of acceleration, for which the Department at present asked £55,000, would receive the sanction of the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas sure the Committee had listened with much interest to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. But there was one phrase in that statement to which he must take exception. The hon. Gentleman not only implied but said that the House of Commons was given to understand last year that things were in a certain position in which he, when he came into office, found they were not. He denied altogether that anything of the sort was implied in anything he stated in the House. The change that was announced by him last year was a prospective change; it was so stated at the time; it was so understood by every one concerned in following these matters, and it was a mere question of expediency and propriety and of funds and means at what rate of progress that transition might be effected. No doubt the hon. Gentleman thought he did himself a great deal of good by implying there was some neglect last year. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had the advantage he did not possess last year, because they had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had some millions sterling which he wished to get rid of. ["Hear, hoar!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been looking about for weeks and months to find some way in which, for well or ill, the money might be expended in order to prevent it from going to the limbo of all other unexpended balances, and that was the reason why the hon. Gentleman was able to boast of the great things he was doing and would be able to accomplish. It was entirely a matter for the

  791
  discretion of the Minister to determine what they should propose to expend on armaments. With so much ease to to their elbows as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues possessed this year, he was not surprised they had accelerated matters very greatly. But there was no reason why the hon. Gentleman, departing, not for the first time, from some of the traditions of the relations between the two sides of the House in these matters which ought to be kept, and so far as he was concerned always would be kept, entirely out of the area of Party dispute, should impute that he in any respect either neglected his duty last year or misled the House in so important a matter as this. ["Hear, hear!"] There was, too, a strong flavour of those millions which were asking to be spent about the proposal concerning the Volunteer capitation grant. The hon. Gentleman had been fortunate enough to do this year what would not have been very practicable in many previous years, that was to forestall one-half of the capitation grant to the Volunteers. He had not a word to say in deprecation of the policy of doing so. The true and sacred official doctrine was that the capitation grant, although based on the statistics of the past year, really was given for the coming year. Many Volunteer corps entirely misunderstood—and naturally misunderstood—the arrangement, and when the Secretary of State for War had an opportunity of satisfying their desires and ideas by making what was practically a bonus or gift to the corps of half a year's capitation grant, he was glad the noble Lord had availed himself of it. It was true it was very difficult to deal with the Volunteer corps equally, because some corps, either from failings of their own or otherwise, were in much worse circumstances than others, and there might be many corps in a flourishing position who did not require this additional money. Still he hoped it would not have any corrupting effect upon them, and on the whole he congratulated the hon. Gentleman on having been able to make this concession to the Volunteers. The only other subject upon which he would touch was that with which the hon. Gentleman began—namely, the expenditure which was included in these Supplementary Estimates for the war in
  792
  Ashanti. As to the policy of that war and the general circumstances of it he need not say anything, because that could be dealt with by others at a later stage. Of the preparation and equipment made in this country, the general conduct of the campaign, and the behaviour of the officers and men he was sure every Member of the Committee would join in praise. We had every reason to congratulate ourselves that those who represented us in these matters had been able to accomplish so good a piece of work. The previous Ashanti War was a creditable piece of business, though it was accomplished with considerable loss, at great expense, and with great risks; but as to the recent campaign, except for one or two unfortunate calamities which occurred to individuals, and no doubt the serious deterioration of the health of many of those engaged in the operations, we have nothing to regret or to lament. He did not think the Department had done too much in allowing the men a month's pay, because, although they had never actually come into collision with a human enemy, they perhaps fought enemies more deadly than any human foe, and we ought not to measure our gratitude by the amount of bloodshed or the active operations that might have been necessary. That part of the Estimate which affected the military management of the expedition would, he was sure, be assented to gratefully by the whole Committee. Returning to the question of the changes in the Artillery, he expressed approval of the abolition of depôts and the bringing of the general treatment and training of recruits for the Artillery into the same general line of organisation as was followed in the training of recruits for the other branches of the service.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked to be permitted to take an early part in the Debate, because he happened to be one of the oldest military Members, and perhaps the oldest Volunteer in the House. He congratulated the Under Secretary on having been able to grasp this great question of the Capitation Grant for Volunteers. It had occupied the attention of commanding officers and many others interested in the Volunteer cause for a considerable time. He had frequently put the question forward in the House, and only last

  793
  year he made an appeal in stronger terms than ever to the late Secretary of State. On that occasion he proposed that an advance of 10 or 20 per cent. of the Capitation Grant should be made at an earlier period than the 1st of April. His reason was that commanding officers at some periods of the year were in great stress for want of money to carry on the requirements of their regiments. He could not help thinking, taking everything into consideration, that his suggestion would have been better than the proposal now made. But they must not look a gift-horse too severely in the face. They were grateful to the War Office officials for the proposal they had made. It had been said that the Capitation Grant was a payment in advance. He had frequently argued that point with the authorities of the department. It was perfectly true that the Committee of 1864 took the numbers of the preceding year; but it must be remembered that many corps had been raised subsequent to 1864, and he, therefore, adhered to his old argument that the Capitation Grant was not altogether paid in advance. The next point on which he would touch was the equipment allowance. Some few years ago an equipment allowance was granted to Volunteer corps. That was received most gratefully, but their numbers had increased considerably, and up to the present the extra men had not received the advantage of the equipment allowance. Now it was proposed that the extra men should receive their equipment allowance. With regard to the allowance to officers joining, he thought it would be hailed with great satisfaction. They were very short of officers in the Volunteer force, the deficiency amounting to 1,800; and he thought this indulgence, if it was looked at in the proper light, would help to fill up some of the vacancies. On the average, the cost of a Volunteer officer's outfit was about £30, and this allowance would be a very great consideration to the pockets of many young officers. But he might point out that it would be rather a difficult matter, possibly, for commanding officers to distribute all these various grants. A great deal would be left to their discretion, and he felt sure they would distribute it to the best of their ability. He thought, also, that the increase in the grant to officers attending
  794
  schools of instruction would be of great advantage to young officers. He was also very pleased to find that an allowance was to be made to the officers in camp. They had, hitherto, been put to considerable expense in attending camp. He might be permitted to point out that, in his opinion, and not his only, these camps of instruction were of the greatest benefit, not only to the officers, but to the non-commissioned officers and men. In his early days camps did not exist. They performed a certain number of drills during the year; and they were brought together three or four times for battalion drill. But very little was learned. In the regiment which he had the honour to command, he felt sure, much as regards discipline and efficiency of all ranks must be attributed to the camps of instruction. Therefore, he felt grateful for this allowance to the officers, as it would be an encouragement to them to join the force, now that they found their expenses would not be so heavy. He rather wished that we should have power to compel the men to attend camps rather more regularly than they could at present. Some men now come on the night before the inspection in order to put in the requisite number of drills and make themselves efficient, but during the remainder of the week they were absent. They came in on the last day and threw out the men who had been working hard by their in attention to drill, and their want of knowledge of what was required of them. The next point was that medical examination should be required in the case of men joining the force. He hoped the authorities would not make the examination too stringent. It was all very well in recruiting for the regular Army that a rigid examination should be required. But now, when the Volunteer force was so popular and increasing in popularity and in numbers day by day, a very stringent medical examination might have the effect of preventing a great many from joining the ranks. Reverting to the question of the dearth of officers, he again asked the War Office to consider the desirability of offering commissions to Volunteer officers, as was done in the case of officers in the Militia. Concluding, he said it was satisfactory that Volunteers were now receiving full consideration, he would not say of their claims,

  795
  but of the services which they had rendered to the country for many years past.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, that the matter which he wished to mention was one more important than any which concerned the Volunteers. It was contended on behalf of the Volunteers that they would form an admirable force to resist invasion, and every one knew what an invasion would be if they ever lost the command of the sea. A mere force of infantry could not withstand an invading army unless it was accompanied by a powerful artillery. The late Secretary for War was jocular on some of these points. He alluded to the differences between the two front Benches, and it was fortunate that these differences did occur sometimes, for then a good deal came out which at other times would never come out at all. The late War Secretary spoke of his proposals last year as having been proposals for "re-armament." They were nothing of the kind. The word was never used. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were never called the re-armament of the artillery. They were called "the increase of the artillery." That was proved not only by what the right hon. Gentleman had said, but by what he had written in the Memorandum. They who had spoken of the artillery in connection with the auxiliary force refused to be content with less than that which would make an army of it. They stood in need of a specially high proportion of artillery, but still the suggestion of last year seemed to be a step in the right direction. It did seem to give them a larger proportion of the artillery, at least in the regular Army. The right hon. Baronet then quoted extracts from the speech of the late Secretary for War last year to show that there was no mention whatever of re-armament; it was all as to the increase of the artillery. It was with the greatest doubt that he asked, in order to clear it up, whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to increase the artillery at all—whether it was not a mere shuffling of the cards. ["Hear, hear!"] Ultimately they managed to make out that it was a reshuffling of the guns. And it was taken for an increase of the artillery when the artillery was not increased by a single gun, horse, or one man. This seemed to him to be a very serious matter. He was bound to say this, as he was one of those who
  796
  for years attacked the late Mr. Stanhope, who had reduced the artillery at home, although he increased it in India. He had attacked Mr. Stanhope over and over again for that reduction, and he could not do otherwise now than call attention to the pretended increase to which he had referred. While the present Government had increased the number of guns, they had not increased the artillery. They must look forward to an increase of the number of horses and men as well as an increase of guns. They had for the first time a reserve of guns. Although it was possible to use untrained horses, without trained men they had no artillery at all—["hear, hear!"]—and untrained horses could only be guided by the best drivers. Russia had increased her guns in a single year by 50 batteries, and the same increase took place a few years ago in Germany. He contended that they needed a higher proportion of guns for their Volunteers and Militia, if they were to be of any use. The increase in the number of men in the field artillery had been practically nil. They had been stationary for a long time, and the number of horses had declined.
  SIR EDWARD HILLsaid, it was not his intention to intrude himself upon the Committee for more than a few moments, but he desired to thank Her Majesty's Government for their kindly recognition of the services of the Volunteers—a recognition which was both grateful and encouraging to them; and also for the benevolent view which they had taken of their pecuniary wants. He entirely agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex (Sir Henry Fletcher) in the satisfaction with which he regarded the allowance to officers attending Schools of Instruction, and especially with regard to camps. But there was one camp more than another which particularly commended itself to him, and that was a camp of instruction with the Regular Forces. He thought the greatest advantage was to be obtained by bringing the Auxiliary and Regular Forces together, and during the 32 years which he had had the honour of commanding his own corps he had gladly embraced every opportunity so offered, and trusted that those opportunities might be repeated. Again, he agreed that, while medical inspection might be in itself desirable, it would be

  797
  a mistake to attempt under present conditions of service to enforce any stringent regulations in this respect. It might be assumed that Colonels would naturally be anxious not to enrol men unfit for the Service. He had always been strongly in favour of offering officers of Volunteers some facilities similar to those enjoyed by the Militia of obtaining commissions in the Regular Army. He believed it would tend to raise the tone of the Service, and to strengthen that bond of affinity which should exist between Auxiliaries and Regulars. There was one point upon which he wished to say a few words. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke), had made some remarks upon the necessity of keeping up a proper proportionate force of field artillery, with which he sympathised. The right hon. Baronet went on to say that there wore plenty of men for the garrison artillery. He did not know himself whether that included auxiliaries. If not, there were certainly not sufficient royal gunners for the purpose, and he knew, as a fact, that some of our principal fortresses were dependent to a very large extent upon auxiliaries for their manning. This being so, the instruction of the auxiliary artillery, became a matter of primary importance, but unfortunately there existed a very considerable difficulty in inducing officers of the Royal Artillery to accept commissions in the Volunteer Artillery, and this was a difficulty which had grown so acute that he knew of instances where adjutancies of Volunteer Corps had been vacant for months, and then only junior officers of barely six years' service were available. The reason of this was twofold. In the first place, it was a clear pecuniary loss for an officer of the Royal Artillery to accept such a post, while the duties were more onerous. There was even a stronger reason, which was that, rightly or wrongly, officers of the Royal Artillery were under the impression that they were looked upon unfavourably when they returned to their regiment, as men who were behind the times. He ought to explain that the duties of an Adjutant of Volunteers differed materially from those of an Adjutant of Regulars. In the latter case, he had to carry out daily instructions given to him by and under the
  798
  supervision of his Colonel. This could not be so with Volunteers. Batteries were often scattered about, and when the Adjutant visited them he must go with his commanding officer's authority in his pocket. Upon his wise and discreet use of this authority, and his own personal tact and judgment, depended to a very large extent the well-being of his corps. He thought the Committee would be of opinion that such a duty should be intrusted to an officer of the rank and experience of a Captain, rather than to a junior subaltern. He hoped it might be possible to remove the first difficulty which he had mentioned, while the second was a money consideration only, the cost of which he was quite sure the country would gladly bear.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that anyone who looked at the statistics relating to the Volunteer force must congratulate the War Office upon the number of Volunteers who were upon the rolls. These now stood at a very high figure, which was largely due to the increase in the Capitation Grant. Irishmen, however, asked why all that large sum of money was to be spent in Great Britain to the exclusion of Ireland. At one time, he was an unfortunate Volunteer himself, and he could not help commenting upon the fact that whilst an Irishman residing in England was allowed to join the Volunteer force, he was not permitted to do so if he lived in his own country. No doubt, this circumstance naturally created some heartburning on the part of Irishmen, and he could not help hoping that the Government would give the House some assurance that this extraordinary state of things would be changed. He noticed that there was a special Capitation Grant for those Volunteers who possessed a great-coat. He should like to have that matter explained, because, of course, that could not refer to an ordinary great-coat. He should like to have some explanation as to how the travelling allowances stood this year as compared with last year and the year before. He hoped that the Government would take into their most serious consideration what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean, with regard to the artillery, and to show how it was that the promises that had been made in reference to the subject had not been

  799
  fulfilled. The Government might at the same time inform the House how far short our artillery regiments were compared with those of foreign countries.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK ALLANsaid, that, as regarded the late expedition to Ashanti, there could be but one expression of opinion. As a matter of organisation and management it had been a brilliant and complete success. This fact was undoubtedly due to the manner in which the whole expedition had been organised from the beginning, to the care which had been taken for the comfort and convenience of the troops, so that at the appointed rest houses no man had to wait any length of time for a meal, and not a single life had been lost which could have possibly been saved by the exercise of ordinary foresight. He was also glad to see that the Government were going to recognise the services of the troops—to whom it was no doubt a subject of disappointment that they had not come into contact with the enemy—by allowing them a month's furlough in addition to a month's pay. He congratulated the Government on the fact that they had got rid of a long-felt difficulty as to the Volunteer regiments and their finances by giving them a half-yearly advance in advance of their annual payments. The Government would be acting rightly in seeing that there was a stricter supervision of the finance of Volunteer regiments, and he was sure that the Volunteers generally would recognise the liberal treatment they had received in the matter of the advance. A closer attention would be paid to their accounts, so that no money should be wasted. He was gratified to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for the Lewes division of Sussex (Sir H. Fletcher) with regard to the advantage of brigade camps for Volunteers. He had personal experience of this matter now for eight years, and he was certain that his hon. Friend was right when he said that it was scarcely possible to over-estimate the advantages which Volunteer regiments would gain by going into brigade camps. It was in the highest degree desirable that they should be brigaded with regiments of the Regular forces, but when the opportunity was denied to them of
  800
  having the standard troops of the Regular forces to recruit themselves by, still the fact that they were aggregated in camps with other regiments established a wholesome rivalry, which allowed the Volunteers to learn, more in the eight days they were out than during the whole of the year. As regarded the annual inspections in brigade camps, it was necessary for a corps, in order to earn the capitation grant, that four-fifths should be present on the day of inspection. He suggested whether the same principle could not be applied dealing with the actual number of men who went into brigade camps. The command also of the Volunteer brigades was at present in an anomalous and somewhat unsatisfactory condition. In the battalions which formed the Metropolitan corps, there was nothing left to be desired, because the brigades of six, seven, or eight battalions in the Metropolis were under the charge of an experienced officer of the Guards. It was difficult, however, with the other 31 volunteer brigades, scattered over the country. The command there was vested in the officer commanding the Regimental District, who had very often a great deal too much to do to give attention to the tactical training of the Volunteers round about. As a remedy, he suggested that advantage should be taken of the willingness for service of many retired general officers in the prime of life, who with a small allowance of £150 or £200 a year could be placed in permanent command of the Volunteer brigades who would thus enjoy the entire attention of thoroughly trained officers, resulting in a large increase of educational efficiency. It seemed to be scarcely credible that the Volunteers out of their small capitation grant had to pay the expenses connected with the hiring of the camp grounds and water supply. He hoped that some remedy would be found for this state of things. The great blot of the present Volunteer Service was its total want of mobility.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the general question of the Volunteer system. All he is entitled to do is to criticise the particular sum asked for in the Vote.
  SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLANnext referred to the Artillery, and said that it had been pointed out that a great defici-

  801
  ency would occur in the number of field guns necessary for the whole of the troops in this country, including the Volunteers, should the occasion arise. The late Secretary of State for War took some credit for an alteration he had made with regard to breaking up the depôts of Artillery last year, thereby throwing additional weight on the batteries of the Royal Artillery at home. Precisely in the same way as it had been a complaint at the time that the linked battalion system put a great strain upon them in furnishing, year by year, from 300 to 400 men for the battalion abroad, that system had been applied to the Royal Artillery. He wished to point out that this change was one which required to be carefully watched, because he was informed, by those well competent to judge, that it threw upon our field batteries what they were ill able to bear.
  COLONEL J. M. DENNYsaid, that there were only one or two small points to which he wished to call attention. The first was with reference to the statement of the Undersecretary of State as to the allowance to be made to an officer who passed the examination. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether the examination was to be made compulsory; but, of course, it must be understood that any examination must be made compulsory. ["Hear, hear!"] In order to avoid great expense to the officer, it would be desirable that arrangements should be made for holding the examination at a convenient distance from the locality, without compelling them to go to a great centre where a school was regularly established. With regard to the camp allowances to officers, he knew many regiments in which no corresponding payment whatever was made to the men, and he did not know that this conduced to good feeling or discipline on the part of the men. As to the supervision of accounts, they had been generously treated, and he should not object to a stricter supervision of accounts in the least. And, with regard to the medical examination, he was not afraid of having it done thoroughly; and, for his part, he would rather see a small battalion of well set-up men than one out of which you had to weed twenty or twenty-five per cent. before the battalion was of any use.
  MR. MORRELLdesired to call attention to the demand
  802
  of the country for provision to enable the shooting to be properly carried on.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that this was out of order on the present Vote, and pointed out that the subject would properly arise when the Volunteer Vote came on in due course.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDregretted that he should have to oppose this Supplementary Estimate, and he did so because he was strongly against the policy of the Ashanti campaign and the expenditure thereby incurred. From beginning to end he regarded the whole of that campaign as most iniquitous, and it was perfectly appalling to hear hon. Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Durham saying that it was matter for regret that the troops had not come into conflict with the enemy in Ashanti. That was a sentiment so monstrous that one would hardly expect to hear it expressed in the British House of Commons. It was often said that these punitive expeditions were necessary to safeguard the Empire and the people of this country who were scattered so widely in different parts of the world. It appeared to him that these campaigns were not so much the result of any anxiety, as of a desire on the part of gentlemen connected with the Army to give the troops exercise and some experience of campaigning, and to give the officers some chance of promotion. In opposing this Vote he must be understood to be casting no reflection on the rank and file of the Army or of the officers. Everybody knew that the Army had no option in the matter. His objection was to the policy of the Government which sent the Army on such an expedition. No reason had ever been given why the Ashanti campaign was ever entered into. The King of Ashanti was now a prisoner for no earthly reason except that the authorities were disappointed in the amount of money they found in his possession at Coomassie. But long before a single soldier started for Ashanti it was stated that this unfortunate King maintained customs which were repugnant to civilisation. Customs which were repugnant to civilisation were not always confined to savage kings and peoples; in countries reputed to be civilised many things were done which were open to equal condemnation.

  803
  But whatever the character of the King of Ashanti might be, the fact remained that, directly he found there was the slightest prospect of a campaign being entered upon against him, and of his country being invaded by our troops, he did what the most enlightened potentate might have done—he sent some of his chief men to England as ambassadors in order to lay his case before the English Government and to try to come to terms. But the Colonial Office absolutely refused to receive the ambassadors, who were sent wandering about from pillar to post all over England. The chiefs simply asked to be heard and to deliver the message of their master, but they were told they would not be recognised. They exhausted every effort to come to some understanding or agreement, and yet were sent back to Ashanti unheard. So that this expedition was entered upon for no other reason, as far as he could see, than to act in pursuance of that miserable policy which seemed to have taken hold of the Governments of this country—namely, to make war on petty nations and poor tribes in different parts of the world. If Ashanti had been inhabited by Boers, by men who were armed and drilled, and knew how to shoot straight and stand to their guns, he did not believe for a moment that its ambassadors would have been treated with scorn and insult, and that an expedition would have been sent to invade the country. It appeared to him that this policy of expansion, as he understood it was called by some persons, would sooner or later land this country into very serious difficulties. One could understand the desire and effort to acquire territory in Africa which was worth having and fighting for, but to send out a costly expedition and risk men's lives to acquire such a country as Ashanti, in which Europeans could not live, and which could be of no advantage to England, was absurd. Why the Government should have sent out an expedition to Africa for the troops simply to march to Kumasi and back again, it was difficult to understand, and he would seriously suggest to the War Office that the next time they wanted to have a military parade of this make-believe kind, they might approach Sir Augustus Harris and enter into terms with him for the engagement of Olympia—[cries
  804
  of "Oh! oh!" and murmurs of disapprobation], where they could have a display at very much less cost. [Ironical laughter.] He objected to the money being voted for this expedition for other reasons. Even when dealing with savage or uncivilised people he thought the ambassadors sent to give explanation, or make terms, ought to be listened to; and if this course had been taken with the ambassadors sent from Ashanti the expedition might have been obviated. Moreover, before the Vote was granted he should like to know what our position was in Ashanti at the present time. Since the return of the troops no information had been given to the hon. Members on the point. Was a British Resident to remain at Kumasi? What was to become of the unfortunate king? Some hon. Gentlemen might think he was not speaking in a serious strain, but he was; and he might say that he read the other day, with feelings almost of disgust, an account in the papers of how an exhibition was given to the Secretary for the Colonies at the Colonial Office of the plunder from this poor African king, who was not only taken prisoner, but plundered of all he had. Some men might call this a policy of expansion in Africa if they liked, but he called it simply a policy of robbery. It was a matter for regret, in his opinion, that this country should be urged, not alone by Conservative Governments, but by Liberal Governments as well, to enter into the mad and fatal race going on to seize possession of Africa. The result if the course was continued, would be that we should yet find that we had more territory in Africa and other parts of the world than we could look after. We had already got splendid fields abroad for our surplus population, and there was no necessity for seeking to acquire such a worthless country as Ashanti.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing on this Estimate matters of future policy.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he wished to point out that we had already acquired sufficient fertile and habitable territories abroad, which were open to our surplus population, and which offered ample scope for all the enterprise we

  805
  could bring to bear upon them, and that therefore it was perfectly unnecessary to risk money and life for the acquisition of such a country as Ashanti. He repeated that he wanted to know what our position in Ashanti really was as the result of the expedition? What was it proposed to do with the country? Was it to be annexed and a British Resident kept permanently at Kumasi?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid this was all a matter of future policy.
  MR. W. REDMONDthought that as hon. Members were called upon to vote the money for the campaign, they were entitled to some explanation of the objects which the Government sought to attain by it. ["Hear, hear!"] Up to the present he had regarded the matter perhaps from an English point of view, and even from that standpoint he condemned the expedition as a monstrous piece of absurdity. And England had suffered from it seriously, if it were only for the sacrifice of the life of a gentleman who was valuable to this country, and who was regarded with a good deal of esteem. ["Hear, hear!"] If no other result than the death of this gentleman had followed from the campaign, a serious injury would have been done to the country. From the English point of view, therefore, a strong protest ought to be made against the expedition. But he objected to it mainly from the Irish standpoint. The Irish people had had no quarrel with the king or people of Ashanti; and he objected to the Irish people having to pay a share of the cost when they had had absolutely no voice in the matter one way or the other. This brought him to possibly the most serious objection he had to urge against the vote—namely, that the expedition had been undertaken altogether without the sanction of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that it was monstrous that when Parliament was in recess, and when the representatives of the people were powerless, so to speak, that a matter of such grave importance as sending an armed expedition like this across the sea at great cost, should be undertaken upon the sole responsibility of the Government, or of a Department of the Government, without consulting the nation. No expedition of such a
  806
  character should be taken in hand without Parliament being first called together. The people had to pay the expense, and surely they ought to be consulted through their duly elected representatives. ["Hear, hear!"] And he ventured to say that if this course had been taken, and the facts of the case had been fully and fairly laid before the country, the people would never have consented to the expedition. They would have censured the Government rather for refusing to take every means of bringing about a peaceful and inexpensive settlement of the matter. The people were not consulted, but the Government entered upon the expedition on their own initiative, without giving the representatives of the people an opportunity of being consulted in the matter. It appeared to him one of the most farcical absurdities connected with the government of this country, that an expense of this kind could be gone on with, and then, when the troops had gone and come back, when life had been lost, and the whole affair had become past history, they were seriously asked by the Government, if they approved of it? What a time to ask the representatives of the people whether they approved of it or not? After all, it mattered little whether they approved of it or not. The feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite was expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham, who said it was a matter for regret. that Her Majesty's troops did not come into conflict with the Ashantis. What a glorious thing that would have been! He was just as fond of a fight, perhaps, as any hon. Gentlemen in this House. He did not think there were many Irishmen who objected to a fight, but after all was said and done they liked a fair fight. They did not believe in fighting people who were really beneath contempt as foes, and they objected altogether to expeditions of this kind, with Maxim guns to shoot down naked and practically defenceless natives. It was a sad thing that in this country, which was supposed to possess such a liberal population, that with the exception of the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and a few other gentlemen who were staunch to their opinions, there was not a single representative of the over-taxed

  807
  working people of this country who appeared to have the pluck or the conscience to get up and utter one word of protest against this fatal policy of expansion, the only result of which was to bring misery and disaster upon a people who had never done anything against this country, and to cast upon the people of this country a great expense. He did not know the exact figure they were asked to vote for Ashanti, but it was a very considerable sum, and surely in the name of common sense and humanity there was something wrong in a system which compelled this Parliament to ask for hundreds and thousands of pounds to defray the cost of an expedition such as that—an expedition from which the people of this country had not derived a single benefit.
  MR. BRODRICK: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me interrupting him. The whole of the expense of this expedition is borne by the colony on whose behalf and for whose benefit it was undertaken.
  MR. W. REDMOND: If the colonies are going to bear the expense of this expedition why are we asked for the money in a Supplementary Estimate
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I explained that temporarily the money was found by the British Exchequer, but that the whole will be repaid by the colony.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid he was bound to say that he thought the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman now told them that the campaign was entered upon for the benefit of, and in the interest of, the colony, and not in the interest of this country (Mr. Brodrick dissented). He submitted that if some of the white population who inhabited this colony wanted to indulge in the expensive luxury of a war with a people who had never interfered with them, they ought to be allowed to do so at their own expense, and if they had not got the money to pay for it, he thought it was an audacious proposal to ask the already overtaxed people of this country to advance the money to prosecute a war in which the British people had no interest even on the terms that it was to be repaid by the colony. He would believe in the repayment of this money
  808
  by the colony when he saw it and heard of it. Even in the interest of the colony itself he would say that this war was a mistake. He protested against it with all the vehemence he could command, and he did so sincerely because he believed from the English point of view, that it was a mistake. He thought that what had happened in Abyssinia should be a lesson to the people of this country. In Ashanti they had no formidable foes, and in other parts of Africa which they had invaded they had been singularly fortunate, but some of these days if these Ashanti campaigns went on, they would stumble up against gentlemen like those who encountered the Italians in Abyssinia, when they would have a difficult and bitter experience, and they would probably then stop their policy of everlasting filibustering in Africa. He appealed to the representatives of the working-classes in that House to make a protest against this policy of invading territory which did not belong to the British people at all, and to enter on a policy of peace and friendliness instead of one of piracy and bullying such as had made their name objected to in so many portions of the world. Wherever the British name was breathed they would find that the policy pursued by England towards miserable and weak countries was condemned. Their policy in these little wars had done more to injure the name and character of England than anything that they could possibly do. He appealed to English Members to vote against this money, not because they objected to the soldiers getting the pay they had earned, not because they objected to giving to the men all they had deserved in an expedition they did not design, not as an act of hostility to the army, but as a protest against the policy of shooting Ashantis, and against the policy of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in this extravagant way. He hoped for the sake of the honour and credit of humanity that some hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench would dissociate himself from what he called the really astonishing statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite who said it was a matter for regret that the troops had not come in contact with these unfortunate natives. He should certainly challenge a Division on this Vote.
  COLONEL SANDYSobserved that he was glad to hear the assurance of the Under Secretary for War that they had an increased and increasing supply of guns, and that the reserve of guns had also been increased. In the time of the late Government the apparent strength, on paper, of the artillery was made up by taking the reserve guns and putting them into the front rank. That was a military operation to which he took great exception. If there was one principle upon which soldiers were agreed it was that no matter what the branch of the service they took they must have a sufficient support behind it, not to bring it to the front line but to bring it up to fighting strength, to be kept in reserve and only brought forward when the front line was broken down. He considered that each battery of artillery, whatever its strength, ought to have a support behind it of two guns as a reserve, which ought never to be interfered with under any circumstances. They heard their artillery was going to be strengthened and he should also like to hear that in the future they were not going to have so many patterns of guns and ammunition in the Service as there were at the present time. He was informed that there were no fewer than six different patterns of guns in use with field and horse artillery, and the difficulty was that in times of excitement and hurry, when troops were in action, each of these different kinds of guns required to be supplied with its own particular ammunition. In these circumstances the ammunition was apt to get mixed and the wrong ammunition went to the wrong battery. They had different qualities of guns here and in India and there was no limit to the size and bore capacity of the guns. He was anxious that that system should be brought to a close. The point they should aim at with reference to their artillery was to reduce their patterns of field guns to the field gun, the horse artillery gun, the howitzer and the mountain gun for mountain work.
  MR. JOHN DILLONobserved that they were called upon to vote a large sum of money for the expedition to Ashanti, and the only attempt at explanation or justification for that expedition they had heard were a few
  810
  brief sentences from the Under Secretary for War, who, he assumed, had nothing more to do with the sending of that expedition or with the decision upon which that war was undertaken than he had himself. The only justification that had been advanced for the Vote consisted of a few sentences from the Undersecretary, who, with the greatest possible flippancy—(he did not use this expression in an offensive sense)—had calmly told them he did not think it worth while discussing the matter because this large sum was to be repaid by the colony. But, in his opinion, that really made the case much worse. Why should the colonists be called upon to pay for a war decided upon by the responsible Minister of the Colony here in London? If the war was approved of it should be provided for out of the British Exchequer. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare as to the appalling character of the language used by military Members of the House in reference to the expedition. One hon. and gallant Member said there was some doubt as to the credentials of the Ashanti ambassadors. One would have thought the ambassadors of some great civilized power were in question. One would have thought that the great Government of England would have been only too glad to have given these poor creatures a hearing. There should have been no question of credentials in such a case. When these men came to look for peace they should have been welcomed, and every effort made to give them peace before they were turned away from the doors of the Colonial Office. The hon. Member for South-East Durham used words which would be heard of again in this country:—
  "I am glad the Government recognise the exertions of the troops, to whom it must have been a cause of the greatest regret that they did not come in contact with the enemy."
  (Cheers.) Why did he regret that they did not come in contact with the enemy, and that the expedition was brought to a conclusion without blood being spilled? Would any one pretend that the contest would have been an equal one, or one that any British soldier would have come out of without feelings of humiliation? He agreed with the hon. Member for

  811
  East Clare as to the scandalous exhibition of sacks of gold dust and jewels which were robbed from the Queen of Ashanti. The loot collected by the Army should have been hidden away, and a more extraordinary occurrence than the exhibition of this plunder was never seen in the capital of a great nation like England. An expert valued the jewels at £3,000. If that was all they were worth, they should have been left behind. The commander of the British force when he came into Kumasi, without resistance and bloodshed compelled King Prempeh to kneel in the dust and kiss his shoe. [Ministerial laughter.] That might be laughable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but what would they have thought if President Kruger had compelled them to do the same thing. [Renewed Ministerial laughter.] He could not see where was our boasted manliness and British valour in making this unfortunate man humiliate himself before his conquered people. The Committee was entitled to know from the Secretary for War or the Colonies an explanation why this war was undertaken. A great many people in England and Ireland believe the thing was a fraud from beginning to end, that there was no necessity for the expedition, and that it was undertaken without any justification whatever. It was treating the House of Commons with great want of respect to ask it to vote £120,000 for an expedition to a savage country without giving any ground of justification for the war. He moved that the vote be reduced by £100,000 in respect of the Ashanti expedition. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. CLARKsaid, he was glad the Committee had at last secured the attendance of the Secretary for the Colonies, because they might perhaps hear from him some reason why they should vote this money. It seemed to him that this was one of the least necessary of our expeditions, and the cost of it ought to be defrayed by the late and the present Colonial Secretaries, for between them they were responsible for this expedition. It had been sent out in pursuance of a wicked policy, and the late Government, when they were in power, were even more wicked than the present one. The late Under Secretary, in a speech he made in February last year, said that his Government refused
  812
  to accept Prempeh as king of Ashanti, and they brought against him, on hearsay evidence, manufactured charges of cruelty. One of the points at issue was whether he was king of Ashanti or only king of Kumasi; but it could be demonstrated from a Blue Book that in the presence of a British Commissioner, he was elected king of Ashanti, and that, in confirmation of his election, he was seated upon a stool in a ceremony equivalent to what we call enthronement. A full account of this ceremony was given by the Governor of the Gold Coast Colony in a despatch to the Colonial Secretary. The Governor wrote—
  "He was properly placed upon the stool; I regard him as the king of Ashanti; and I shall not treat with any other person except through him."
  The Governor added that what the rival candidate Mampou had to do was to submit to Prempeh. On receiving this despatch, Lord Knutsford expressed his approval of the Governor's proceedings. Notwithstanding this the Colonial Office afterwards refused to recognise this unfortunate man as king, began to treat with his subordinate chiefs, and to sap his independence. Last year, before they left office, the late Government took credit to themselves for the preparations for this expedition, and so was previously responsible for it. And why was it undertaken? The French was filibustering on both sides of our protectorate, or rather of our sphere of influence inland, and therefore we must advance too in order that we might, by occupation, prevent encroachment on our sphere of influence. The king of Ashanti, 18 months ago, tried to bring about a friendly settlement. There was some question about his ambassadors, the Ansahs, as to whether they were British subjects or not. Certain demands were made on Prempeh by the Governor of Cape Coast Colony. The king felt he had a grievance and he desired that that grievance should be laid before, not the Governor of Gold Coast Colony, but the Governor's master, the Colonial Secretary. He accordingly sent two chiefs to this country for the purpose of trying to get at the ear of the Colonial Secretary. It was a good thing to have envoys sent here in

  813
  such cases. If it had been done by Cetewayo the Zulu war would have been averted; and King Khama had recently prevented an injustice to his country by coming over here and seeing the Colonial Secretary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself a little more closely to the subject matter of Debate.
  DR. CLARK: I am keeping to the subject matter as closely as I can. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with Bechuanaland and Zululand affairs which are matters of ancient history. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. CLARK: I was using them as arguments, and I claim my right to use them. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to respect my ruling. ["Hear, hear!"] I must ask him to confine himself a little more closely to the subject matter now under discussion.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he did not intend to use the illustrations further. Captain Stewart and Mr. Frewen were sent by the Governor of Cape Coast Colony to Kumasi to make certain demands of King Prempeh. The King told them he was only waiting until his envoys returned and he got an answer from the Colonial Secretary. But the matter was pressed. The Governor sent the same agents to Kumasi with directions that they were to bring back an answer from the king in three days. No doubt the Ansahs were themselves responsible for not having been received here, by making pretensions which they ought not to have made; but there was no doubt, also, that they were sent by the King, and that he was awaiting the result of their interview with the Colonial Secretary. But the matter was pressed on, and war was declared. There was no necessity for war; and even if there had been a necessity, a large white force was not needed for the work to be done, for there were plenty of Native troops to do all that was required. He therefore thought that some explanation was needed from the Colonial Secretary, of whom he should say that since his accession to office had acted much more in accordance with his old Liberal professions than the Colonial Secretary of the late Liberal Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The challenge of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is sufficiently general, because, as I understand him, he says in the first place that the claim on the Ashanti King which produced the expedition was absolutely unjustifiable, and in the second place that, even if it were justifiable, it could have been secured by means less costly than an expedition to Kumasi. To his challenge I will endeavour to make a reply. I should like to clear the way by two statements. In the first place, this is the first time I have heard it stated that this expedition was prompted or suggested or supported by any reference to what the French are doing in West Africa. That has never been suggested either by the authorities on the West Coast, or by any person representing either the late or the present Government. And I would also refer to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Clare, to the effect that this was a matter undertaken in the interest of Great Britain, and therefore Great Britain should bear the cost. That, I think, he will find is entirely contradicted by the evidence in the Blue-book. He will see that everybody connected with the colony was in favour of this expedition, and claimed for many years previous to it starting, that some steps should be taken to repress what they considered, and what the Government considered, was neither more nor less than a public and an intolerable nuisance. If I wanted a justification of the war, I find it in those words. Absolutely, the continued existence of the government of the King of Ashanti under the circumstances in which it has been going on since the war in 1873 was an intolerable nuisance. It was in the way of civilisation, of trade, of the interests of the people themselves, and on all those grounds it ought undoubtedly to be put a stop to. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for East Mayo is moved by different considerations to those which moved the hon. Member for Caithness. We know perfectly well the hon. Member for East Mayo is moved first and foremost by his hostility to the present Government, and I am quite certain he would have made

  815
  a speech just as excited, just as enthusiastic, against the Government if they had declined to take any steps to put down the state of things as he has done now the Government have taken steps which have been successful. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Caithness says the war was unnecessary. I understand he represents the King of Ashanti as an injured person, as one who is worthy of sympathy in this House, and his people as people rightly struggling to be free; and accordingly he complains that in our greed and love of aggression and conquest we have proceeded against this innocent person, and have reduced him to a most humiliating position. I cannot conceive anything which is further from the fact. From the date of the war in 1873 and 1874, this district of Africa, which is, I believe, extremely rich—certainly rich in natural resources, probably rich in mineral resources—has been devastated, destroyed, and ruined by inter-tribal disputes, and especially by the evil government of the authorities of Ashanti. No sooner was the present ruler installed as King of the country, than he began to make war upon every tribe in the neighbourhood, and the consequent loss of life was very great. I often think it is so extraordinary for Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Caithness to talk of the loss of life involved in the expedition. It cannot be placed in the same category as the loss of life which has been going on year after year, month after month, simply because we had not the courage and the resolution to make the expedition. [Cheers.] I think the duty of this country in regard to all these savage countries over which we are called upon to exercise some sort of dominion, is to establish, at the earliest possible date, Pax Britannica, and force these people to keep the peace amongst themselves—[cheers]—and by doing so, whatever may be the destruction of life in an expedition which brings about this result, it will be nothing if weighed in the balance against the annual loss of life which goes on so long as we keep away. What is the state of things in Ashanti and in many other of these West African and African possessions? The people are not a bad people. The natives are, on the whole, perfectly willing to work, and if they fight, they fight because they cannot help themselves. They would
  816
  always rather settle down to commercial or agricultural pursuits if they were allowed to do so, but in such cases as that we are considering, the government is so atrociously bad, that they are not allowed to do so. No man is safe in the enjoyment of his own property, and as long as that is the case, no one has any inducement to work. There are other complaints besides these general complaints against the ruler of Ashanti. He deliberately broke the conditions of the Treaty. He did not put down human sacrifices. They went on up to the time of the expedition, and actually they took place the day after our troops got into the capital of Kumasi, and if any proof of that is wanted, it is found in the sacrificial groves and fetish temples found by the troops, and in which were discovered the remains of thousands of persons who had not only been killed, but tortured by this interesting potentate—[a laugh]— for whom the sympathies of the House are invoked by the humanitarians and philanthropists represented by the hon. Members for Caithness and East Mayo. [Cheers.] One condition of the Treaty which was broken was the duty imposed upon this ruler to keep open the roads. The roads are absolutely necessary for purposes of traffic and commerce. The roads have been destroyed, allowed to be overgrown and commerce has been absolutely destroyed, not merely with the kingdom itself, but with the Hinterland. Inasmuch as the kingdom stands between the trade of the coast and the trade of the Hinterland, all increase of trade was destroyed by the insecurity of the routes through which it had to pass. I say, then, that on all grounds the war was necessary in order, in the first place, that legitimate trade should be promoted, and, in the second place, in order that practices which are universally condemned and prohibited by the Treaty and Convention on the authority of which the late ruler held his position should be put a stop to. I should mention, in passing, that, in addition to the special barbarities connected with the practice of human sacrifices, a great system of slave-raiding had been going on under the protection of the King of Ashanti for many years past, which also, I think, it was one of our duties absolutely to prevent. The expedition was necessary also

  817
  for the protection of other tribes. Every tribe in the neighbourhood of Ashanti lived in terror of its life from the King, who had on several occasions destroyed one after another tribes which had sought our protection. There were at least half-a-dozen tribes under separate kings or chieftains who had been driven out of their country, and to a large extent destroyed, the whole trade and commerce being utterly ruined in consequence of the continued raids, made against the representations of the British authorities by the King of Ashanti. In order to prevent that, from time to time the British Government took some of the tribes under its protection. In my opinion a great mistake was made in refusing sooner to take under our protection tribes that asked that protection merely in order that they might engage in peaceful commerce, always with the result that the tribe was immediately afterwards eaten up by the tribes of Ashanti. On one occasion the tribes of Ashanti marched into another kingdom which had been taken under the protection of the British Government. We had to send, at considerable expense, an armed force in order to protect these territories. It is true that in the presence of this force the tribes of the King of Ashanti were withdrawn. But it was only under threat of our intervention that they were withdrawn. The finances of the colony have suffered for years by keeping up larger forces in order to protect tribes under our protection. I think I have said enough to show that we should have been wanting in our duty if we had not insisted that this state of things should be stopped. What did we ask for? We asked, as the late and preceding Governments had asked, again and again, that a Resident should be admitted to Kumasi, this Resident being charged with the duty of seeing that slave-raiding was stopped, that human sacrifices were stopped, and that the attacks which were constantly being made upon surrounding tribes should also be put an end to. The King made no answer. In the first instance he refused altogether the proposition of the Government. At other times he sent insulting replies. Again he sent no reply at all. Finally, he refused to give any reply, but said he had sent his messengers to see the Queen of England,
  818
  and make known his wishes. Lord Ripon sent word to the Governor of the Gold Coast to tell the messengers if they came to England that they would not be received by the Queen or her representatives. He actually forbade their coming to England, although he did not feel justified in preventing them by force. On what grounds did Lord Ripon take this course? He had many grounds. In the first place, that their character was bad; in the second place that they were representatives of a King who indulged in human sacrifice, and that the representatives of such a potentate were not to be received by the Queen of England—[cries of "Oh, oh!"]—and, in the third place, that in dealing with these subject tribes under the circumstances which I have detailed, it would be absolutely ruinous to the Governor on the spot if at any time you chose you could pass him by, and claim to be received directly in London. We place a great responsibility upon the heads of the Governors whom we send out to those distant places, and who have to act very often on the spur of the moment; and if we ourselves reduce their authority in the eyes of these subjects, there would be simply no end to the representations with which we should have to deal in this country, and to the tricks by which these savage rulers would escape from their responsibility. When I came to office the matter came before me, having been already decided by my predecessor. I do not want, on that account, in the slightest degree to lessen my responsibility. If I had occupied office at the time Lord Ripon did, I should have taken exactly the same course. These persons came to England, and I refused to receive them. Representations were made to me on their behalf by a Member of this House; and I said I would be most happy to receive him, but I refused to recognise him as their representative. He did not desire to be recognised as their representative, but wished on his own account to place before me some statements which he had heard from them. Their statement was to the effect that they had credentials from the King of Ashanti; that they had plenipotentiary authority from him to deal with me as the representative of the Government; and, finally, that they were prepared to accept the terms which I informed the

  819
  Gentleman who saw me it was our intention to demand. Well, I told them I accepted their assurances for what they were worth—[laughter]—but that Her Majesty's Government would not on that account countermand the expedition. It is very easy, of course, to say we should have stopped the expedition; that we would have saved the expenditure and attained the same result. That is a hypothetical statement. I confess I have not the remotest belief that we should have attained the same result, or anything like it. And I think I have some reason for saying that when I had to make my decision of course I did not know all the facts, but what I did know was that if the expedition was held back, and if hereafter these so-called envoys were repudiated by the King of Ashanti, not only would great expenditure have been incurred for no purpose, but we should have to repeat the expedition at a time when, owing to the difficulties of season and climate, the loss of life would have been very much greater. I thought the risk too great. What justification has come to hand of the action which we took in this matter? In the first place these so-called envoys had absolutely no authority whatever to make the terms to which they gave their signature, their credentials were forged credentials, the seal of the King of Ashanti was manufactured in London after they came here—[laughter]—and they had no power whatever to accept the conditions imposed upon them by Her Majesty's Government, and the only authority they had was authority which they themselves had sought to obtain redress from Her Majesty's Government for the grievances of the Ashanti people.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: Are these men on their trial?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, they are on their trial. What I am stating is what has appeared in the newspapers; statements which have been confirmed by the Dispatches received from the Governor. The whole of it is in the Blue-book. If the hon. Member has not read the Blue-book——
  MR. DALZIEL: I have read all the Blue-book. [Laughter.]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was going to say that, as the hon. Member has not read the Blue-book, he was probably going to speak.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is that your custom?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have said, the Ansahs, according to the statements of the chiefs who accompanied them, and who were part of the Embassy to London, had no authority to grant the terms which were imposed upon them by Her Majesty's Government, and it is perfectly clear that what I feared would have taken place, and that if they had gone back without an expedition, they would have been repudiated, and properly repudiated by the Ashanti King. Then it is said, ''Why this display of force?" In order to avoid bloodshed. [Cheers. ] It has also been said that all this might have been done by a small force, and I believe that is true; but it would not have been done without bloodshed. If we had gone there with a small force, we should have tempted the Ashantis to war. Do not let it be supposed that the Ashanti King had no idea of resistance. You will find that he sent an Embassy to Samory, who is a powerful chief, inviting him to join in resisting the British attack, and nothing but the sense of his own impotence prevented a collision which must have resulted in a considerable amount of bloodshed. I will only say further that I do not like to sit down without bearing testimony to the admirable behaviour of the Governor Mr. Maxwell. ["Hear, hear!"] I think that throughout, both his discretion and foresight, and the extraordinary zeal and activity shown by him are worthy of the highest credit. The preparations which he made for this expedition were marvellously complete. He gathered together from all the friendly tribes an enormous number of porters necessary for the expedition, and one result of the preparations which he made was that the whole expedition was carried out with a precision almost unique. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke of the unnecessary humiliation to which the King was subjected when he was asked to make his submission. I do not think it is for us to criticise native custom. There is only one way of making, in Ashanti and the regions around, submission, and that is that the person making submission should on his knees embrace the knees of the person to whom he makes submission. The King went through that, and no native would have

  821
  believed that there had been any submission at all unless he had made it in that form. It is no more humiliating for King Prempeh to make his submission in the Ashanti way than for the European Power, after it has been defeated, to make its submisson by surrendering its arms. Therefore it is altogether an over-sentimentality—["Oh!" and cheers]— to suppose that there is any particular humiliation in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] All I am concerned in is in the justification of the English Governor for doing that which he was called to do by the situation and the people with whom he had to deal. [Cheers. ]
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas bound to say the whole tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was one of almost delight at the fact that the expedition was undertaken—["order!"]—and the right hon. Gentleman expressed his opinion that the expedition was not only necessary, but that it ought to have been undertaken long ago. That meant that all means ought not first to have been taken to bring about a peaceful result, and so make the expedition unnecessary. As regarded the historical part of the speech, he had nothing to say. The Member for Caithness said that the late Government was responsible for bringing about the expedition. When the late Government came into office, they found that communications had been going on for some time with the King of Ashanti in reference to his relations with the British Government, and the Government found that in 1892 it became necessary to make further protests in regard to the king's relations with neighbouring tribes. Some two years ago the late Government took steps to persuade the King of Ashanti to receive a British Resident, but he refused to accede to that request. He thought that Her Majesty's Government had acted rightly in the way in which they had dealt with the so-called ambassadors, because he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to the effect that it would be absolutely impossible to maintain our authority in that part of the world if we did not insist upon communications from the kings of these nations being forwarded to us through our Governors, instead of their being sent to the Home
  822
  Government direct. The gentleman who had been sent out to Cape Coast Castle to obtain information, had shown in the course of his career great ability and knowledge of that part of Africa, had made a Report after the late Government had left office, and upon that Report the present Government had come to the conclusion that the difficulty between this country and King Prempeh could not be terminated by peaceful means, and accordingly the expedition had been sent out. In his view the Government had been bound to act upon that Report. He, however, should have had more confidence that every attempt had been made to bring the dispute to an end by peaceful means if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not made the very warlike speech that he had just delivered. He did not intend to detain the Committee at any length, but before he sat down he should wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in reference to this subject. In the first place, he should like to know what steps had been taken in the way of setting up a British Resident at Kumasi, and what position King Prempeh now occupied. In his opinion every one in that House was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no truth in the accounts that had appeared in the newspapers with regard to the alleged humiliation of King Prempeh.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I did not say that there was no truth in those accounts. On the contrary, I believe that they were accurate, although of course they may have been slightly coloured. I said that he was compelled to go through the form of submission that was recognised in Ashanti.
  MR. BUXTONsaid that there were numbers of hon. Members in that House who, from the accounts they had read in the newspapers, had believed that King Prempeh had been subjected to unnecessary humiliation, and he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that nothing was done to subject him to undue humiliation. He wished to know what was the present position of King Prempeh and to express his hope that he was being treated with proper respect. He had merely risen to make these few observations because he had no desire to make any attack upon what the right

  823
  hon. Gentleman had done in the matter, although, perhaps, greater efforts might have been made in the direction of peace.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. In his concluding remarks he said that he had no intention to make any attack on me with regard to the policy which the Government has pursued. I am certainly not surprised at that statement—[cheers]—considering that when he was in office he had arranged for and intended to pursue precisely the same policy. [Cheers.] But then it is true, as he told us, that he intended to pursue it in a different spirit. [Laughter.] The tone of my observations has caused him pain. It appears he intended to make war in a shamefaced sort of way, regretting and doubting the necessity of what he was doing; and his complaint is that I have not only made an armed expedition, but that I have justified it in the face of the world. [Cheers.] I cannot but sympathise with the position of hon. Members who occupy the responsible position occupied by the hon. Member, because he admits that he was prepared to make war in his heart, hating, and detesting, and regretting the action which, nevertheless, he was going to take. On what ground he was about to take the action about which he uses strong language, I must leave him to explain; meanwhile it is absolutely unintelligible. [Laughter and cheers.] He asks me, however, as to what is the arrangement with regard to a Resident at Kumasi. Major Piggott is at present occupying that position, and is being assisted by three chiefs or headmen, who have been selected as a sort of advisory council. Then he asks me whether King Prempeh is treated in a way consistent—with his dignity or character was it? [Laughter.]
  MR. BUXTON: I asked whether King Prempeh was being treated with a respect due to a man against whom British troops have been sent; who has submitted himself to the Queen's representative, and who, after all, whatever may have been his misdeeds in the past—and I certainly do not wish to underrate them—has been King of a native
  824
  tribe in West Africa, and who, therefore, is entitled to proper treatment. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have recently seen one of the officers who have been engaged in conducting the expedition, and I made particular inquiries on this subject. I was informed that King Prempeh appeared to enjoy his novel position very much indeed. [Laughter.] He expresses his delight at the treatment which he has received, but only complained that his allowance of spirits had been limited. [Laughter.] Of course, if the hon. Member opposite is anxious to make any representations in favour of an increase of the allowance, I shall certainly give the matter my most careful consideration. [Laughter.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid, he rose for the purpose of putting two or three questions to the Government with regard to the Vote now before the Committee. The Committee had been discussing this Vote for the greater part of the evening, though the Secretary for the Colonies had not been in his place. After the Debate had gone on for some time, the right hon. Gentleman arrived on the scene, and immediately made known his appearance by suggesting to hon. Members that they had not taken the trouble to read the Blue-books. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that he was helping forward the business of the Government or the business of the House by insulting Members? ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] Did the right hon. Gentleman, straining to catch a small point like a small corner-man on a Christy Minstrel platform ["Oh, oh!"], think that this was a way calculated to get through the business of the House? If the right hon. Gentleman, with his Disraelian smile [loud laughter], imagined that these tactics were going to help him to get his Votes through the House, he was making a great mistake. The Debate was calm and courteous in tone until the right hon. Gentleman introduced his indignant and sneering tone. The questions which had been put deserved to be answered, because hon. Members asked for information with regard to the expedition. The right hon. Gentleman, however, came forward and denounced as a forger and a criminal a

  825
  man who was now on his trial. [Cheers and counter-cheers.] What did the right hon. Gentleman mean? Was this tone calculated to inspire respect in the justice of the Colonial Office?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member again forgets what he has read in the Blue-book. Ansah confessed that his credentials were false.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that he disputed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but that, even if it were true, the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in anticipating the verdict in a trial that was proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman said that this man was unworthy of credence, having been guilty of perjury, but he had not confessed to forgery as forgery was generally understood. He held that there was reason to believe that the Ansahs came over here as the representatives of King Prempeh. [Cries of "No!"] If they were not the representatives of the King, how was it that they had influence with him and were practically pleading for a truce on his behalf during the whole course of the expedition? The alleged forged signature to the credentials was a comparatively insignificant point, if the men were actually the King's representatives. What was the right hon. Gentleman's defence respecting this expedition? He had said that night that the expedition was undertaken in the interests of trade. He had thought so himself all along, but it was, nevertheless, a new defence. The reason put forward informally was that King Prempeh had refused to accept a British representative at Kumasi. Then the right hon. Gentleman declared that the representatives of King Prempeh could not be treated with officially in this country because the King had connived at human sacrifices. When was this new doctrine introduced, that the Government would treat with no Government that was responsible in any way for the loss of human life? ["Hear, hear!"] If that was to be the new policy of the Government they would find that it would carry them much farther than they would care to go. He did not say that, having regard to all circumstances, the expedition to Kumasi might not have been justifiable. His argument was that up to the present time the Government had failed to show that the King refused to accept the terms, the
  826
  acceptance of which would have rendered the expedition unnecessary. There had been no denial of the fact that the Ambassadors of the King were meeting the expedition at every point, and saying that there would be no fighting, and that the King was anxious to concede all the terms demanded. They were not told what the whole cost of the expedition would be. They were asked now to vote £120,000, and were told that the colony would pay that sum; but he feared that this was simply a preliminary expenditure, and that they would be asked later on to vote an additional amount. Then, they had not been told yet what the Government proposed to do with regard to Prempeh. It was easy to sneer, and it was easy for the right hon. Gentleman to make a cheap joke in that House at the expense of the poor man who was his prisoner. The right hon. Gentleman thought fit to suggest that, after all, the only grievance King Prempeh had was that he wanted a little more spirit. He would like to see the information on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his Birmingham humour. [Loud cries of "Divide!" and "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.
  MR. DALZIELthanked the Chairman for appealing on his behalf. He thought that when hon. Members had heard the humour of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, it was rather hard that they should object to hear some criticism upon it. After the tone the right hon. Gentleman had adopted, he was not inclined to limit by one single minute, and he hoped his hon. Friends were not, the passage of this Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman chose to insult Members in that House he must pay the penalty of his own mistake. [Cries of ''Order!" and "Divide!"]. He wished now to put a few questions to the Financial Secretary to the War Office with regard to the administration of the campaign. So far as its organisation was concerned, he thought the expedition was certainly a credit to those responsible; but he had received some information as to the equipment, on which he thought he was entitled to some explanation. The Government came into office as the champions of British interests. They were going to

  827
  stand up for the British workman against the German workman and the workmen of other countries; but would it be believed that the provisions, the forage and boxes were all from Germany. The very boxes on which Governor Maxwell sat when Prempeh made submission had on one side "Made in Germany," and on the other "Woolwich Arsenal." [Laughter.] That was the general consideration which appeared to guide the War Office in regard to this expedition. Why was German food preferred in this case? Why were the words "Made in Germany'' printed on almost every package? He believed the forage was also from Germany. The Financial Secretary himself wrote a letter during the Recess in which he admitted that the forage was brought from Germany. Where was the hon. Member for Central Sheffield that night, and the Member for East Essex, and all the hon. Gentlemen who, during the last Parliament, nearly every week and every day were asking about these goods coming from Germany? When it was admitted by the Financial Secretary himself that these goods came from Germany, he thought the House was entitled to some explanation why this Government of all the talents, and nearly all the Liberal Unionists—[laughter]—should have preferred German to British food for this expedition. There was an item for forage in this Vote, and he would like to know what was done with the forage. How much of the Vote was expended on forage, and what was done with it? As far as his information went, the expedition, so far as the requirements for forage were concerned, consisted of one horse, two mules, and two donkeys—[laughter]—and he believed one of the donkeys belonged to a civilian. The Committee was entitled to know for what the forage was required, and how much was provided. The biscuits provided for the troops also came from Germany. Did the Financial Secretary deny that? He asked for information on the points mentioned.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,suggested to the Committee, for a reason which he would briefly state, that this Debate ought now to come to an end. Before going into that he ought to say, in regard to the question as to
  828
  food made in Germany, that the food referred to was got from Germany because it could not be obtained in England. ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Members.] Was the fact doubted? [Cheers.] It consisted of vegetable goods dried to a point necessary for the particular conditions of this expedition, and not being obtainable in this country, they were rightly obtained in Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sauerkraut."] With regard to the question about forage, the hon. Member had drawn a false inference from the title of the Vote, "Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies," which was the ordinary title of Vote 7. As far as was known from the accounts received, there was no charge for forage at all. Now, the Committee had a great deal of work before them if the financial business of the country was to be carried on in accordance with law, and in these circumstances he hoped hon. Gentlemen would permit this Debate to come to a conclusion now, in order that they might have time to discuss the main Votes, which came on next. [Cheers.]
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought this was rather a strong Measure. He would remind the Leader of the House that this very important expedition into the interior of Africa took place at a time when Parliament was not sitting, and hon. Members had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on the circumstances. Never before had a Vote raising the policy and expenditure of a great expedition been put down upon a Supplementary Estimate; and Members had a perfect right to ask questions of the Government upon it. The Committee, besides, had been discussing the subject only about an hour and a quarter, a considerable part of which had been consumed by the Colonial Secretary. He could not understand why on earth the hon. Member for Poplar, the late Under Secretary for the Colonies, should have complained of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, Jingo in tone though it was, seeing there was not a vestige of difference between the late and the present Government in this matter. His hon. Friend complained of the expedition, and wept over the unhappiness of having to carry war and desolation into some foreign country, whereas the Colonial Secretary carried out the expedition, but did not weep at all over it.

  829
  [Laughter.] If they were to have expeditions of this kind by Governments, he preferred the Government that boldly, and even tempestuously, came forward and boasted of what it had done, than the Government which, having done precisely the same thing, should come forward with crocodile tears, and bewail its fate. [Laughter.] The Colonial Secretary had complained of the hon. Member for Caithness for saying that one of the reasons for this expedition was to restrain the advance of the French into the interior of Africa, and the right hon. Gentleman challenged his hon. Friend to show that anyone up to that moment had suggested such a reason. In support of the statement of his hon. Friend, he might refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch of Governor Maxwell of the 13th June 1895 to Lord Ripon, in which he stated in effect that, at a period when the French were advancing inland on both sides of us, it was not to be tolerated that the opening up of the interior of this part of Africa to British enterprise should be prevented by petty despotisms. Governor Maxwell therefore suggested such a reason as that referred to for the expedition. The Colonial Secretary said there had been human sacrifices in Ashanti, and that the people were engaged in slavery. No doubt they were engaged in private slavery, like many other tribes in that part of Africa. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, with a greater show of reason, that the expedition was undertaken for the sake of trade. He had no doubt of this; but what he and many other Members objected to was that those military expeditions should be undertaken to extend our trade in Africa. Then the Colonial Secretary fell back into vague generalities. He said that King Prempeh and his kingdom were an intolerable nuisance; and he went further, and said that we were in Africa to establish there—and he supposed in all the world—the Pax Britannica. [Laughter.] Did the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean to tell the House that we were responsible for every criminal and bad government that existed in the whole of Africa? Did the right hon. Gentleman recognise this duty of establishing the Pax Britannica—which he took to mean laying hold of the thing for ourselves—[laughter]—not only in
  830
  Africa but in other parts of the world—in Asia for instance, or in Turkey for instance? ["Hear, hear!"] Where was it to begin, and where was it to end? Was it only to be acted upon when we could get something for ourselves—when it was only a weak Power we interfered with, and when our action would not risk involving us in war with other Great Powers? ["Hear, hear!"] That appeared to be the right hon. Gentleman's view. What he strongly complained of was that when King Prempeh sent Envoys over to this country, the Colonial Secretary and his predecessor refused to receive them on the ground that they did not come from the King as a ruler, that they did not communicate with the Governor of Cape Coast Colony, and that to have received them over his head would have lowered the dignity of the Governor. It was stated that if an African King wished to negotiate with this country he should send notice of the fact to the Colonial Governor, and the Governor would send the communication to the Home Government. But, as he understood, it seemed that the complaint of King Prempeh was against the action taken by the Governor of Cape Coast Colony, and he really thought it desirable that those tribal chiefs, who were in some sort under our paramount influence, should be allowed to send to this country to protest against any action on the part of our Colonial officers, if they wished to do so. Then, in default of being received by the Colonial Secretary, the Envoys insisted on seeing the humble person who was then addressing them. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, carried away by his own eloquence, stated that the Envoys were bad characters [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "I did not say that."], but they appeared to him to be even suspiciously respectable. [Laughter.] Why in the world did not the right hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable man, as a practical man, as a business man, put aside the follies of Lord Ripon, and take upon himself to receive the Envoys? It was desirable for many reasons—to put it on the lowest ground, that of cost—that the Colonial Secretary should have seen these envoys, whom he admitted were bonâ fide representatives of the King, for it was quite possible that some arrangement might have been

  831
  made. But even when the expedition was going forward to Africa, again envoys were sent by King Prempeh asking what was to be done and declaring that he was ready to accept any terms that were suggested. He could not help thinking that when the expedition was sent and it had arrived there, it was thought it would be somewhat absurd if they did not go up to Coomassie, and so the envoys were put aside and the expedition went up to Coomassie. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary wanted his expedition. It must be remembered that this was done not only at great cost to the Exchequer, but also to the serious damage and injury of the health of a vast number of Her Majesty's forces. Really, he could not think there was any necessity to do so, and he could not acquit the Colonial Secretary of having followed in the evil course of his predecessor. The way in which these expeditions were treated by the Press was shocking. He had seen two contributions in the Daily Graphic. One was King Prempeh kissing—he believed there was a dispute between the two Front Benches as to what part of his person he was kissing. That was the way they treated their enemy—a man who was the monarch, for what that was worth, of a tribe in Africa and the head of a considerable State, and he really did think it was scandalous that they should submit this unfortunate man to this utter humiliation. The other contribution showed them "A black brother." This "brother," was chained to a tree, and there was one of Her Majesty's soldiers wielding a cat-o'-nine tails and thrashing him. That was how they treated their friends in Africa. He was bound to say that for the sake of Africa, for the sake of friends as well as foes, the less they went there the better it would be.
  MR. BALFOUR: I beg to move "That the Question be now put." [Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 78.—(Division List, No. 45.)
  Question put accordingly, "That Item (a), Ashanti Expedition, be reduced by £100,000."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 232.—(Division List, No. 46.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I now claim that the main Question be put. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Shame!"]
  THE CHAIRMANwas proceeding to put the Question, when
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid: I claim that the Irish Members—[Loud cries of "Order!"] We are entitled to speak on this Question. [Renewed cries of "Order, order!"] We have not been heard on the Question. [Shouts of "Order, order!" and "Name, name!"] Surely, Sir, one Irish Member is entitled to be heard.
  THE CHAIRMANput the Question amidst cries of "Shame, shame!"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 48.—(Division List, No. 47.)
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896."
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought they were entitled to some explanation of this item.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that he moved to report progress. It was hopeless for the Government to expect to make any further progress at that hour of the night. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to

  833
  consent to the adjournment of the further discussion of this Vote in view of so large a portion of the evening having been unexpectedly taken up by the Debate on the very important question relating to the Ashanti Expedition. It might be that that Debate was of sufficient length, but he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would say that an extraordinary amount of time had been spent upon it, considering the number of hon. Members who were desirous of expressing their views on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now resuming a Debate which has been concluded. The subject under discussion is that of the Ordnance Factories.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that he had commenced his speech by moving to report progress, and therefore he thought that he was entitled to give his reasons for making that Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If that be so I am afraid that I must decline to accept the hon. Member's Motion to report progress, because the House at an earlier period resolved that the 12 o'clock Rule should be suspended, the intention being, as I understand, that the sitting should be prolonged for some considerable time beyond 12 o'clock. In these circumstances I should not feel myself justified in accepting the hon. Member's Motion to report progress at this hour.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman in the chair and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that in making the Motion he had done he had no intention of obstructing the proceedings of the House. He merely wished to put it to the latter right hon. Gentleman whether, the best part of the night having been taken up with discussing the Ashanti Expedition, he should not consent to postpone any further discussion of the Supplementary Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that it was absolutely necessary for these Votes to be got through that night, if they were to conduct the Government of the country with any degree of success. He must therefore ask the House to sit up later and to pass these Votes that night.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Where is Chamberlain?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, that the reason this Supplementary Vote had been asked for was because the work of the Department had been unexpectedly increased during the year. There was also the item for Buildings included in the Vote. Certain buildings had been found necessary in consequence of the alteration of the old proof butts. In this way it was found that on the Estimates there would be a deficiency of about £100, and that was the sum the Committee was asked for.
  DR. CLARKcomplained that the paper containing this Vote was not received with the other Supplementary Estimates. He wished to point out that the Estimate for the factory at Waltham Abbey was £12,000 and now £4,000 extra was asked for. Then the removal of the old proof butts to a new site was estimated to cost £14,000, a very large sum he thought for such a work, and now £5,450 extra was required. He thought they ought to have some explanation as to who was responsible for estimates which were at least one-third less than the cost of the works.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was a pleasure to contrast the demeanour of the First Lord of the Treasury with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. While the Conservatives were sitting up to carry on the work of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman who was chiefly responsible for keeping up the Debate scuttled away. ["Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The observations of the hon. Member do not seem to arise on this Vote [Laughter.]
  MR. HEALYsaid he had intended to say a few words on the question of cordite, but he would not do so in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He protested, however, against the Committee being asked to pass Votes of this kind at that hour, when in reality they might have been taken at an earlier period if the Government had made a proper distribution of business.
  MR. J. G. WEIRthought they had good reason to complain that the documents containing the statement of expenditure had not been circulated sooner. In several instances there had been a considerable excess of expenditure over the original Estimate. There was an item of £800 for plants issued and sold in connection with the manufacture of magazine rifles. Apparently tools were used for a couple of years and then thrown away. There was either jobbing here, or gross mismanagement. The House had never yet had any statement as to the cost of the plant necessary for the manufacture of cordite powder. Large sums had been expended, and the Committee ought to have some information about them. He hoped that the Financial Secretary was prepared to furnish some technical information. What kind of tools had been manufactured; how much money went in royalties to the patentees and when would the patents expire?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to go into the question.
  MR. WEIRsaid that the question of cordite powder was a very serious one, because in the opinion of many men cordite would be of no service to us in the event of a great war. How was the cost of manufacturing it calculated?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSinvited the hon. Member to look at the column
  836
  "Total Estimate for the work." If he cast up the two figures the total would be £27,150. The Committee in passing this Estimate was asked to pass £17,200 out of about £27,000; the balance being the total of the two figures at the extreme right hand corner. There was no excess on the Estimate. The figures showed that the Estimate was very close. As to the hon. Member's criticism with regard to the plant used and sold, did he ever know of a great manufacturing undertaking in which some of the plant had not, at some time or other, worn out, and it was advisable to sell it? [Mr. WEIR: Not after two years.] The figures with which the hon. Member was dealing on the left hand side of the Revised Estimate were passed by the House last Session, therefore the time to challenge the item was then and not now. The only alteration was the alteration consequent upon the expenditure of £17,200 upon buildings.
  DR. TANNERdesired more definite information with regard to the amount refused for proof butts, and the increased output for cordite. In regard to all the matters referred to, more definite information ought to be given hon. Members and he pressed for further information in respect to the proof butts and to cordite. The Votes were shuffled up together in such a way that it was difficult to find them, and when they were found to understand them.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was really at a loss to understand how the Votes were being taken and where to find the particulars of them. He thought the Government ought to provide more information and to arrange the various papers in a way that would be easy of reference.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had been unable to get the papers necessary to discuss the Vote until an hour ago.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was sorry the hon. Gentleman had been inconvenienced. Possibly

  837
  some mistake had been made with regard to the papers, but the Treasury was not responsible for the error if there had been any.
  DR. TANNERsaid the matter was somewhat mixed up. If the items had been set out seriatim, then hon. Members would have been able to see them on the Paper. There had been a hitch, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman admitted so.
  MR. W. WOODALLsaid, that as he was in a sense responsible for this Vote, perhaps he might be permitted to remind the Committee that the ordnance factories were managed as an independent Department of the State, very much on commercial principles, and dependent on the orders they received from the various Departments of State—from the War Office, the Admiralty, the Colonies, and so on. It was simply for the purpose of bringing them under the cognisance of Parliament that the Vote of £100 was asked for. In regard to the proof butts, it had been found necessary to make a complete change of the plan in order to avoid, in firing off the guns, the danger of hitting passing ships. The reconstruction of the butts, and the whole arrangement under which the guns were tried, would involve the expenditure of the amount asked for in the Estimate. The construction of a new nitro-glycerine factory would remove to a position of greater safety the risk of injury to lives and property of that part of the cordite process which was attended with danger and would duplicate the capacity of the works in time of pressure.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought they were entitled, in regard to this matter of cordite, to have the whole question, on which——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. This Vote refers simply to buildings, and any remarks in regard to cordite must be confined to the question, of buildings.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Government would do well, in a matter of this kind, in which the House was
  838
  so keenly interested, and having regard to the interest in cordite works of the Chamberlain family, to give cordite a heading and a column to itself. If there was one subject more than another in which the House as a whole took an interest, it was the fact that, owing to the commercial interest taken by a particular family in the manufacture——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is transgressing the rule I have laid down. I must ask him to confine himself within the four corners of the Vote. That is the ordinary rule of the House on a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. T. M. HEALYremembered that on former occasions the present Secretary of the Treasury was allowed the greatest latitude on this question which he treated in every one of its details. If there was one subject more than another in regard to which the Conservative Party were committed to purity of administration it was that which concerned cordite. It was a question so mixed up with the Liberal Unionist Section of the Government— —
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have called the hon. Gentleman to order two or three times. I hope that he will now confine himself to the Vote, otherwise I shall be compelled to ask him to discontinue his speech.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that on the whole, considering the large interest which centred in this question of cordite, it was not surprising if he should have, perhaps, strayed somewhat from the Vote.
  MR. WEIR*MR. WEIR rose when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Motion is hardly necessary, as, I believe, the hon. Gentleman only rises in order to ask one particular question.
  MR. WEIRremarked that that was his intention. The Vote contained an item for new nitro-glycerine factories to replace the old works, the new

  839
  buildings being required for the increased output of cordite. What percentage of the increase, he asked, was to be due to the new factories, and had any contracts been given out to private firms? The question of cordite was an important one, and he hoped some information would be vouchsafed him upon this point.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDappealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to reconsider his decision, and not force this Vote through to-night. The question was one of great importance, and he urged that the particular Vote should be postponed until the following night, so as to allow of adequate discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYshould be glad if it was in his power to do as the hon. Member suggested, but, unfortunately, it was not. Not only would they have as much work as they could do on the following day, but he should be again compelled to ask the House to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule. He hoped hon. Members would content themselves with the considerable discussion that had taken place and allow the Vote to be passed. Considering all the time the Government had and the tremendous latitude given to them, it was unreasonable at this period of the Session that they should, besides taking Fridays from private Members, ask them to sit up all night.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, no doubt the First Lord of the Treasury had cause to get his Votes that night. But the House was not responsible for the late period of the Session at which the Votes were brought forward. If the House had been called together one week earlier they would have had none of this pressure or the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule. With regard to the Vote under discussion, if the Government would promise not to keep the House too late, perhaps it would be well if they did not divide. But they should ask some promise that the House would not be kept up till breakfast-time discussing the Amendment on the paper,
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How late will the First Lord of the Treasury go to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We must get all the Votes on
  840
  the Paper before we separate, the main Supplementary Votes and Vote 7.
  DR. CLARKasked whether the Government wanted the Committee to vote £1,100,000 on the Supplementary Estimates at a quarter past one in the morning. They had seven minutes on the previous night and they voted £4,400,000; and now there was a Supplementary Vote for £1,100,000, and the Government asked them to discuss a number of Amendments. He would conclude with a Motion that the Chairman report progress. Under ordinary circumstances the 12 o'clock Rule was suspended that special Votes might be passed, and it was not suspended for the purpose of thrusting through in one night a large number of Estimates containing debateable points. From 7 until 9.30 the only question was the important change with reference to the Volunteer Vote, and the Volunteer Colonels took nearly half the time in resenting the attack made by the Secretary for War and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and it was only half-past nine when they got to some other points in the Supplementary Estimates. There were important changes with regard to the artillery and he knew there was a desire to discuss these.
  The HON. MEMBER was still addressing the House, when—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 187; Noes, 50.—(Division List. No. 48.)
  Question put accordingly—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of Payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 43.—(Division List, No. 49.)

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1895–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,100,000, 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 1896, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

  Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

  £

  Sec. 1. Personnel

  …

  146,500

  Sec. 2. Materiel

  …

  444,000

  Sec. 3. Contract Work

  …

  307,000

  Vote 9. Naval Armaments

  …

  202,500

  Total

  £1,100,000."

  MR. KEARLEYsuggested that the discussion on this Vote should be taken on the Report stage; only about two hours would be required.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND moved to omit Section 1 (personnel). He had no desire to take up the time of the Committee, but he felt bound to move the Amendment which the hon. Member for Roscommon had put down upon the Paper, to leave out Vote 8, Section 1. There was an extraordinary increase in the amount of this item, and he was decidedly of opinion that the Government had afforded no satisfactory explanation of that increase.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport, the Committee would remember that the whole of this subject was discussed on Vote A.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid, that perhaps hon. Members would have a better opportunity for discussing the question on the Report if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would undertake to afford facilities for that discussion. He begged to move to report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought that some such arrangement might be arrived at.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that in that case the best course would be for the
  842
  hon. Member for Devonport to withdraw his Motion for reporting progress.
  MR. MORTONsaid that he should be glad, in the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw his Motion for reporting progress.
  Motion to report progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the complaint of the Irish Members was that no part of this enormous Vote was expended in Ireland, and that was a matter they should have time to discuss. They wanted their fair proportion of the expenditure. The Government expended £10,000,000 in England and gave Ireland £30,000. It was absurd. It was simply shocking. Year after year the Government when in opposition used the argument the Irish Members were now using, and then when they were in power they used the argument they were now using. They all knew it was necessary to have the Votes before March 31st, and the Government should have some reasonable facilities for getting their Votes; and if the Government would come to some reasonable understanding as to giving a fair time for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon, the Irish Members would be disposed to meet them. There was no disposition to keep the Government sitting to a late hour. All they desired was that they should have a fair time for the discussion of their grievances. Up to the present the Irish side of the case had not been heard at all.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps allow him to give an additional reason for postponing this Vote. It was that there were some Gentlemen who had given notice of Amendments to the Supplementary Estimates who were not present. [Ministerial laughter.] It was never anticipated that this Vote would be taken at such an hour.
  MR. DILLONpointed out that he had an Amendment to Vote 1, which

  843
  raised not a question of policy, but a question of enormous importance, and that was the scandalous treatment of Catholics in the Navy in regard to the provision of chaplains. They had had assurances that the grievances would be redressed, and the Government ought to be compelled to redress it. He claimed that a fair opportunity should be given him to bring this question forward. It could only be raised, he understood, on Vote 1.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have explained to the Committee more than once the legal position in which we stand. It is absolutely necessary that we should get to-night the Votes which were on the Paper. I understand that there would be no objection to pass those Votes if it were possible to arrange for a discussion of the questions which hon. Gentlemen wish to raise at an early hour to-morrow. To meet the views of hon. Gentlemen I would suggest that to-morrow we could begin business by discussing the Supplementary Votes and Vote 1 if an honourable understanding were entered into by hon. Gentlemen opposite, both above and below the Gangway, that the discussion would not be a long one and would finish before the dinner hour.
  MR. J. G. WEIRsaid, that he wished to call attention to the position of the coastguard in the North of Scotland, and that he would like to do so before the right hon. Gentleman obtained the money which he wanted and not afterwards.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that hon. Members above the Gangway on his side of the House could not interfere with the discretion of Members below the Gangway, nor could the latter interfere with the discretion of the former. He thought himself that to ask that the discussion should cease by the dinner hour was hardly reasonable. The understanding would be that a fair and reasonable time should be occupied and no more.
  MR. W. ALLANasked when the Government intended to take Vote 8 for the Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member, but it will not be taken to-morrow nor on Monday.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid there were three points to be discussed: (1) Dockyards; (2) the general question of the fair amount of money to be spent in Ireland; and (3) the treatment of Catholics. It seemed to be improbable that those three questions could be discussed before the dinner hour to-morrow. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain why the report stage should not be taken on Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,)said that with reference to the Supplementary Estimates the Government had come near to the end of their money, and next week the Government would need more money to carry the Departments on. Friday was, therefore, the last possible day.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYasked for a short discussion on Vote 1 on Monday. The discussion would last for two or three hours.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he would be glad to meet the proposals suggested by the hon. Member if he was not to be met on the Army Estimates by similar demands for Friday and Monday. He suggested that they should get all the Votes that evening; report them to-morrow after 12 o'clock, and on Monday get the Speaker out of the chair on the Army Estimates. If the Government could arrange with hon. Members on that point he was ready to distribute the time to the convenience of the House, but it must be fair time to those who wished to discuss the Motions on the Army Estimates. He was, therefore, in some difficulty in the matter. If hon. Members from Ireland would undertake only to take two hours for their particular.

  845
  interests—["Too short"]—and English Dockyard Members made a similar promise with regard to Monday, he would take the risk of cutting two hours off Friday and Monday on the understanding that the House would assist the Government in getting the Speaker out af the Chair on the Army Estimates on Monday.
  DR. TANNERreminded the First Lord of the Treasury that there was one Vote which would require most thorough discussion, and that was the Army Medical Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly fair one as regards the Motions on getting the Speaker out of the Chair.
  MR. J. G. WEIRcomplained that the claims of Scotland were lost sight of in the suggested arrangement.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped he would not be pressed further, as it might be at the cost of those Members who had claims in connection with the Army Estimates.
  MR. DILLONreplied that the Gentlemen interested in the Army Estimates could talk about the Army at 2 or 3 o'clock on Saturday morning. He should have great difficulty about consenting to a binding arrangement as regards the exact length of the discussions. If the Government met his demand with regard to Catholic sailors reasonably, the discussion might close in a quarter or half an hour; but, if it was met with a flat refusal, the discussion might be prolonged.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it must be evident that he could not accept that arrangement. The Navy, having had the best part of so many evenings, it would not be fair to drive the Army Estimates into late hours.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid, the position they were in was an unfortunate one. As he understood it, the right hon. Gentleman offered them two hours on Vote 1 on Monday. On
  846
  that Vote was absolutely the first opportunity that hon. Members would have had of discussing matters connected with the Naval Service, on which they felt very strongly, and which he believed was of vital importance to the efficiency of the Navy itself. On that same Vote, and out of the two hours to be given, was to be discussed that extremely important subject which the hon Member for East Mayo wished to bring before the House. They could not therefore possibly put up with two hours for the discussion of both those matters.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he thought the question which the hon. Member for East Mayo wished to bring forward might be raised on Vote 11.
  MR. DILLON,what I want is that a Catholic Chaplain should be appointed to each Squadron, and that can only be raised on Vote 1.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it would come under Vote 11.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he feared he should be ruled out of Order if he brought the matter forward under that Vote. What he wanted was the Catholic chaplains should have the same status in the Navy as Protestant chaplains.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYasked the Chairman whether that could be raised on Vote 11.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he saw no reason why the question could not be raised on the Vote referred to.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that Vote 1 dealt with chaplins in Her Majesty's ships, while Vote 11, as far as he understood, dealt with chaplains in Her Majesty's dockyards.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid Vote 11 was for allowances for chaplains in Her Majesty's ships and at establishments. He confessed he was not as familiar as perhaps he ought to be with all the details of these Votes, but it did seem to him that the question that the hon.

  847
  Member wished to raise might properly be raised on Vote 11.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that, as it was perfectly evident that two hours to-morrow would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Irish Members and of the hon. Member for Devonport, and as he did not see that anything could be done, he begged to move the Amendment that was on the Paper on the personnel.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Vote 8, Section 1, personnel, of £146,500, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  MR. W. O. CLOUGHwould make an appeal to the hon. Member to meet the First Lord of the Treasury in the spirit he had shown to the House that night. He thought hon. Members might endeavour to come to an understanding that would facilitate the business of the House. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, and let them see if they could not come to some arrangement, so that they might get matters that were necessary discussed, and discussed in a conciliatory spirit.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid that he had been looking at the Statement with the Supplementary Estimate, and it struck him that the Admiralty officials had been spending a great deal of money unexpectedly to push the work forward. The rapidity with which they had been building the heavy ironclads lately had involved an extra amount of labour and of material. Seeing that this was a practical piece of management, requiring money to pay legitimate debts, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Clare to look at the matter from a practical engineering point of view. The money had been spent—and, he believed judiciously spent—in getting these ships built so rapidly; and he would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and accept the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDreplied that nothing would have given him greater pleasure than to have responded to the appeal made to him by the hon Member for Gateshead, but unfortunately, as he was not an engineer, he could not look at the matter from an engineering point of view, but must regard it from the point of view of his constituents.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that, as they were going on with the Votes, he should like to have some statement as to the Naval policy. Practically he believed the whole of the money concerned in this Vote would be spent in England, and in a very narrow and small corner of the Kingdom. It was merely using a curt phrase to say that Ireland with Great Britain formed part of one United Kingdom, if Ireland, whilst compelled to pay more than her fair share of taxation was not allowed to participate in any of the advantages which might result from the expenditure of money on work carried out for Government purposes. In the case of every £5 that was expended, £4 19s. 11¾d. were spent in England, and the odd farthing in Ireland. More money might usefully be spent in Ireland. Take the case of H. M S. Resolution, which got injured whilst on the Irish coast a year ago. She might have put into Queenstown and been refitted in the Dock at Haulbowline if there had been proper equipment there, as there ought to be. But she had to go across to Portsmouth or Plymouth, and get refitted there. The whole position as regarded Ireland was a very difficult one. The Government said they could not spend the money there because they had not, as in the case of Haulbowline, got proper equipment, and then they would not provide the necessary equipment for fear they should have to spend the money in that country. If the Government were going to adopt a policy involving a large expenditure of money, then Ireland, which would have to contribute her share, should also take her proportion of the advantage which

  849
  might result from the spending of money on works. Not only was Ireland robbed of £2,750,000 annually, but she was entirely neglected when any shipbuilding or other work was required to be done. If the Irish Members were to remain in that House they must have separate officers, who would have regard to the claims of Ireland in the matter of expenditure of this character. Hitherto the policy of the Navy had been to exclude Irishmen from appointments on board ship. This would not be denied even by the Members of the Liberal Government. The reason was one of religion. It was not a reason of bigotry, but because Catholics were not wanted in the Navy, as a Catholic chaplain would have to be employed and the accessories of the Catholic religion provided. Turning to the subject of the Vote, we were spending £2,500,000 on Gibraltar alone, from which the Spaniard would derive enormous benefits. Yet, even military men were doubtful of the real value of Gibraltar to the Empire. No one would deny that the South of Ireland occupied an enormous strategic position, and it was desirable that there should be a naval repairing station there. Bantry Bay would be an important port for the Navy. If anything went wrong with these war vessels, where would they get repairs for torpedo boats and engines? Were their ships in time of stress and storm to go from Bantry Bay to Plymouth and Portsmouth? It would be absurd. Bantry Bay was one of the most important and commodious harbours for navigating and docking purposes in the Three Kingdoms. First-class battleships had been manœuvred in the Bay for the last seven or eight years. There was a practice of "crossing the boom," and there were more facilities for it in Bantry Bay than anywhere else. The policy of this country in regard to the Navy was not only selfish, but foolishly selfish. When there was trouble with foreign countries it was Irishmen were not loyal. Was it expected of
  850
  them that they would join heartily in voting ten millions for the Navy when they knew that Ireland was to get all the kicks and England all the halfpence? He did not pretend that Ireland could produce engines; but at all events it could do a great deal of fitting-up. There had been a little additional expenditure at Haulbowline; but what was it in comparison with the whole outlay? If Irishmen were to be told that Ireland was unsuited for naval expenditure, then Ireland ought to be exempted from contributing towards that expenditure. There were in England 70 or 80 officials connected with expenditure, and yet Ireland had only a Chief Secretary and an Attorney General to look after its interests. Ireland also required to have specialised men to look after its interests. At all events the Government might give Ireland some money for piers and harbours, while spending it at Gibraltar, Hong-Kong, and other places.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISwould remind the Committee that Wales had a dockyard at Pembroke, and this Supplementary Estimate gave no information as to the distribution of this Supplementary Estimate among the dockyards of the country. What he and his friends asked was that this promise should be fulfilled, and fulfilled in a substantial manner.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid the Vote of £146,000 was owing entirely to the increased expenditure on dockyard wages resulting from the more rapid progress made in shipbuilding. The £146,000 would be spent in English and Scotch dockyards, £6,000 going to Pembroke.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Not a halfpenny to Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEY: There is no naval shipbuilding in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is that the answer we are going to get?
  MR. W. REDMONDthought the House would now see what the grievance of the Irish Members was. An

  851
  enormous sum was to be spent, and the Secretary to the Admiralty rose and showed that not a single penny was to be spent in Ireland. If hon. Gentlemen thought of the matter for one moment, they could not think it unreasonable that the representatives of Ireland should feel aggrieved and should protest against the present extraordinary state of affairs. The hon. Gentleman said there was no shipbuilding in Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that what he intended to convey was that none of the ships in respect of which this additional money was taken were to be built in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why not?
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the Secretary to the Admiralty had not met his objection, which was that no more of this work had been given to Ireland. Ships could be built in Ireland, and though the shipyards were in the north of Ireland he was sure every Irish Member would be glad to see these yards get their fair share of the work. The First Lord of the Admiralty would no doubt give the usual official assurance, which would be to the effect that tenders would be asked for, that everybody could compete, and that if the Irish tenders were better than the English tenders the Irish yards would get the work. That did not meet the grievance at all. Naturally, English shipbuilders were in a better position than the Irish shipbuilders, but he thought the latter should have a full and fair share of the work. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a full share of the work would be given to Ireland? There must be something in the nature of a definite assurance, and not merely a statement to the effect that Irish firms could submit tenders. Let the First Lord say that some arrangement would be made whereby a considerable amount of the money would be spent in Ireland.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, he would like to say a word or two in respect to the giving of this work to Ireland.
  852
  He thought some of his hon. Friends were a little at sea. It must be borne in mind that in tendering for the building of ships for the Navy two essential conditions were required—the yard and plant must be fit for the work, and the price must be commensurate with what was wanted.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was now referring to the question of tendering.
  MR. ALLAN: No, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the word tendering reached his ears. Any discussion of that kind would come under Section 3, Contract work. The present Vote was in respect of men who were employed in the dockyards, and did not refer to the cost of ships to be built by contract.
  MR. ALLANsaid, his hon. Friends complained of work not being given to Ireland. He was endeavouring to show why part of the money did not go to Ireland; the reason was that there was only one firm who could build ships for the Navy, and they declined to tender for the work.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the point under consideration was that they were spending a large amount of money in English Dockyards and nothing in Irish Dockyards. Haulbowline was a most suitable site for a large shipbuilding establishment, and if there was a wise First Lord of the Admiralty a fine harbour would be constructed there.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing the general question of a dockyard at Haulbowline, as this was a Vote for the wages of the men employed in the dockyards.
  DR. CLARKsaid, there was nothing to show how much of the Vote went to foreign yards. We ought to have all our eggs in one basket. We ought not to be limited to the south coast of England, where we had to carry coal and iron a long distance. He represented a county

  853
  where both coal and iron were cheap, and where labour was comparatively cheap—a county in which there was plenty of brains, and from which all the new improvements now came. In both the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde were suitable places for dockyards, and he hoped that in any further schemes the First Lord of the Admiralty would think of these places.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The item of new works does not arise on this Vote.
  DR. TANNERcomplained that in the expenditure of money on repairs a preference was always given to Chatham. He pointed to the breakdown of the Apollo observing that, if a proper staff had been employed at Haulbowline, the risk and expense of taking the vessel would have been avoided.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, in regard to Haulbowline Dockyard, the Government simply asked for money which had been spent for extra labour. He could not arrange the work in the dockyards in such a fashion as would enable him to give to Irish dockyards what Irish representatives called their fair share of expenditure. They were obliged to get the work done where it could be done in the best manner, and, therefore, they could not pick and choose their dockyards. If he could do so he should be only too glad to give Ireland a greater share of the work. Under these circumstances he hoped that hon. Members would see that he could not do what they asked him to do.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he fully recognised the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in the answer he had given him. The present Government had undoubtedly shown a desire to act fairly in this matter, but the fact remained that Ireland did not get a fair proportion of the benefit of tills enormous expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were bound to get the
  854
  work done where they could get it done in the best manner. But the fact was that whereas for years upon years untold wealth had been squandered upon English dockyards no provision whatever had been made for extending the dockyards in Ireland or Scotland, so as to enable them to compete on fair terms with the English dockyards. Of course Scotland did not feel the pinch so much as Ireland did, because she was a much wealthier country. He thought that the time had come when the Government might give way, and consent to adjourn the Debate, as it was perfectly clear that they had put down more work than could be got through for that evening. He could conscientiously say that certainly up to two o'clock that morning nothing had occurred that would deserve to be called obstruction, in fact the greater part of the time had been occupied by the officials or ex-officials upon the two Front Benches. He contended that the Secretary for the Colonies was unquestionably responsible for the prolongation of the Debate in the earlier part of the sitting. What seemed to him a reasonable and fair arrangement was this, that the Army officers should come down to-morrow night and take the whole of the discussion on their Vote, and that the Vote for the Navy should be taken on Monday. For his part, he had only one question to raise on Vote 1, namely, the question relating to Chaplains. That and the general discussion on the Irish aspect of the question might not last more than two hours, but it would be impossible for him to bind himself to keep the discussion on the question he wished to raise within two hours. It depended entirely on the way in which he was met. If he, was met with a flat negative the Debate might be prolonged. He would suggest that the Committee should accept the proposal made by the First-Lord of the Treasury that the 12 o'clock Rule should be suspended to-morrow night, that the Army Gentlemen should

  855
  have as long a discussion as they liked, and that Vote 1 for the Navy should be taken on Monday.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that with reference to the Supplementary Estimates, he was satisfied to take the opinion of the House upon it. It did seem to him something like adding insult twin jury for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and say that the Government were going to spend money on Haulbowline. An expenditure in Ireland of £50,000 out of a total expenditure of £23,000,000 was beggarly, and against this shabby treatment of Ireland her representatives would continue to protest.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked as to the allocation of the amounts spent in increasing the wages of dockyard workers. He understood that out of the total Estimate only £6,000 would go to Pembroke dockyard. He urged upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the expediency of largely increasing the sum which it was intended at present to allocate to Pembroke.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the hon. Member did not understand clearly what had been done. This money had been spent in connection with the acceleration and completion of ships, and not in connection, with the normal work in the dockyards, and at Pembroke there had not been as much acceleration as elsewhere.
  MR. WEIRcomplained that not a penny out of the large sum asked for was to go to Scotland. He wished to know whether during the rush of work in the dockyards there had been any overtime employment, and if so, whether it had been paid at the ordinary rate or at the rate of time and a quarter or time and a half?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) said, that the Admiralty had taken on. 5,000 men to cope with the extra work to be done. It was not thought desirable to take on more men, partly because there was no space
  856
  for more men to work on the ship, and probably, if more men were taken on it would only result in great discharges later. A certain amount of overtime had to be paid for at extra rates up to time and three-quarters.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item, Vote 8, Section 1, Personnel of £146,500, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. William, Redmond.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 175.—(Division List, No. 50.)
  DR. TANNERsaid, he desired to refer to the large sums of money asked for metal and metal articles. The original Estimate was £1,427,174, but the revised Estimate was £1,713,674. That was to say they were called upon to pass a sum of £286,500. This was an item which should be explained before they passed it, and they ought to know how it came to pass that the revised Estimate so far exceeded the original Estimate as to make a supplementary Estimale of £286,500 necessary.
  DR. CLARKsaid, they were really not being asked to vote any money. What the Government had done was, during the six months they had been in office, to buy as much material as would take up the next six months, and hence, taking the two years, the whole average sum would be the same.
  Motion made and Question put, "That Item 3 (Contract Work) be omitted trom the proposed Vote."
  DR. CLARK,speaking to a point of order, stated that Item 2 was proposed to be omitted, but he did not know that anyone had proposed the omission of Item 3.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for East Clare proposed the omission

  857
  of Item 3, and that is the Amendment I have put from the Chair.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item, Vote 8, Section 3, Contract Work of £307,000, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 169.—(Division List, No. 51.)
  Dr. TANNER Dr. TANNER rose to continue the Debate on the Vote, and was speaking when—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the original Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Original Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 34.—(Division List, No 52)
  Original Question put accordingly,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,100,000, 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 1896, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—
  Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

  Sec. 1. Personnel

  …

  £146,500

  Sec. 2. Materiel

  …

  444,000

  Sec. 3. Contract Work

  …

  307,000

  Vote 9. Naval Armaments

  …

  202,500

  Total

  …

  £1,100,000"

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 26.—(Division List, No. 53.)

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,419,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON in the Chair.]
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTHsaid he thought the time had now come when the Government might again make some proposal.
  858
  [Ministerial cries of "No," and Irish cries of "Go on."] This was a very large Vote of nearly 4½ millions. Some of the Dockyard Members wanted to raise questions upon it, which were of interest to their constituents. His hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo desired to raise the question of chaplains in the Navy, and such a question as that could not be debated at that hour (four o'clock) of the morning. He would suggest that the Debate should be taken on the Report of this Vote, and should be fixed for a reasonable hour this day or on Monday. Was it reasonable that the Government should attempt to force this Vote, which involved no less than 4½ millions of money, through the Committee at Four o'clock in the morning.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped that the Government would see how unadvisable it was for them to proceed with this Vote, which involved so large a sum, at that late hour. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appeared to think that the more rapidly they voted away money the better. As the Government had got all the Supplementary Estimates they might well postpone the further discussion of this Vote.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that he had refrained from moving several of the Amendments that he had placed upon the Paper in order not to occupy the attention of the Committee unduly. If hon. Members opposite wished really to sit up, he was able and ready to sit up too.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to an offer that was made by the Government two hours ago, with the object of rendering it unnecessary that the House should sit up to a late hour. It had been said by hon. Members opposite that it was improper that the Government should press for this Vote which involved so large an amount of money at that late hour of the morning. But the right hon. Gentleman's memory must have failed him, because the discussion which usually took place on Vote 1 had already taken place on Vote A, and it was not usual to have a general discussion on both Votes. The Government had waited until past Four o'clock in the morning,

  859
  and the discussion had belter be brought to a conclusion.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would refer back to what took place last Session, he would find that after the general discussion on Vote A, the Opposition did not allow any further Vote to be taken that night, and there, was a discussion, on Vote 1 on a subsequent morning.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was not referring to last Session. He was speaking of the general practice of the House. He was not at all anxious to unduly restrain liberty of Debate, and he would offer another proposal so that they might separate now and go quietly home to bed. If they got the Vote without discussion now, he would adjourn the Debate on the Army Estimates soon after ten to-morrow night and suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, and then this discussion could be continued as long as the House chose to sit upon the report of the Supplementary Estimate. He saw no reason why they should not come to a definite arrangement of that sort.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was, that having endured all this labour they were to resume the discussion at 10 o'clock tomorrow night. He would very much prefer to discuss the Vote completely now. On the general discussion the First Lord of the Admiralty had promised to give some explanation on a matter he had put to him. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be in a position when Vote 1 was under discussion to give some of the details of his scheme with regard to warrant officers. There were one or two details he would like to raise now. The right hon Gentleman would remember that the question of the abolition of harbour pay had been pressed forward by the warrant officers. The result of the present system was that their scale of pay was reduced by 1s. to 2s. 6d. a day; and, as the course extended over several months, these men suffered considerable pecuniary loss. He should be glad to know whether anything was going to be done to remove this ground of complaint. It was unfair that this reduction should take place. Commissioned officers in the
  860
  receipt of half pay were put on full pay while they were attending the gunnery or torpedo school. Why, then, should the pay of warrant officers be reduced in similar cases? Under the new scheme he understood that the pay of warrant officers was to commence at 5s. 6d. a day. This, he suggested, ought only to apply to probationers for warrant rank, and that, when they were confirmed in that rank, they should start on a minimum pay of 6s. a day. But it was the question of rank that chiefly exercised the minds of warrant officers. They desired greatly to have fleet rank granted to them, and he hoped that their aspirations in that direction would be favourably considered. If they were not, he feared that the agitation which had been going on in this matter would be continued. Another point awaiting settlement was the demand of the engine-room artificers to have warrant rank. The attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty had been called to this question by a deputation that waited upon him. There was a small question affecting the Marines which he had promised to bring forward. Route marching, of course, put a considerable strain upon men's shoe leather; but a Marine was only allowed one pair of boots in the year, whereas a soldier of the line was given two pairs, and it was contended that he ought to have three. The armourer-sergeants in the Royal Marines had also a grievance. Formerly there was an equality of rank and pay between them and armourer-sergeants in the Army, but in June 1883, the position of the latter was improved. As armourer sergeants in the Marines had to do the same work, to possess the same qualifications, and to pass the same examinations as armourer-sergeants in the Army, he did not understand why a distinction was made between them in respect of rank and pay.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he would give the hon. Gentleman an answer with reference to the boots of the Marines that evening. Without notice he was not able to deal with the points mentioned, but he would look into the question. As to the warrant officers, he reminded the hon. Member that the total monetary concessions made amounted to £30,000 which he hoped would show that the Government had approached the matter

  861
  in a liberal spirit and with a desire to redress grievances. Those officers engaged in the harbour ships were being raised from the inferior scale to a higher scale, as for instance the amount for those under five years had been raised from 7s. 3d. a day to 9s. It would be most convenient, however, to have a printed statement in the shape of a Parliamentary paper or an Order in Council, which would give a better idea to all hon. Members who took an interest in the question than any statement he could make at present.
  MR. KEARLEY: What about warrant officers' rank for the engine-room artificers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid that as regarded warrant rank there were a good many difficulties connected with cabin accommodation and other arrangements in the ship. The matter was one he wished further to examine into before coming to a final conclusion.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, the artificers quite recognised the difficulty, and had no expectation of getting separate cabin accommodation. They would be satisfied with getting warrant rank.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON,reverting to the warrant officers again, said, their main ambition was that they should have a line of promotion open to them similar to the quartermasters' line in the Army and the Marines. He had never been able to understand why such a line of promotion should not be given. Every retired Naval officer who was a Member of the last Parliament was in favour of it, and he believed the same was true of this Parliament. By process of exhaustion he gathered that the only people who were against it were the Naval Lords. It was a matter of importance to the Navy to offer every inducement to the mm to rejoin for a second term of service in greater numbers than at present. Tlie complaint of these men was that no prospect of promotion was open to them. He knew an actual case of a warrant officer who, while warrant officer, had under his command a non-commissioned officer in the Marines. Now that noncommissioned officer was a captain, and had rank over the head of the warrant officer who once commanded him, and that captain of Marines had an appoint-
  862
  ment worth more than £400 a year, whereas the warrant officer was doomed to remain in his original position, having less than half the salary of his former subordinate. This was a point of great importance from the point of view of the efficiency of the Navy as a whole; and he hoped the time was not far distant when promotion might be analogous in the Navy to that in the Army and in the Marines. Of course, he recognised that the right hon. Gentleman had done more for the warrant officers than any of his predecessors had done, and he possessed letters from warrant officers bearing testimony to that fact. He hoped, however, that the Government, before going out of Office, would do something in the direction he had suggested.
  MR. DILLONsaid that, three hours and a half ago, the Chairman of Committees refused to put a Motion to report progress, because he held that the House, having determined to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, intended that the Committee should sit for some fair period of time after 12 o'clock. They had now, in his opinion, been sitting for that fail-period, and had had a prolonged Debate, and it must be clear to every fair-minded Member of the Committee that it was neither right nor reasonable that they should be asked to discuss important matters at that hour in the morning. He intended moving an important Amendment, and it was a matter which he was entitled to discuss at a time when there was some chance of the proceedings being reported. No doubt it would be convenient to Members of the Government to have the discussion at that moment; but, as it was not reasonable to continue a Debate at that period of the morning on an old and long-standing grievance, he was obliged to move to report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for East Mayo would not press the Motion. An arrangement was offered by the Government some time since with a view to meet the wishes of the hon. Member, and the Government had no desire or intention to prevent the hon. Member expressing his views on the question to which he referred. They were quite willing to proceed with the discussion, but as the hon. Member had

  863
  declined to accept the arrangements which were made some time ago, and had chosen to take his own course, he could scarcely hope to induce the Government to assent to the Motion to report progress. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of bringing forward the question in which he was interested on Report, and which it must be admitted was a matter of considerable importance.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought they had been treated in a very inconsiderate manner throughout the night, especially as the Government had had no reason to complain of the action taken by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo was that the Navy Vote raised this question of Catholic chaplains. This was a question that was raised so far back as 1878 or 1879. They then got a number of pledges on the matter, but they had not been kept; and now, when a largo increase of the Vote was asked for in connection with the Navy, the hon. Gentleman desired to raise the question, as to these pledges and the efficacy of them, and what was to be done in regard to them. What they claimed was that, in the case of a matter specially affecting Ireland, it was unreasonable to ask them to discuss it at this time of night. The Government had a long Session before them. They met at an unusually late period, but that was not their fault. The date of the Meeting of Parliament was the Government's own action, and the date of the Adjournment would be their own action. The Irish Members would be prepared to sit in September—they had no grouse to shoot. When they asked for the loyalty of Irish soldiers and Irish sailors, the least they might expect was that they should have the opportunity of having the advantage of those religious consolations which they gave to their own Church of England and Methodist people. He thought the time had arrived when they might fairly report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, it was quite impossible for the Government to assent to a Motion which would prevent them getting the Vote to-night. He had unsuccessfully
  864
  made various suggestions from time to time to-night, but they had met with a scanty response from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But even now he was not discouraged, in spite of the fate of his first two suggestions. He would now make a third suggestion. As the hon. Gentleman interested in the dockyard question did not wish to discuss it to-morrow, and as he recognised it was desirable that the hon. Member for East Mayo should say what he had to say on the subject of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy at a time when he could be reported, he would suggest that they should adjourn the other matters at 11 o'clock to-morrow night, which would give the hon. Gentleman a full opportunity for laying his case before the House and of being reported in the newspapers. The 12 o'clock Rale would be suspended, so that the discussion would not be stopped at midnight.
  DR. TANNERpointed out that the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the question of the dockyards had been very much condensed in consequence of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that they would have an opportunity of raising the matter again on the Report stage. Hon. Members on his side had been willing to meet the First Lord of the Treasury in a spirit of concession, but the acrimonious speech of the Colonial Secretary had been responsible for bringing on a long discussion that might otherwise have been avoided. Again, he desired to state that, on the Supplementary Navy Estimates, owing to a misconception, five or six Members had been absolutely shut out from moving or speaking to certain Amendments, as they thought Section 2 was going to be put from the Chair, whereas it was really Section 3, dealing with Naval Contracts, that was so put. If the First Lord of the Treasury would bring on the Report at the beginning of business on Monday, and allow two hours for it, they might allow the Vote to be taken at once.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether, if the proposed arrangement were entered into, other questions besides those now named could be discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that would rest with the Speaker.
  MR. W. ALLENpressed for a reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he would do his best so far as matters rested with the Government to give a full hour before midnight.
  MR. WEIRsaid he was distinctly disappointed with the First Lord of the Treasury, who was a Scotchman. He asked the right hon. Gentleman two hours ago whether he was going to give a short half hour to Scotland, and he had not replied. He had no desire to occupy time, and only regretted the Government had not started business a week or a month earlier, and thus prevented them working all hours of the night. The discussions about two hours here and two hours there were a great waste of time. It would be far better to go right on and not play with time. He had a matter connected with the Highlands of Scotland—not a training ship—that he would deal with on Report, but now he wished to refer to the Coastguard. Whilst he had the greatest sympathy with the Irish Members and their dockyard treatment he must have some sympathy for his unfortunate constituents, who had received very little attention from the Government, and he sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some assurance that Scotland and the Highlands especially would have some kind of recognition.
  At this point (5 a.m.) Mr. J. W. LOWTHER resumed the Chair.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that good humour had characterised the proceedings even during the Chairman's short absence, but there was one observation which the First Lord of the Treasury had made which was peculiar. They had sat up to-night to assist the Government in getting Votes, and the reward the right hon. Gentleman offered them was that if they had dispersed two or three hours ago they should begin discussion to-morrow night at ten o'clock. In other words, for entering upon a two or three hours discussion to-night, they were to lose to-morrow night for the discussion of other subjects. What had occurred was unavoidable on their part.
  866
  The dockyard Members got through their discussion, and he and his friends had to sit and listen. That was surely no reason why they should lose their opportunity of discussion to-morrow night. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should get back to ten o'clock, and that he should have his Vote.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid he was not so much interested in the Vote as the right hon. Member for East Mayo; but he was quite prepared, if the right hon. Gentleman wished, he should move the Amendment of which he had given, notice. [Cries of "Go on!"]
  MR. MACNEILLsaid he was a man of peace. He had not intervened in the discussion, though he had watched it with what his Friend the late Mr. Biggar used to call, an intelligent interest. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that for his own sake he would do well to make the concession asked of him.
  MR. WEIRsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given no intimation that even five minutes would be given to Scotland. The better plan, in his opinion, would be to go on with the business, and if the course were clear, he would be glad to commence operations with the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreminded the House how the matter stood as regards Army Estimates. The first Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair was in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton. He thought they ought to dispose of that before they began the discussion on the Report of Supply. He was ready, therefore, to maks this pledge, that if they could take the discussion on the Amendment at an earlier hour than eleven o'clock, he would immediately afterwards move to adjourn the Debate and begin Report of Supply.
  MR. DALZIELthought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman ought to receive consideration. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, was likely to occupy anything like the time which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate. There was every possibility that it would be disposed of by the dinner hour, or

  867
  immediately afterwards. He should, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to accept the offer now made by the Leader of the House.
  MR. DILLONsaid he recognised that to a certain extent he was in the right hon. Gentleman's power. That being so, he was disposed to accept the offer. He asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS (ADVANCES).
  Committee thereupon deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  NAVAL WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Report thereupon deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMEND T BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  TELEGRAPHS (ADVANCES).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 15th April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC BUILDINGS (LONDON) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock in the morning.