Commons Sitting of 27 March 1896

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day notwithstanding the sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:—
The House went; and having returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—
Army (Annual) Act, 1896.
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1896.
Local Government (Elections) (No. 2) Act, 1896.
Metropolitan District Railway (Extension of Time) Act, 1896.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Order read for the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. VESEY KNOXappealed to the hon. Member in charge of this Bill to postpone the Second Reading until after Easter. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Louth took a great interest in these Bills and knew all about them, but he was not present, as he was not, perhaps, aware that this and the following Bill would be brought on so soon. As a matter of fact, they only passed the Examiners yesterday.
*MR. SPEAKER: I understand it will be necessary to communicate with other parties. The Bill will now be postponed until Monday.

EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Return (presented 26th March) to be printed.—[No. 127.]

HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS.
Copy ordered,—
"Of the Report of the Board of Trade upon the following Harbour, etc., Bills, viz.:—
"(1) Chester Corporation Bill;
"(2) Llanelly Harbour Bill;
"(3) West Highland Railway Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.— [No. 128.]

EVICTED FARMS (IRELAND).
Copy ordered,—
"Of Returns showing how Farms from which Tenants were evicted on certain specified Estates since the 1st day of May 1879 were occupied (1) at the time of the Inquiry of the Evicted Tenants Commission, and (2) on the 11th day of March 1896."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie; upon the Table, and to be printed. — [No. 128.]

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) (MEYRICK FUND).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 9th March, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My assent to so much of the Scheme for the management of the funds contributed for the purpose of the Central Welsh Board by the County Governing Bodies established by Schemes made under The Welsh Intermediate Act, 1889, as relates to the matter of the Meyrick Fund.
"I will comply with your advice."

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT (MEYRICK ENDOWMENT).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLDreported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 18th March, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My assent from the Statute, now on the Table of your House, made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Oxford, on the 22nd day of June 1890, altering and amending the Statutes in relation to the College in the matter of a Statute concerning the Meyrick Endowment.
"I will comply with your advice."

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. E. BLAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Measure making further provision for the amalgamation of poor law unions in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by me to questions in this matter on the 20th and 24th February.

  WARRANT OFFICERS (PAY AND STATUS).
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say when the scheme affecting the pay and status of warrant officers will be printed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The new scheme has been promulgated to the Fleet by a printed circular letter, dated the 12th March; I have directed a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  IMPORTED BUTTER.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what was the number of shipments of butter inspected at the ports during the month of February, and the percentage found to be adulterated?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): One hundred and seventy samples of imported butter were taken during February, of which 15, or 8·8 per cent., were found to be adulterated.

  FOREST GATE POOR LAW SCHOOL.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether scarlet fever has been prevalent in the Forest Gate

  263
  Poor Law School during the last year, and how many children have been affected thereby; and whether diphtheria or ophthalmia have been rife during the same period in other poor law schools?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): Scarlet fever has been prevalent in the Forest Gate School since August 1895. Seventy cases occurred during the last five months of 1895. It was an extremely mild type, and many of the cases were so slight that their nature was difficult to recognise. I am glad to be able to state that there was no death from the disease. There were 23 cases of diphtheria in 1895 in the Poor Law Schools of the Metropolitan district. Dr. Downes, the Inspector of the Board, states that so far as he can judge from the best available data, diphtheria during 1895, was about three times more rife among metropolitan children of school age not resident in Poor Law Schools than it was among the children resident in such schools. According to a Return made in the present month, there was 641 cases of ophthalmia, under treatment or observation in Metropolitan Poor Law Schools. The number for the corresponding period of 1895 was 709. Dr. Downes informs me that the cases were chiefly those of catarrhal ophthalmia or granular lids, and that he is not aware that there was any outbreak of the more serious form of purulent ophthalmia during the year.

  TELEGRAPHIC REPLY RATE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the rule limiting the prepayment of a telegraphic reply to 2s. was promulgated; and, would any injury result to the Telegraphic Department by the introduction of a rule allowing 10s., in place of 2s., being prepaid for a reply telegram; if not, whether he will permit the public to prepay replies by telegraph to an increased amount above that now fixed.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,),as representing the Postmaster General, said: The rule limiting the payment of a reply telegram to 2s. was published in
  264
  the London Gazette of September 22, 1885. It was found that reply telegrams were being largely used for the free transmission of money by telegraph. A man wishing to back a horse, for instance, sent a reply-paid telegram to a bookmaker asking him to back the horse for the amount of the reply paid. He would send a sovereign by prepaying his reply to that extent, and tell the bookmaker to back the horse for that amount. The Post Office endeavoured to check this abuse by limiting the amount of the reply. Then it was found that money was still being largely transmitted to tipsters in small amounts, and after a race meeting the Post Office sometimes had to pay to a single tipster as much as £100. This abuse, it was thought, could be stopped by saying the Post Office would refund the sender only and not to the addressee. But then it was also found that so many telegrams are sent from racecourses that the tipster finds no difficulty in disposing of his reply-paid forms for cash to friends who want to send telegrams, and that people thus, practically, still are able to make the reply-paid telegrams a medium for the free transmission of money by telegraph. It should be recollected also that these reply telegrams, or rather the recovery of the money paid for them involves a great deal of labour and expense to the Post Office in correspondence, forms, etc.; and the Post Office is therefore anxious to limit this expense as far as possible by not increasing the number of telegrams on which a demand will be made for repaying the money paid on them. I have already stated in the House that the Postmaster General is not aware that inconvenience has arisen from the present restriction. If any per-persons have suffered inconvenience it is, of course, open to them to make a representation to the Department on the subject.

  POST-CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, seeing that in an official letter, dated 14th September 1895, and addressed to Lieutenant-Colonel Coubrough, he stated that there was already a loss on all the halfpenny business of the Post

  265
  Office, and that it would of course increase the loss to sell post-cards for the value of the stamp only, he will permit private companies to undertake the collection and delivery of halfpenny matter, including post-cards and circulars, without requiring royalty, licence duty, or other payment from the companies concerned.
  MR. HANBURY: To the first part of the hon. Member's Question the answer is in the affirmative. The statement in question was in accordance with the the report of the Select Committee of this House which was appointed to examine into the Estimates of the Revenue Departments in July 1888, and upon which the hon. Member himself served. As regards the second portion, the Postmaster-General is not prepared to permit private companies to undertake the collection and delivery of post-cards, circulars, and other articles sent at the halfpenny rate of postage. To do so would be to allow such Companies to appropriate all the local business, which is probably the only remunerative part, and to leave to the Department the delivery over long distances, which is the main cause of the present loss.

  COLOMBO GRAVING DOCK.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the construction of the proposed graving dock at Colombo has been decided upon, and when a commencement will be made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question is still under consideration, and it is hoped that a decision may be shortly arrived at.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the propriety of a contribution to the construction of a graving dock at Colombo has been considered, and with what result?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The subject has been considered by a Committee of Colonial Office and Admiralty officers, whose Report has just been received.

  GRAND JURY (COUNTY DONEGAL.)
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  266
  (1) if any Roman Catholic gentlemen were summoned by the High Sheriff to serve on the County Donegal Grand Jury at the recent Spring Assizes; (2) whether he is aware that 70 per cent. of the county cess of Donegal is paid by Roman Catholics, and that there are numbers of eligible Catholic gentlemen in all respects competent to serve if summoned; and (3) whether he can take any steps to secure due representation of Roman Catholics on Grand Juries?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information to enable me to reply to the first and second paragraphs. The qualifications of Grand Jurors are fixed by Statute, and the Executive Government has no voice or control in the selection of gentlemen to serve in that capacity. There are no religious disabilities attaching to membership of Grand Juries, and I do not think it would be desirable to alter the law so as to make religious opinions a qualification for membership.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (BLACKROCK, COUNTY DUBLIN).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the compulsory Education Act of 1892, although formerly adopted by the Town Commissioners of Blackrock, county Dublin, over two years ago, cannot be carried into full operation owing to the refusal of the Town Commissioners to vote any of the funds required by the school attendance committee; (2) whether said refusal is based upon an opinion of the Town Commissioners' counsel to the effect that the attendance committee is not legally constituted, owing to the irregularity on the part of the National Education Board in the method of appointing the committee: (3) whether the official law adviser of the National Education Board holds that the committee is legally constituted: (4) whether, owing to this difference of legal opinion, the Town Commissioners still hesitate to vote the funds, although expressing themselves desirous of having the provisions of the Act enforced to their township; (5) whether the school attendance committee's officers in Black-rock have been working for more than two years past without pay; and (6) whether

  267
  the National Education Board, whose action is questioned on legal grounds, will take steps to have the legal doubt authoritatively removed or, failing this, whether the Government in their promised Bill to amend the Act of 1892 will make provision for legalising, where necessary, such school attendance committees, and paying such of the committees' officers as may be in the same position as are the committee and its officers in Blackrock, county Dublin?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Town Commissioners of Blackrock refuse to pay the expenses of the School Attendance Committee on the ground that the provisions of the Act of 1892, as regards the constitution of the Committee have not been complied with. The replies to the second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs are all in the affirmative. As to the last paragraph, I do not think it would be possible for the National Board, under the circumstances, to obtain the decision of a Court of Law on the point at issue, and this being so I do not see what they can do beyond what they have already done. The matter is one that would naturally be dealt with by any Amending Bill.

  HORSE-BREEDING (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he could state to the House how many hackney sires were in the possession of the Congested Districts Board between 31st March 1894 and 31st March 1895, and what was their total cost as regards keep and maintenance; and (2) how many mares were served during this period, and of these how many belonged to occupiers of holdings at £5 and under?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: During the period in question 19 hackney sires were in the possession of the Congested Districts Board, and the cost of their keep and maintenance amounted to.£1,520. In reply to the second paragraph, the number of mares is 1,209, the owners being all occupiers of holdings valued at less than £20 a year, and about seven-eighths of these were the property of occupiers rated at £5 and under.

  WADELAI AND DUFFILEH.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to recent visits by British parties from the Uganda side to points situate in the Nile territory leased to the Sovereign of the Congo State, whether it is to be understood that Wadelai and Duffileh are to be open to occupation both by British and by Congo State forces?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Officers from the Uganda Protectorate have occasionally visited the Upper Nile, but no such inference is to be drawn from their visits as that which is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can give the proportion of frozen meat supplied to the troops at Aldershot during the months of June, July, August, and September of last year; whether he is aware that the authorities, after taking delivery of certain lots of frozen meat, it was subsequently condemned as unfit for consumption; whether losses fall on the Government or the contractor; and whether any similar loss has been reported regarding the supply of native meat?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): No frozen beef was issued at Aldershot during the months in question. Of frozen mutton the extreme limit of issue was one-fourteenth of the whole meat supply. No losses occurred in respect of frozen mutton or of refrigerated beef; but 5,328 lbs. of home-killed beef became unfit for consumption during the very hot weather of last summer. The meat was received in good condition; but, owing to the manœuvres in progress, it had to be kept longer than was desirable and to be carried about from one camp to another, under which process it suffered deterioration. The loss might, by the terms of the contract, have been charged to the contractor; but, under the circumstances, it has been decided that the War Office shall bear it.

  FERTILIZERS ACTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Grand Juries have adopted the Fertilizers Acts, and made arrangement to have analyses made at reasonably small scales of charges; and whether any steps are being taken to oblige Grand Juries to adopt the Act, and make it operative within their districts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am making inquiry as to whether the local authorities have scales of charges for analyses under the Act of 1893. The Government have no power to put pressure on Grand Juries to adopt the Act; but it is already operative, and it is open to the public to take advantage of its provisions without further action on the part of Grand Juries and Town Councils.

  COAL TRADE (EXPORT).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the collieries on the north-east coast of Great Britain are likely to lose an export trade equal to 800,000 tons yearly, in consequence of the German State Railway authorities having reduced their rate from the coal districts to Stettin down to about 2s. 9d. a ton; and whether he can devise any remedy for this state of things, partially arising from transit freights?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed that the railway rate on coal from Silesia to Stettin has been reduced to 7s. 6d. per ton, and not to 2s. 9d. per ton as was at first reported and is quoted in the hon. Member's Question. It is also reported that the imports of all kinds of British coal into Stettin and Swinemünde amount to about 600,000 tons annually. The German railway authorities can fix their own freight charges, even at rates below the cost of service.

  PRESIDENT KRUGER.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to President Kruger's reply
  270
  to his Dispatch of 4th February and the invitation to visit England?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Correspondence is going on on the subject, and I am not able at present to give the hon. Member the information he desires.

  EVICTION (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that Patrick M'Quaide, of Gola county Monaghan, but at present a prisoner in Dundalk Gaol, on the committal order of Judge Boyd for contempt of court, was evicted from his holding on the estate of Percy Burrell, a minor, for an arrear of rent amounting to £20; (2) is he also aware that M'Quaide, in December last, proposed to pay £15 of this arrear, and asked to be restored to his farm at a reduced rent; and that the Burrell estate is now in process of sale to the tenants thereon; and (3) will he take care that M'Quaide's right to purchase, as an evicted tenant, be not prejudiced by the proceeding which led to the man's imprisonment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information either as to the amount of the arrears of rent due by this man, or as to the amount offered by him in satisfaction for payment of the arrears. I believe the estate is for sale in the Land Judges Court, though no undertakings to purchase their holdings have been received from the tenants in accordance with the rules of the Land Commission. I can give no undertaking such as suggested in the last paragraph.

  CAVALRY REORGANISATION.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a scheme of Cavalry reorganisation is in contemplation which would deprive the Royal Scots Greys of their distinctive Scottish characteristics; and, whether he would agree not to sanction any such proposal until the Scottish Members of Parliament have had an opportunity of considering it?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There is no scheme in contemplation which would deprive the Royal Scots Greys of their distinctive Scottish characteristics.

  JOHANNESBURG PRISONERS.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether four British subjects, the alleged leaders of the Rand at Johannesburg, were arrested more than ten weeks since on charges which have not been formulated, no preliminary investigation having as yet been held; whether these gentlemen have recently been again consigned to close confinement, even ordinary exercise being prohibited; and, whether he will make representations so that they may be brought speedily to trial, and that, until found guilty and condemned, the rigour of their imprisonment may be relaxed?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the preliminary investigation has been completed, and that the State Attorney is considering whom he will decide to commit for trial. I learn by a telegram dated the 24th inst. that the conditions of imprisonment substantially remain as stated by me on the 5th inst. I am making representations on the subject of the prisoners being granted bail pending the trial.

  CAPTAIN LOTHAIRE.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will state what is the present condition of the negotiations regarding the case of Captain Lothaire; whether this Officer is still in the employment of the Congo State; and, whether there is any prospect of his being brought speedily to trial on the charge of having illegally executed a British subject more than a year since?
  MR. CURZON: Captain Lothaire will be tried before the Court at Boma, in the presence of the British Vice Consul, the right of appeal to the Superior Court of the Congo State at Brussels being reserved to Her Majesty's Government. We are informed that Captain Lothaire, who is in the service of the State, received on December 16th his orders of recall to the coast, which he had at once arranged to obey. It is thought at Brussels that he must be now at or near to Boma.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
  272
  whether he will lay upon the Table the Instructions under which Colonel Richard Martin is to exercise authority in the territory of the South African Chartered Company; whether that authority extends to operations within the district of the Chartered Company north of the Zambesi; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Chartered Company with respect to the administration of the territory comprised within the Charter?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The principle of Imperial control over the police force lately in the service of the Chartered Company will be applied north and south of the Zambesi. Sir R. Martin's present instructions apply to the territory south of the Zambesi. As regards territory to the north of the river, the question is being considered in conjunction with the Foreign Office. The correspondence on the whole subject is not yet complete, but Papers will be laid as soon as practicable.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the Instructions to Sir Richard Martin be laid on the Table?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

  FEE-GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can say what course the Government propose to take with reference to the fee-grant in Ireland for 1895–6?
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any decision has been come to as to allowing Ireland nine-eightieths of the English supplementary fee-grant for education for the current year?
  *MR. HANBURY: I have already explained what is the decision of the Government on every point with reference to the Irish fee-grant except that raised in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin County. The Government recognise that an equitable claim exists for the payment to Ireland of a proportionate share of the supplementary English fee-grant for 1895–96, although no such share was allowed for in the original Estimates for 1895–96,

  273
  which calculated the nine-eightieths promised to Ireland only upon the original English fee-grant Estimate for 1894–95. It is, of course, too late to make provision for any further payment during the current year, but the claim will be dealt with in connection with the grant under the new system proposed for the coining year.

  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether France and Russia have stated that they are not prepared to agree to any withdrawal of funds from the Egyptian Caisse de la Dette for the costs of the Soudan Expedition; and whether any of the Powers have intimated that they are of opinion that the decision as to the withdrawal requires only the assent of a majority of the Great Powers?
  *MR. CURZON: The question of an advance from the General Reserve Fund for extraordinary expenses lies, not with the Great Powers, but with the Commissioners of the Caisse of the Public Debt. The Austrian, German, and Italian Governments have expressed themselves in favour of such an advance, but it lies with the Commissioners to decide whether they will proceed in this instance, as in others, by the vote of the majority. The majority of them have decided to do so. It is understood that the French Government do not consider that in this case the vote of the majority is sufficient. None of the other Powers have yet formally expressed an opinion on the subject.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will state to the House the present situation of the demand made upon the Caisse of the Debt in Egypt for a grant from the Reserve Fund in aid of the military expedition on the Nile and the action taken by the several Powers represented upon the Caisse. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make any further statement than he has already made to the hon. Member for Northampton, but I rather gather that he has some additional information to give.
  *MR. CURZON: The information received by Her Majesty's Government is to the same effect as that which has appeared in the Press. The Commissioners of the Caisse decided yesterday, by a majority of 4 to 2, to grant a credit of £500,000 to the Egyptian Government from the General Reserve Fund for the purposes of the advance in the Nile Valley. The French and Russian Commissioners made a protest against this decision. In conformity with the decision of the Caisse, a sum of £200,000 was at once paid over to the Egyptian Government. Certain French bondholders have served a notice through the International Tribunals on the Commissioners of the Caisse, protesting against any payment from the Reserve Fund for the expenses of the expedition, and summoning them to appear on the 13th of April before the Tribunals.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to send a British expedition to Dongola in the autumn?
  *MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have no such intention.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether it is intended to propose any Vote of public money in respect to the expedition to Dongola?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir, there is no present intention of proposing any such Vote.

  SMALL-POX AT GLOUCESTER.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that small-pox is increasing in Gloucester at the rate of 60 fresh cases a week, the mortality being especially great among children, and that in one school out of 40 children attacked no less than 2G died; whether he can say how many deaths were of unvaccinated and how many of vaccinated persons: and, what steps, if any, are being taken to check the ravages of the disease?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The number of cases of small-pox notified to the Local Government Board during the four weeks ended March 21 was 414, 155 being in respect of the last-mentioned week. I have not received particulars as to the

  275
  number of deaths which have occurred since my answer to the Question of my hon. Friend on the 19th inst. No details as to particular schools or as to the proportion of deaths amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated persons are as yet available. I am informed by the Town Council that they have done all that they can in the way of hospital isolation and disinfection to check the spread of the disease, but I am advised that the only effective means of controlling the extension is the adoption of a general system of vaccination and revaccination. [Cheers.] I am informed by the guardians that every facility is being afforded by them for vaccination and revaccination, that both operations are being carried out very largely, and that the guardians at their last meeting resolved to enforce the Vaccination Acts, which I understand have been in suspension for the last nine years. [Cheers.]

  SHAMROCK (TROOPS IN IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that on last St. Patrick's Day the Lieutenant in charge of I Company, S. D. Royal Artillery, on detachment duty at Burgemena, Malta, ordered the Irish soldiers to remove shamrock from their caps, notwithstanding that the Commanding Officer in Malta had given permission for all Irishmen in his command to wear shamrock on and off parade on that day; whether the troops in Ireland wore shamrock on St. Patrick's Day without any interference with proper discipline; and, whether the action of this officer was in accordance with the Regulations of the Army; and, if not, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of his answer to this Question being in the affirmative, he is prepared to allow Protestants to wear the Orange lily on July 12? [Laughter.]
  MR. BRODRICK: That is a Question in regard to which my hon. Friend has been informed so often, that he must excuse me if I do not go into the matter again.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I never had an answer from you.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No report on the subject has been made to the War Office, and no action in the matter is contemplated.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Similar incidents have occurred before, and the War Office have always made inquiries when asked, and have expressed their opinion on the subject.
  *MR. BRODRICK: If there was a breach of the Commanding Officer's orders, no doubt the Commanding Officer will inquire into the matter; but it is not a subject for inquiry by the War Office.

  LICENSING LAWS COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is yet in a position to give the names of the Royal Commissioners on the Licensing Laws, and the terms of reference?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sorry to say I am not yet in a position to give the names of the Royal Commissioners. I shall do so at the very earliest opportunity; but certain formalities will have to be gone through, as well as obtaining the consent of all the gentlemen whose names it is proposed to submit, before it can be done.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I understand that the Government have practically arranged the names of the Gentlemen who are to serve. I wish to ask whether all these Gentlemen have given their consent, and whether, if some of them have refused to act, he will keep an open mind and receive communications as to who should be put in their places?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The great majority of the Gentlemen have consented to act. In the case of vacancies that may occur in consequence of refusals, I will, of course, consider any representations that may be made.
  MR. J. REDMOND: Have there been any refusals as yet?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information in my power.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether

  277
  he is aware of the fact that Mr. Young, M.P., who is said to be the representative of Irish trade on the Commission, voted in this House in favour of taxing Irish whisky? [Laughter.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And that, therefore, he is not acceptable to the trade?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman ought not to persist in asking an irregular Question when he is called to order.

  MATABELELAND DISTURBANCES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to ask the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he can give the House any information in regard to the alleged rising in Matabeleland?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will read to the House the latest telegram I have received on the subject. It is dated March 26, and is from Sir Hercules Robinson. It says:—
  "Captain Nicholson telegraphs from Buluwayo at One o'clock to-day that messenger arrived this morning from Shangani district and reported seven white men killed, one wounded, and four missing. The murders were committed with knives. Natives have not many guns. The remaining whites of the district in two laagers—one of 15 men at Shangani and another of 19 men at Stubart's Farm, 20 miles apart. Natives of district left kraal and held indaba yesterday at Jingen, 16 miles from Shangani. Napier's force of 50 men inarching on Jingen to catch, if possible, a witch doctor who is instigator of rising. Eight men from Seluke district at Gwelo and organising defensive measures. Buluwayo alarmed last night by false report of native attack. Great confusion, but no likelihood of attack at present."

  DELAGOA BAY.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether there was any truth in the statement which had appeared in that day's Birmingham Daily Post to the effect that Delagoa Bay, or territory in its neighbourhood, was to be purchased by agreement from Portugal?
  *MR. CURZON: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must adhere to the rule which has always been observed in this House and ask for notice of questions on foreign affairs. ["Hear, hear!"]

  COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL RELATIONS.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he could inform the House as to the cause of the delay in appointing a Chairman to the Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and, whether the Government saw any objection to allowing, as in some similar cases, the members of the Commission themselves to assemble and elect their own Chairman? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): This matter has been under the consideration of the Government, but it was considered inadvisable, for obvious reasons, owing to the position at which the Commission had arrived in its labours, to appoint a fresh Chairman from outside—[cheers]—as has been done in some other cases. We think the best course is that suggested by the hon. Member, namely, that the Commissioners should meet and elect one of their own number to act as Chairman.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any decision had been come to as to the introduction of the Education Bill on Monday, and whether he had considered the great inconvenience which would be caused to Members if the introduction of the Bill were postponed until Tuesday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I have not much to add to the general statement in regard to the business on Monday and Tuesday which I gave to the House last night. It is necessary on Monday to get the Third Reading of the Naval Works Bill, which I understood from the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs is not a Bill which ought to take much time at that stage. Then we must get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates and get the Report of the Vote on Account. Getting the Speaker out of the Chair is an operation which has frequently been done in an hour or two, and sometimes even less. [Opposition cries of "No!"] I find that in 1892 it was agreed to in half a

  279
  day— a morning sitting. In 1891, when there was no question of a Dissolution, it took one day. In 1894, when there was no question of a Dissolution, it took a fraction of a day. On Thursday, March 29, the Speaker was got out of the Chair after two Bills had been introduced, and five Votes were afterwards taken. That was under the late Government, and I see no reason why the present Government should not receive the same meed from Gentlemen who wish to get the Education Bill on Monday. As far as I can judge the Questions on the Paper to be discussed before we can get the Speaker out of the Chair, I do not see anything that need take much time. If that were the view of the House, and if there was an understanding that the Speaker is to be got out of the Chair, and that the Report of the Vote on Account is to be taken without any unduly-prolonged Debate, I do not see why my right hon. Friend should not introduce the Education Bill on Monday. But, in the absence of that understanding, I can only advise him to defer his statement to a less convenient day, but the only day which the action of the House has put in my power to afford him. [Cheers.]
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked, what was the reason for insisting on getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I did not mean that it was necessary in order to meet the requirements of the law; but it is necessary for the proper conduct of public business that we should make such progress as to be able to begin the Estimates at once on the Thursday after the holidays.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked, whether, in the case of a first-class Bill, like the Education Bill, it was not usual to give three or four days to the First Reading, and not the fraction of a day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think that has been the general rule.

  DUKE OF CAMBEIDGE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If there are no more questions about public business, perhaps the House
  280
  will allow me to make a statement upon another matter. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has declined to allow the proposal for a pension in respect of his services as Commander-in-Chief to be submitted to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Had this recognition of his labours—extending over a period of nearly 40 years in one of the highest offices of the State—been unanimously offered, it would have been gladly accepted. But the announcement of the late Secretary of State for War, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, that he intended to oppose it, made such a result impossible, and His Royal Highness is not inclined to allow his personal claims—however legitimate—to become the subject of Party controversy. [Cheers.] Under those circumstances, the Duke, who held the position of Commander-in-Chief from 1856 to 1895, retires with precisely the same income from public sources as he would have had had he never occupied that office.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether His Royal Highness continued to receive £12,000 a year, and whether he had not already received £900,000? [Cries of "Order!"]
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot understand whether the statement which the right hon. Gentleman read was the expression of opinion of Her Majesty's Government or of His Royal Highness, because, until quite recently, I have been of opinion—an opinion based upon the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman himself — that Her Majesty's Government took the same view as I did of the question. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know that I need repeat what I have formerly stated to the House. The course which the Government have taken has been perfectly open and aboveboard in this matter, and all the statements which I have made on this subject in the last and in the present Session are before the House. [Cheers.]

  JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNcalled the attention of the Speaker to a mistake in the Journals of the House. In the

  281
  report of one of the Divisions on the Naval Works Bill last evening it was stated that the Chairman asked the Noes to stand up in their places, and in the list of the Gentlemen who so stood up appeared his name. As a matter of fact, he was not present in the House at the time.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member mentions at the proper office that a mistake has been made, it will be corrected.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, whether it was not the rule, where the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker asked the Ayes or the Noes to stand up in their places, that the names of the Gentlemen standing should be officially taken by one of the Clerks at the Table, or by the official Tellers?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not expressing any opinion on anything which has been done by the Chairman of Committees, who, I have no doubt, acted, as he always does, with perfect propriety, but, as I understand it, all that the rule really requires is that the Speaker or Chairman acting under that rule should have the names of the Gentlemen who stood up taken down; it does not prescribe any method.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that he was finding no fault with the Chairman of Committees, but he wished to know how the names ought to be taken down.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not a common practice to enforce the rule, but it has been done on one occasion certainly by myself, and then two of the Division Lists were brought in from the Lobby, and while hon. Gentlemen were standing in their places their names were ticked off, and from that the Division List was afterwards prepared.
  MR. FLYNNwas continuing the question, when
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, I cannot listen to anything in the nature of an appeal in reference to what took place in Committee.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I was one of the Members who stood up, and my name was not in the list.

  GRIFFIN'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (PAYMENT INTO COURT) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 1°; to be read 2°; upon Wednesday 15th April.—[Bill 160.]
MOTIONS.
  CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE.
  Bill to Amend the Criminal Law Procedure in certain particulars, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Samuel Evans; presented, and read 1°; to be read 2°; upon Wednesday 22nd April.—[Bill 161.]
  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to Amend The Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), Mr. Holborn, Sir John Leng, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan); presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° upon Wednesday 29th April, and to be printed. —[Bill 162.]
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT AND INCORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE).
  Bill to give facilities to Industrial and Provident and Incorporated Building Societies for the purchase of the Fee Simple of their Holdings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Crilly; presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° upon Wednesday 15th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 163.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,133,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge for the supply and repair of warlike and other stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL BANNERMANcomplained of the inconvenience to which Members had been exposed by reason of the fact that, contrary to the established practice, no information appeared in the Parliamentary Papers circulated that morning as to the Votes that were to be taken, and consequently Members had come down without the slightest preparation.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)stated that last night the Votes which it was proposed to take were handed in at the Clerks table, but unfortunately they did not appear on the blue paper but only on the white paper. He greatly regretted if any hon. Member was put to inconvenience, and if there was any Vote which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as contentious he would at once have it postponed.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid, it was not so much a question of whether a Vote was contentious or not, as that there might be some diligent Members who had accumulated a number of valuable criticisms and notes, and that other Members might not have thought it necessary to make any like provision.
  MR. J. CALDWELL MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid), as a question of order, asked whether it was competent for the Government to proceed with Votes notice of which appeared only upon the white paper and not upon the blue? He rather thought that the point had already been decided that it was not competent to proceed with Votes under such circumstances.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that, if the hon. Member had called his attention specially to the particular decision he would have been prepared for it. But the decision, he believed, only amounted to this, that Estimates could not be taken unless effective Supply was put down, Now, effective Supply was put down in the present instance.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODdesired to raise the point whether cordite powder was the best smokeless powder in existence? Now, the British Government cordite consisted of 58 per cent. of nitro-glycerine, 37 per cent. tri-nitro cellulose, and 5 per cent. of vaseline. This compound was not a chemical
  284
  one; the ingredients were only held, together by being mechanically mixed. Cellulose was, so to speak, a form of sponge, and interstices filled with nitroglycerine. A certain degree of pressure would always cause the vaseline and nitro-glycerine to exude. A powder containing so much nitro-glycerine was, he submitted, not a proper powder for the British Army. The German powder was nearly all guncotton; the Danish, the best of all, is the same; the French had no nitro-glycerine. The Russians objected to nitro-glycerine, and the Americans were trying to get along without it. Accidents had already happened in Italy owing to the large quantity of nitro-glycerine in their early experimental powders. The Financial Secretary to the War Office told him that the assimilation was perfect. He was not sure that that answer should not be modified. He maintained that if cordite was stored and then exposed to the air, a certain portion of nitro-glycerine would be evaporated. An experiment, it was reported, was tried by an English officer, who wiped with a handkerchief the interior of a largo cartridge-case that had been loaded for a long time and placed in a warm place, and he was able to detonate that handkerchief. Was this a non-fouling powder, and did it keep the rifle fairly clean? Was it easy of manufacture, or could it be manufactured only in one place? Of course, large sums had to be spent, and the Government dreaded a change; but he submitted that unless the Government were convinced that cordite holds its own at the present time, under the varied conditions of climate under which British troops used it, they should at once commence experiments with other smokeless powders with the view of having a reserve of some other powder besides cordite. They should not hesitate to sweep away the plant of manufacture of the old cordite powder, and get the best cordite they could. This powder could only be manufactured at Waltham Abbey and Messrs. Kynoch's at Arklow. Was the whole process of manufacture carried on at Messrs. Kynoch's, or only up to a certain point; and was the ammunition sent over in a certain state to Birmingham to be finished there? The present Government turned out the late Government on

  285
  the question of the reserve of ammunition. It was conceded at that time that it was absolutely necessary there should be a large store and turn out of ammunition ready to hand. What would happen if an accident took place, as in days gone by, at Waltham Abbey? The factory there might be destroyed, and what were the authorities going to fall hack upon unless it was the Arklow factory? What protection was there for it,? It was so exposed that an enemy might destroy it, and leave the country without any reserve at all. They were told also that the private firms were going to contract for a large issue of cordite ammunition; but since that, statement was made they had heard very little of those contracts. He understood the Under Secretary or the Financial Secretary to say that they were greatly disappointed with the issue of cordite ammunition from private firms. He should like to know whether the Government saw any prospect of improvement in this direction? There was one large factory capable of turning out so many millions of cartridges; there might be an accident; and then the country was left to depend upon the exposed factory at, Arklow, which had to send its material to England for finishing and perfecting. Would the Government assure him that the cordite powder was not subject to climatic influences? If those cartridges were kept in heat did they lose their muzzle velocity and elevation? He had made some experiments in that direction, and he confessed that he had found a loss of elevation. Though he had not the means of testing the muzzle velocity, experts declared that there was less muzzle velocity. Another disadvantage was the great heat that was generated in the barrel. There was also the difficulty of cleaning. In old days cleaning was an easy affair by means of a piece of oiled and dry rag. In the manual containing instructions for the cleaning of the rifle, he found, first of all, that a special rifle oil was needed for cleaning the barrel after cordite powder. No oil other than that specified was to be used for this purpose. It was, however, awkward if a soldier's luggage was to be increased by carrying a special oil for the rifle. The instructions also said that in cleaning the arm must not in any case be wiped out with flannelette soaked in
  286
  oil, but, that oiled flannelette should be used daily. A piece of gauze, four inches by two, was also to be used; then oiled flannelette was to be pulled through. Indeed, the instructions were of a most minute description, showing that the authorities themselves, with their anxiety to prove cordite to be the best powder in the world were afraid of the consequences of the rifle being cleaned with the only means which a soldier had at, hand, such as a sponge or a dry piece of rag. He understood that some time ago the Government were going to establish a cordite factory in India at Kirkee, and that machinery was actually purchased for use. What had become of the machinery? He presumed that it was paid for. Had it ever been used? If not, what, had become of it, and how much money had been lost over the transaction? Was it intended to continue the experiment of having a factory for cordite in India, or had the authorities abandoned the idea of making cordite powder there? There were a certain number of makers of other smokeless powders who complained that they had received no assistance from the Government on a subject upon which they thought that they were entitled to receive it. Personally, he had no share, connection, or interest in any of those makers of smokeless powders, but he thought that they had been rather curtly treated by the Government. The truth was that there was a mystery hanging over the whole of this cordite powder business, and the makers of smokeless powders believed that the Government would allow no other powder to be used or brought against cordite. The traders complained, therefore, that the Government were not encouraging the manufacture for which this country was celebrated some years ago—namely, the manufacture of ammunition. He had been told that a firm the other day lost a large contract for five or six million cartridges at £5 or £6 per thousand because their smokeless powder had not the Government stamp of approval. The loss was a distinct one to the trading industry in England. It was asked, therefore, that some reserve should be provided to fall back upon some other smokeless powder besides cordite. Why not provide three or four other kinds of powder as a reserve, or appoint a Commission to

  287
  inquire into a smokeless powder which should fulfil certain conditions laid down by the authorities. If the powder came up to the standard, then it should be placed on the Government list for the information of foreign countries. The United States gave every facility to the makers of new smokeless powders or patentees, but the British Government continued to rely on cordite powder alone. He had been told that it was an extraordinary powder, but he could scarcely believe that at the present day cordite was to be the one smokeless powder of the world. It seemed to him that a nation like ours which might be called upon at a moment's notice to embark troops to various climates, should not be dependent on a powder which could only be manufactured in circumstances of great danger at one or two places, and which he very much doubted could be kept in circumstances of great heat or stored for an indefinite length of time. In conclusion, he asked what was the standard of pressure and velocity for use in the ·303 rifle? Did cordite over 12 months old keep up to standard? He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsuggested that until those powders were absolutely considered to be reliable, steps should be taken so that the rifles could be re-sighted rapidly for black powder in case the other powders were not found to succeed in various circumstances. In this country there was a body of drilled men who had passed through the Reserves, the Militia, and Volunteers, but who were not enrolled. Some of those men would come out on emergency, and he urged that both rifles and equipment should be kept for them in store in the different districts. He agreed with the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) in saying that all Reserves should be armed and equipped with the best material. On the subject of shooting he suggested that, until sufficiently long ranges for the Lee-Metford rifle can be provided, our soldiers should be made to fire at shorter ranges with the Martini rifle. That would enable them to keep up their practice in firing.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,)said, that
  288
  he had been asked whether the War Office considered that cordite was the best smokeless powder in existence. The answer was that cordite had been tried in competition with most, if not all, other known smokeless powders, and had been found to hold its own perfectly. With regard to the keeping properties of cordite and its behaviour under certain variations of climate, it had been ascertained that the powder, when subjected to a high temperature, changed its colour somewhat, but this change did not appear to indicate any alteration in its character. In the recently published report of the Ordnance Committee, they stated that cordite might be subjected for a considerable time to the dry heat of 130 degrees Fahrenheit without suffering any serious deterioration, and without becoming unduly brittle. In a previous report the Committee said:—
  "So far as the experiments have gone cordite may be considered suitable for service purposes as an effective and trustworthy smokeless explosive for breechloading guns and small arms. Time alone can clearly test its quality in all climates, but under the tests to which it has been subjected it does not become unserviceable."
  With that opinion the Inspector General of Ordnance had expressed his full concurrence. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether the assimilation of nitroglycerine in the process of manufacturing cordite was perfect. In that process the assimilation was perfect, but it had been found that under a very low temperature some of the absorbed nitroglycerine was deposited. He was not aware, however, that the serviceable quality of the powder was in any way affected by that circumstance. Since the introduction of cordite the grooves of rifles had been widened to some extent, and it was found now that the uncleaned rifle shot quite as well as the clean one. The life of the rifle with the new grooves extended to 10,000 rounds at least. The new powder was not more difficult to manufacture than some of the old sorts. Cordite which would pass muster could be obtained, not only at the Ordnance factories, but from three other quarters which he could name if it were necessary to do so, and the House could rely upon a sufficient production from those sources in case of emergency.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether his hon. Friend was now referring to the finished article or merely to the ingredients of cordite?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, that there were three factories at least where the finished article of sufficiently good quality to pass muster could be turned out in a very short space of time. Unfortunately, it was a fact that one or two Companies on which reliance was placed for a supply of finished cartridges did disappoint the authorities, but one of these Companies had already surmounted the difficulties which had caused the delay, and another would surmount them very shortly. There was no occasion to take the gloomy view of our resources which appeared to be entertained by the hon. and gallant Member. It had been suggested that the War Office should adopt three or four kinds of smokeless powder and not rely upon one, but he was of opinion that it would be a very bad thing to multiply our explosives, for a system providing for the use of several powders would probably give rise to difficult complications.
  *LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIEasked whether it was known to what degree of cold cordite could be subjected without becoming unserviceable?
  MR. J. M. PAULTONwished to know whether they were to understand, not only that the rifle with the new grooves shot well when it had not been cleaned, but that it did not suffer any deterioration from the action of cordite, because, if that was to be understood, what need was there for the elaborate instructions as to cleaning laid down in the manual quoted by his hon. and gallant Friend?
  MR. POWELL - WILLIAMSexplained that a rifle, if only fairly well attended to—he would not say an absolutely unclean rifle—would fire at least 10,000 rounds. A rifle firing cordite was less likely to suffer deterioration than a rifle firing gunpowder.
  *LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIEobserved that his point was not as to the amount of cold the ammunition would stand, but whether it could be safely handled when frozen. He had been on active service with the thermometer considerably below zero, and, if it had properties
  290
  like dynamite, it would be utterly I unsafe to use.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMScould not be quite certain offhand, but he understood the ammunition would stand a temperature of 40 to 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
  *MR. W. WOODALLwas understood to ask if it was not true that, though an improved rifle had been adopted the troops were still equipped with the Lee-Metford rifle, which was only capable of firing some 3,500 rounds with perfect precision?
  COLONEL LOCKWOODcould not say he thought the answer of the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, but as he did not see any means of obtaining a more satisfactory reply he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the cordite manufactured at Arklow was up to the Government standard, or whether, as had been stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it had to be sent to England to be finished.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSbelieved the cordite was not at present manufactured completely at Arklow, but in a short time it would be. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Hanley, the life of the older rifles was not confined to anything like 3,500 rounds, but some of them went considerably beyond that.
  MR. WOODALLinquired what progress had been made with the nitroglycerine factory at Waltham, and how far it was from completion. He also asked what was the process by which the nitro-glycerine there produced was blended with the other materials for making cordite.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMScould not say to what extent the new portion of the factory at Waltham Abbey was complete, but when it was the power to produce cordite would extend to 1,000 tons a year. The mixing would take place very much as hitherto, but the ingredients would be separated by a longer interval from one another.
  *COLONEL SANDYScontended that the two limits of temperature, namely, between 34 and 130 degrees Fahr., mentioned as those at which cordite was safe did not extend far enough. He had been in places where the temperature had been 150 at

  291
  10 o'clock in the morning for several weeks together. Would cordite stand at that temperature as well as at the other low temperature spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken? He suggested that experiments should be adopted with a view to arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, there was no doubt that the qualities of cordite had been more tested in hot than in cold climates. The reports only referred to tests of 130°. But, on the other hand, a temperature very considerably above 130° had been applied without any deleterious effects. They had had no opportunity themselves of testing cordite at a temperature below zero, but a certain amount of it was sent on the Jackson-Harmsworth expedition, and they had had an exceedingly interesting Report in reference to it, in which it was stated that the cordite had been exposed to the lowest possible temperature for many weeks together, and it had given most excellent results. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. W. REDMONDdesired to know if it was not the fact, so far as Arklow was concerned, that there had been no reason to complain of the work turned out? The works recently established in Arklow were a matter of very great importance to large numbers of people there. He would like to have an expression of opinion from the Financial Secretary as to whether there had been any serious ground of complaint, or whether it was not, on the contrary, the fact that the work done at Arklow had been quite satisfactory.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSwas able to give an answer which he hoped would satisfy the hon. Gentleman. At first, undoubtedly, there was a failure to produce cordite which satisfied the requirements of the Department; but recent deliveries had been much more satisfactory, and they hoped, in a short time, that the Arklow works would be able to supply all that they had undertaken to supply under the contract.
  SIR ROBERT REIDremarked that cordite was the subject of a prolonged scientific investigation before the House of Lords, in which the whole of the qualities of that compound had to be carefully studied, and one of the grounds on which it was stated that cordite was selected by the
  292
  War Office was that it was capable of enduring both the cold of Canada and the greatest heat in India. If the hon. Gentleman would make inquiry of Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar, he would be able to procure information which would satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, because that was one of the merits undoubtedly claimed for cordite, and which he believed was proved by the eminent scientists he had mentioned and not disputed. ['' Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL MURRAYinquired if anything had been done towards lightening the equipment of the soldier.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants,)said, he should be glad if the Under Secretary for War could state what progress was being made with the reconstruction of the guns, and how soon the batteries might expect their full equipment?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked what would become of the old rifles used by the Volunteers which were being replaced by the Lee-Metford rifles. He hoped they would not be sold for 2s. or 3s. and exported to foreign countries. An agreement with France, Germany, and other nations as to disused arms, would be an advantage to the civilisation of the world.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK, replying to the different questions, said, experiments had been made in the use of aluminium articles of equipments. Some had recently been tried in Ashanti, but further trials would be necessary before any decision was come to, and the present price was unduly high. The hon. Member for Basingstoke asked questions about the artillery. By 30th April the War Office would have 30 guns of Royal Horse Artillery, and 180 guns of field artillery; by 1st June, in addition, 14 guns of horse artillery and 88 of field artillery. In reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, the Martini-Henry rifles disused by the Volunteers would be reserved in store.
  *MR. WOODALLasked whether the Martini-Henry rifles were to be at once converted, so as to be available for a smaller cartridge, or whether they were to be stored, for conversion at a future time?
  *MR. BRODRICKexplained that, in accordance with a decision of the Army

  293
  Board, the Volunteers would, at no distant date, be firmed with the magazine rifle. The converted rifles, which were excellent shooting rifles, would be held in store available for any emergency, but the conversion would not be further proceeded with until the arming of the Volunteers with the magazine rifle was completed with the least possible delay.
  *COLONEL SANDYSasked whether, as a broad principle to be generally applied, the War Office would sets, before any old arms were sold to the public, that they were broken up so as to render them useless?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. It will be so.
  MAJOR HENRY BOWLESasked whether black powder was still in use, or whether all branches of the service to have the Lee-Metford ritle would have the use of cordite during the coming year.
  MR POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is so. All the black powder is exhausted.
  Vote agreed to.
  £1,007,700, Works, Buildings, and Repairs (Cost, including Staff for Engineer Service) —
  DR. FARQUARSONasked when the St. George's Barracks would be removed to the Chelsea site. The trustees of the National Gallery complained of the proximity to the Gallery of a building which might contain inflammable material. He also referred to the squalid condition of the part of the barracks in which recruits were examined, and said nothing was more calculated to give young men enlisting a bad impression of their future life in the Army.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid that £2,000 was to be voted for a certain sewage farm and drainage works at Aldershot. His constituents complained that the sewage farm was near a hospital, and it was now proposed to turn it into a dairy farm.
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to draw attention to a question which was intimately bound up with that of barracks for the soldier. In regard to it, he felt he must appeal to every hon. Member interested in the moral and social welfare of the soldier. He referred to the arrangement and
  294
  structure of barrack-rooms in all the older barracks. In the newer barracks they had been changed, but he thought he might safely say that in the older barracks the arrangement of the barrack-room was the same as when the barracks were constructed in this country. There was nothing more repulsive and unhome-like than the average barrack-room of the British soldier, with their bare white-washed walls, deal forms and tables. He did not say that Continental nations had better barrack-rooms. In Berlin they did not compare favourably with ours. In Russia the barrack-rooms were better. It might be said that economy was the reason for these comfortless barrack-rooms, and that they were intended to harden the soldier for the hardships of war. But he was sorry to say such places had a serious effect on the moral and social welfare of the soldier. Instead of a man being fond of his barrack-room, and being accustomed to read there, he went elsewhere. If he went to the recreation-rooms, well and good; but he regretted to say that the recreation-rooms were not large enough in the older barracks for the soldiers, who, in these days of education, wanted to read there. He was afraid that many men were driven away from the barrack-room to the canteen and the public house. Then, in the community of fourteen or sixteen men occupying a barrack-room, the evil characters were often the strongest and brought the rest down to their level. The arrangement of the barrack-room was at the bottom of many difficult questions. Every man ought to have a cubicle to which he could retire and enjoy a measure of privacy. Home-like and comfortable barrack-rooms would have an elevating effect on the British Army.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Member for Taunton say that the barrack-rooms of which he complained belonged mostly to the older barracks, which were gradually becoming antiquated. These older barracks were being reconstructed by means of the loan raised in 1888, the sole object of which was to improve the sanitary condition of the barracks and to enhance the social well-being of the soldier by giving him better rooms to live in. It was proposed to extend the loan, and in

  295
  the present year a number of barracks were being taken in hand with the object of putting them in a proper condition. The Department thoroughly sympathised with the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend. There was no doubt that, unless you attended not only to the physical health of the soldier, but also to his material surroundings and made the accommodation for him to some extent attractive, you could not expect him to keep in his barracks nor divert him from demoralising attractions outside. With regard to the removal of the St. George's Barracks, building was in progress at Chelsea, but no item appeared on the Votes because the money was provided by the loan; and it was hoped to remove the troops without undue delay; but there could not be any further removal until the barracks were built. He was quite aware of the condition of St. George's Barracks; that had been recognised by the late Government as well as the present; and the Department thoroughly desired to provide better accommodation as quickly as possible. As to the apprehension that the sewage farm at Aldershot was to be turned into a dairy farm, the Department had no information which bore out that statement; but it was in communication with the local authority about the sewage farm, in which a change was desired. It was thought that the drainage of the town and of the camp ought to be worked together. There was a meeting at the War Office not long ago, attended by representatives of the local authority, and he believed they were within reasonable distance of agreement. As soon as the local authority could obtain the necessary land at a proper distance from the camp, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in carrying out arrangements that would be satisfactory to both parties. It was not intended to have camps near the sewage farm.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, there was one matter with regard to which they ought to have some information before the Vote was passed, and that was the question of the loans which were to be proposed by the Government, one for defensive works abroad and at home, and the other for the continuance of the scheme of barrack building. It was evident that these
  296
  two matters, although distinct from this Vote, was cognate to it, and it would be satisfactory if they could have information as to the particular purposes to be included in the loans.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, he should be glad if it were in his power to give the information asked for, though he rather doubted whether the Chairman would regard it as in order to do so now. When the previous loans were proposed, the application of them was not allowed to be discussed under this Vote. He could not give any figures, but in principle the application of the loans would be simply a continuation of the existing services, namely, barrack building and the defence of ports. He believed the whole proposal would be submitted soon and that information would be found to be thoroughly satisfactory.
  *MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLsaid, he had again to call attention to the artillery practice on Dartmoor, which was carried on daily for several of the best months of the year and greatly interfered with the enjoyment of the moor. It was in the interests of farmers, residents and visitors it was desired there should be no firing on Saturday. The military authorities, in response to former representations, had appointed persons to view and to review; and the people now pressed that this sham reviewing might give place to real action. It was also requested that land might be given up by the War Office for the purpose of allotments for the residents in St. Budeaux and Eggbuckland. These villages were adjoining Plymouth and Devonport, and consequently the land had a high prospective building value, and landowners were unable to let the land for allotments at a price within the reach of the parishioner. But the Government, which was the largest owner in the districts, having at Eggbuckland 116 acres—nearly double that of anyone else—owned land under conditions which precluded it from having a prospective building value. For it was land adjoining forts, and consequently no building was allowed within the line of fire. It was land too which was in both cases peculiarly well suited for the purpose, being within easy access of the villages. Therefore,

  297
  while he did not blame the landowners for not giving allotments, he did blame the War Office—which was the largest landowner in the district, and which ought to have some regard for the convenience of the people for not giving allotments. It might be said that if the War Office gave allotments they would have a difficulty in dealing with a large number of people; but the difficulty would be got over by allowing the people to take the land through the parish councils, as the parish councils were willing to do under any reasonable conditions the War Office might propose. The contention of the War Office that the people could get land for allotments elsewhere was disproved by the chairman of the Eggbuckland parish council, who had written to him:—
  "At present we are in want of about seven or eight acres of land for allotments near the village. We have tried all the owners of land adjacent to the village, and it is absolutely impossible to get land from them. They have all refused, and unless we take compulsory powers, there seems no chance of obtaining land for the purpose. The War Office land would be very suitable, for it is near the village."
  The position of affairs in St. Budeaux was very much the same. There was the same difficulty there in obtaining land for allotments. He thought the War Office ought really to consider the requirements of these people. If they gave the land for allotments the artillery line of sight would not be interfered with, for the people would agree to put no sheds on it, and he pointed out that there were several banks of great height now on the land. He thought those requests most reasonable, and therefore he urged the Government to consider them favourably.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSreminded his hon. Friend that in dealing with this question last year he had said that he was advised that there were serious objections to letting lands in the hands of the military authorities for allotment purposes. He could only give his right hon. Friend the same answer this year. When land was given for allotments by a public Department, it was extremely difficult ever to get it back again, and when his hon. Friend advanced the point that, it would be to the public advantage to let this land for allotments, he must not forget that whatever was to the advantage of the military authorities
  298
  was to the public advantage. He had received a report on the subject from the present Adjutant-General at Devonport, who for military reasons was strongly opposed to letting the land for allotments.
  *MR. LUTTRELL: Will my hon. Friend quote from the Report?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, the Adjutant-General reported in addition to the military reasons, that there was plenty of other land in the parish available for allotments, which was more suitable for that purpose than the War Department land; but the promoters of this movement made no secret of the fact that they expected to get the land cheaper from the Government than from the landowners. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped his hon. Friend would regard his answer in regard to the allotments as final. Turning to the question of artillery practice on Saturday, he would again remind his hon. Friend that last year he informed him that the military authorities avoided as far as possible having artillery practice on Saturday, and when circumstances compelled them to take that course due notice of the fact was given to the inhabitants. Artillery batteries were brought up to Dartmoor for practice in rotation. One battery remained there for a certain time, when it was replaced by another battery, and it was only in the event of a battery being unable, owing to bad weather, to complete its practice within the period that the advantage of a fine Saturday was seized for the purpose. This did not often occur, but if it were not done occasionally, either the battery would have to go away with its practice incomplete, or the practice of succeeding batteries would be thrown out of gear.
  *MR. LUTTRELLthanked his hon. Friend for the full manner in which he had answered his questions. He should like to point out that Saturday was not always a fine day; and he therefore did not understand why, if the practice of the batteries was thrown out of gear by missing one day, the same thing did not happen when a Saturday was missed.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSreplied, that there was no practice ordinarily taken on Saturdays. It was only when one of the ordinary days was missed that practice was taken on a Saturday.
  *MR. LUTTRELLsaid, that the real difficulty of the War Office was that under the standing Regulations they were only able to keep their troops under canvas at Dartmoor for a certain period of the year, and must get all the firing done in that period. But there was no firing on many Saturdays, and he would prefer to have the early months left free altogether. As to the other question of the allotments, he was struck with astonishment by the letter of the Adjutant-General, and that astonishment was increased by the information he received from the locality. What did the Adjutant-General state? That the military authorities were being pressed for this land because people expected to get it cheaper than they could get land from the ordinary landowner. Exactly—that was the whole case. It was because this land had no prospective building value, being held on conditions which forbade building, that the people very naturally and rightly desired to rent it. He denied the statement of the Adjutant-General that there was plenty of land to be obtained at a fair price. He was assured, in letters from the Parish Councils of Eggbuckland and St. Budeaux that it was absolutely impossible to get land from private landowners by voluntary means, and he had already proved this to the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  £119,900, Establishments for Military Education—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what was the pay and what were the extra allowances of the Governor and Commandant of Sandhurst. Further, what were his duties? He was informed that this officer received distinguished visitors to the College, but that on other occasions he was absent, and that his work was done by the Assistant Commandant. The College was inordinately expensive. The cadets cost twice as much as the naval cadets. Their parents had to pay £150 for them, and after that make them an allowance and pay for their messing.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the Governor had £1,500 a year and a house. He was a military officer of high rank, and in fixing his pay regard was had to
  300
  what other officers of the same rank would receive. He had an extremely responsible position, and it would be most undesirable to place a man of secondary position in the office, considering that the cadets were at perhaps the most critical period of their lives. The charges at Sandhurst were high, but they were not excessive as compared with those of some of our public schools.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he was informed that the Commandant was rarely present at the College, and that his duties were discharged by his second-in-command.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the War Office had never heard that the Commandant did not attend to his duties. He would make further inquiries, since the question had been raised.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MANsaid, it was true that public attention had been directed to the great cost of the Sandhurst course. A competent Committee had looked into the question closely, and he understood that the recommendations of the Committee were such as would satisfy all complaint. As to the Governor, nothing could have a more beneficial effect on the cadets than having a man of the highest character over them, who would be a model of all those qualities which an officer of the Army ought to possess. He knew of his own knowledge that the present Commandant abundantly possessed the very qualities required for the responsible position which he held. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL C. W. MURRAYsaid, that the Committee of 1877 on the employment of soldiers and sailors recommended that in competition for civil employment fair weight should be given to such branches of knowledge as soldiers and sailors might have acquired in service. This recommendation had never been carried out, and no standard had been fixed in the Civil Service examinations for military certificates gained in the Army schools. The Committee of 1894-5 recommended that a certain number of vacancies in the second division of the Civil Service should be reserved for competition among the holders of first-class Army school certificates. There were a great number of men of very good education in the Army —equal to some of the clerks in the

  301
  second division of the Civil Service. Engineers, for example, could find many employments, but infantry men learnt nothing during their years of service which could be useful to them in getting employment in civil life afterwards. There were some 17,000 men who annually left the Army, and had nothing but their military training to be of service to them in after life. If they could go to a private, employer and say they could do anything in the shape of building or painting or other trades they would have some chance. In this connection a useful suggestion was made by the Committee which sat in the last few-years, namely, that encouragement should be given to the soldier to attend courses of instruction, including those in the national schools of technical instruction, apart from his military training, which he would find useful in after life.
  Vote agreed to.
  £51,400, Miscellaneous Effective Services—
  MAJOR RASCHreferred to the item relating to the subscription to the association for the employment of discharged and reserve soldiers, and said that although successive Ministries and Secretaries of State had expressed their sympathy for the object, they never got any further, and so they always marched in a vicious circle and never made any progress at all. He listened attentively to the speech of the Under Secretary the other night on this subject, but did not derive much information from it. The Under Secretary simply told them that it was possible in future some solution would be found for the problem. That, in the words of Dr. McGregor, a former Member of the House, "was not good enough for him.'' The authorities of the War Office had no excuse for doing nothing, because they had the Reports and Recommendations of Parliamentary Committees on the subject. They had the Report of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, which showed that out of 875 posts which soldiers were capable of filling in Government Departments only 270 were filled by them. He had himself been in communication with Lord Lansdowne with reference to the discharge of old soldiers from Sheerness in preference to civilians. This was an
  302
  object-lesson which did not bear out the euphemistic phrase of the Under Secretary. The point of his complaint was that they could not get the War Office to pay attention to the matter. Unless the Government would make some provision for those old soldiers when they returned to civil life, in order to keep them from loafing about the streets, they would remain as sign-posts of warning to their brothers and friends not to take the Queen's shilling.
  MR. ARTHUR BROOKFIELDsaid, that personally he did not think that giving a State contribution to the Society which his hon. and gallant Friend named, was really the best way to meet the difficulty. A much better way would be to set a proper example, as had been urged upon them for so many years. He could not imagine anything more detrimental to the end in view than the spectacle of the streets crowded with old soldiers who could not get employment. The best way in which the War Office could encourage the National Society for the civil employment of reserve and discharged soldiers and sailors would be, in conjunction with the Postal authorities, to relieve, them of the task of finding employment for so many men.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYthrew out the suggestion that the War Office might see their way to make a substantial contribution to the Society mentioned for, say, two or three years, and then it. would be seen whether the results were such as would justify a continuance of the contribution. But let the War Office and the House be under no mistake that the grievance was not a real one.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, there was great difficulty in dealing with this question of the employment of Reservists and old soldiers upon this particular Vote, but he should be very sorry if the Committee had an impression from anything that had fallen from his hon. Friends that the War Office was in the least degree, indifferent to this important question. So far from that being the case, the Secretary of State had himself got the matter under his own personal cognizance and consideration, and, although he would not be in order in indicating in any way the course he was likely to follow, he did hope his

  303
  hon. Friends would believe him when he said that the matter was being seriously and practically dealt with. In regard to the particular contribution in question, he would only remind the Committee that the effect of making an excessive grant to a private institution of this kind was absolutely to stop, as a rule, other sources of supply; and therefore it was that the contribution had been kept at its rather scanty proportions. If on further consideration or on new grounds shown it should be thought desirable to increase the contribution he was perfectly certain the Secretary of State would give the matter his favourable consideration. There was one other matter on which he hoped the Committee would allow him to say a word. This was in reference to "awards, etc." The War Office had thought it right to state to the Committee that the sum under this head included a further payment of £500 to Mr. Rees in respect of the experiments which he made in connection with lamps. He had already received a sum of £500, but he had made representations to the Department which convinced them that the cost to which he was put in connection with those experiments considerably exceeded that sum, and on the whole it was thought right, therefore, to make good to him what was in all probability the total amount which he expended, and to give him a further grant out of this Vote of £500.
  Vote agreed to.
  £1,357,800, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, Men, and others—
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he wished to say a word or two with regard to the men in the Chelsea Hospital. The expenditure on Chelsea Hospital amounted to £37,787. The number of men accommodated there was 547, but the total on the Vote amounted to 647, which showed there was a staff of 100. From the best information he could get, he gathered that the pensions which those men sacrificed when they went into the Hospital amounted to £14,000, and he understood that a great number of them were content to leave
  304
  the Hospital if they could get an addition to their pension of one shilling a day. That would be another £12,000, or £26,000 altogether would maintain these men, except the very infirm and sick. There would thus be a saving of £11,000, and that was, he thought, a matter worthy of the attention of the Committee. He understood that the Committee which had inquired into the matter of whether out-patients should be granted were told that the men asked for 2s. 6d. a day if they left the Hospital, but he believed they were instigated to make that large demand chiefly by those who were concerned in the maintenance of the Hospital, and who were engaged in it in different small capacities. Those selected to appear before the Committee to represent the views of the inmates gave evidence in favour of stopping in the Hospital, but if an opportunity had been given to those men who wanted to leave, he thought it would have been shown that the number of those who wanted to leave would have been greater than those who wanted to stay. Of the inmates, 150 were married, and their wives had to live outside, but if a man, with this addition of one shilling, could live outside with his wife, it would be better for both of them. He thought the case of the married inmates ought to be considered, and if the offer to live outside with this addition of one shilling a day were made, he was satisfied a great number of the men would gladly avail themselves of it.
  *LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIEsaid, he desired to speak on behalf of the warrant officers of the Army—the choicest of a very valuable class of officers, men on whom the discipline of the Service mainly depended. When the senior non-commissioned officers were made warrant officers, it was intended that they should gain great advantage. The warrant provided that their remuneration and their medals and clasps, and their medal and gratuities for distinguished conduct and meritorious service, should be governed by the provisions contained in Articles 1,239 to 1,245 and 1,251 to 1,253. It could hardly be expected that the warrant officer was to be deprived of his medal for long service and good conduct by those regulations, and yet, while he was allowed to receive a medal for distinguished conduct or

  305
  meritorious service, by these regulations he was not allowed to receive a modal for long service and good conduct. It would be said that a warrant officer got rank instead of this long-service medal, and that that was his reward. The fact was that if he got his warrant rank after 18 years' service he got a medal first and kept it, but if he got his rank short of 18 years he had to leave without a medal. He thought that regulation might be modified so that a warrant officer, the same as a non-commissioned officer, might receive his long service and good conduct medal on attaining 18 years' service.
  COLONEL MURRAYasked whether there were any men who had served m the Crimea and Indian Mutiny still remaining who had not received a pension?
  *MR. BRODRICK, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich, said that he should be exceedingly loth to see the House of Commons adopt any Resolution to do away with Chelsea Hospital. The antiquity of its foundation was well known, and for over 200 years it had been an asylum wherein old and meritorious soldiers could pass their remaining days in comfort. The hon. Member had fallen into one or two mistakes with regard to his computations. He had also drawn a picture of the married men being separated from their wives, and passing the remainder of their days in the hospital when a pension might have been given to them so as to enable the men to live outside. But no soldier came into the hospital unless he found himself to be in need of care, attention and good food, and if he wished to leave he could do so. Neither was it the case that the staff was paid to look after 400 or 500 pensioners. The staff was engaged in the important duty of granting pensions to the Army; it kept the whole of the records, and performed a large amount of useful work which, if taken away from the staff would have to be undertaken by the War Office. The hon. and gallant Member (General Laurie) had correctly stated the circumstances with reference to the position of warrant officers, and he promised to bring that question under the notice of the Secretary for War and the military authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] As to
  306
  Crimean and Indian Mutiny men, he said that the, present regulations had been drawn so that undoubtedly a considerable number of men who had served in the Crimea were necessarily excluded, but so far from it being the case that there were few of those old soldiers, be showed that at the last computation there were 16,000 of them still in existence. If they proceeded, however, to pension the whole number, it would entail a charge of something like a million. It should be remembered also that all those who were unpensioned might have got a pension if they had remained and served their full time. For that reason the War Office had gone as far as it could to induce the Treasury to meet the hardest cases, and those were now coming in at the rate of fifty to a hundred per month.
  MAJOR RASCHsuggested that it would be politic to enlarge the operation of the system which applied to the Crimean and Indian Mutiny men. Some of those men had failed to obtain allowances from the War Office, and the fact that some of those men were to be seen walking about the streets with medals begging their bread, he believed acted as a deterrent to recruiting. The system of compassionate allowances was well enough as far it went, but he submitted that it did not. go far enough.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, he should be only too glad to make any concession, but the difficulty was that these men were all men who might have continued their service for pensions but had not done so. The authorities had been most anxious to meet these hard cases, but to go beyond what had been done at present was more than they could properly ask the Treasury to undertake.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpresumed that the large number of men quoted included every man that could be counted. But a great many of these men had given but a small degree of service which could be called Crimean or Mutiny service. Many of them had gone out to the Crimea or to India at the last moment, and had come back without seeing any service at all. He imagined that the reason why the compassionate allowances were established by his predecessor at the War Office, and a service of ten years made one of the

  307
  conditions, was in order to be certain that the recipient had given some substantial service to the country. These men all deliberately renounced the opportunity of serving on for pension, and therefore they had really no legitimate claim on the Army Fund, but with the view of preventing the scandal of seeing men who had served substantially and well in the Crimea in distressed circumstances and hanging about the streets, compassionate allowances were made. The limits of that fund had been stretched as far as possible, and if they went any further he thought they might as well throw open the door and say that any long-service man in the Army should get a compassionate allowance.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYappealed to the Committee to allow this Vote to be now taken, and invited it to then proceed with the Vote on Account.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1896–97.—(VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum not exceeding £10,350,018, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  £

  Foreign Office

  22,000

  CLASS V.

  British Protectorate in Uganda and Central Africa

  40,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces and Marl-borough House

  13,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

  34,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  11,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  12,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  24,000

  *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside) moved, "That the Item, Class 2, Vote 5 (Foreign Office), be reduced by £200," in order to direct the attention of the Committee to the policy of the Government on the East Coast of Africa in relation to the question of slavery and to treaty obligations, and to afford an opportunity to the Under Secretary to make his promised statement. He should lay certain facts before the Committee to show that some different policy should be adopted in regard to the slave trade in our East African Protectorates in fulfilment of our treaty obligations, which should weigh with Members in the event of the statement of the Under Secretary failing to disclose the adoption of a satisfactory policy by the Government; at the same time, he hoped that the statement which would be made on behalf of the Government would be so satisfactory that it would not be necessary to divide the Committee on his Motion. He was glad to see that steps aiming at the abolition of slavery were being taken in Nyassaland and Egypt, and he wished to see a similar policy adopted in relation to the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and on the mainland. According to Sir John Kirk, the number of slaves on those islands had been trebled during the last 10 or 12 years, and that fact was to some extent to be attributed to the absence of a continuity of an anti-slavery policy on the part of the present and two previous Governments. In face of the fact that promises were made in March last by the late Government, and in August last by the present Government, that measures would be taken for the speedy termination of slavery in some of our Protectorates, and the termination of a disgraceful state of affairs which at present it was admitted existed, he should await the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with much interest. Though no census of the number of slaves was available, it was estimated that no fewer than from 144,000 to 266,000 slaves were worked upon the plantations of the two islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and as the Sultan of Zanzibar was under our control, and as his advisers were British officers, it was not too much to say that those slaves were detained under the
  312
  Protectorate of the British Government. Moreover, those slaves, or at least many thousands of them, were detained illegally, in defiance of the Decree passed on June 5,1873, which made it unlawful to introduce new slaves into the islands. The life of a slave was very short, and fresh supplies had to be obtained, so that nearly the whole of this slave population had been illegally smuggled into the island in contravention of the Decree, or in defiance of other decrees, and was now detained illegally, and was so detained under the British flag. The further disgrace attached to us that while the Arabs nominally owned the slaves, yet the Arabs were financed by British subjects. There was this further anomaly, that while the plantation slavery was allowed to exist on the islands, encouragement was given to create slaves on the mainland to fill vacancies, and thus we were promoting with one hand that for which we were spending large sums of money to prevent on the other. Two methods had been suggested for dealing with the difficulty. One was that the legal status of slavery should be abolished; that the Mahomedan law which prevailed under the Sultan of Zanzibar should be amended by the introduction of certain sections of the Indian Code, thus giving a legal and recognised position to the slaves, and preventing the exercise of physical cruelty by the masters. The second method was emancipation. By the first method they might abolish the recognition of property by one man in the person of another, and might prepare for it peacefully and without revolution. It might be imprudent to adopt a course of emancipation at once or suddenly, but it might be safely carried out with a proper period of notice; and, whatever steps in this direction it was the intention of the Government to take, he desired to know in what way they would make their intentions known to the slaves. There should be ample publicity given. He believed sincerely that, if slavery were abolished in the islands referred to, free labour would be speedily attracted, and that, as in Cuba and many of the southern States of America, the free labour under such conditions would be greater and more efficient and productive. If during a period of transition it was found necessary to introduce coolie labour,

  313
  those coolies should be introduced under conditions that would protect them from the abuses and cruelties which had been exercised under similar circumstances previously. But he contended that no question of labour difficulty should induce the House to hesitate about adopting a policy of liberation. That the slaves were subjected to great cruelty, there could be no doubt, recent reports from our own Consuls at Zanzibar proved it. But he would appeal to the Government on the question, not so much on account of the slaves at present existing, as in favour of an alteration of the system, so that the demand for new slaves might he prevented in those islands and in the interior of equatorial Africa. It was computed that no fewer than eight or nine lives were sacrificed in order to bring one marketable slave down to the coast. Cameron had estimated that two millions of lives were annually sacrificed by the slave trade, and a special Commissioner of the British and Foreign Slavery Society, who visited this part of Africa last summer, had stated that 24,000 lives were sacrificed every year by the Arabs in order to supply the slaves on the plantations of the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. He contended that England should have no lot or part, directly or indirectly, in such a hideous traffic. The view was sometimes put forward that if the trade was to be destroyed it must be destroyed at its source in the interior; but his view of dealing with the evil was rather to destroy the demand for slaves on the coast, and thus to deprive the Arab of all inducement to follow his abominable calling. On economical grounds, he thought a policy of emancipation would be justified. At least half the cost of the station would be saved if the necessity for trying to intercept the contraband traffic in slaves were removed. The expense and efforts of Her Majesty's ships in those waters were now practically thrown away. Moreover, the lessons taught the Arabs by our present policy were demoralising; for they perceived that while we professed to oppose and abhor slavery, we took advantage of slave labour to coal our ships, engaged slaves as porters in Government operations, and permitted revenue to be derived from slave labour. He did not dispute the fact that there
  314
  must be some difficulties to contend with whenever there was a change of policy, but he did not believe in the present case that these difficulties would be diminished by postponing the change. He deplored the fact that there was a lack of co-operation on the part of the Consul General and Sir Lloyd Matthew at Zanzibar with the efforts of those who were pursuing the anti-slavery policy. He believed that those gentlemen had been influenced by their surroundings against their better judgment. The Sultan was himself the chief offender, for he owned 30,000 slaves. Sir John Kirk, Consul Smith, Sir Gerald Portal, and Sir Euan Smith had all advocated immediate action, and he trusted that the Government would adopt the policy which they recommended. There was no justification, as far as he knew, for the delay of nine months that had taken place since the Government's attainment of office. Action ought to be taken at once; and the legal status of slavery ought to be abolished throughout the Protectorate, and Courts established so that slaves might be able to obtain redress. If in connection with this matter we could clean our own hands, we should set a valuable example to the other Powers who were signatories of the Brussels Act. In conclusion, he asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to reply, if he could, to the following questions:—(1) What steps the Government were taking to fulfil their pledge to liberate the slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba? (2) Whether it was intended to issue any proclamation in regard to the agreement entered into on March 18th, 1891, between Her Majesty's Consul, the Administrator of the Imperial British East Africa Company, the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the Chiefs of Witu, by which slavery would be abolished finally and absolutely on the 24th May 1896, in the province of Witu? (3) What steps the Government were going to take to enforce the Decree of 15th January 1876, by which slavery was abolished in the Kismaya district of the Sultan; and whether in the interior the Decree of May 1, 1890, which recognised all the tribes to be free people, would be enforced? (4) Whether papers could be laid on the Table of the House which would bring the correspondence up to date? (5) Whether the Government proposed to repeal

  315
  the secret Treaty of 23rd August 1890, which was a disgrace to our control, as it directed a master to punish a fugitive slave? (6) What steps would be taken to publish by proclamation or otherwise the regulations which the Government proposed to enforce, so that all slaves might realise the liberty and rights proposed to be conferred? (7) Whether courts and a police force would be established to secure for plantation and other labourers full redress against cruelty, neglect, or ill-treatment, or forcible detention? What compensation (if any) it was proposed to give to plantation owners? He did not believe himself that any compensation was necessary, and at any rate, it ought to be restricted to those who could prove a legal right to the possession of particular individuals. Certainly the merits of the case and justice warranted nothing more. His last question was whether the Government could see their way to reform and consolidate the administration of our East African Protectorate? There were at present five different administrations there under the control of the Foreign Office. He was of opinion that they ought to be consolidated and managed under the Colonial Department. That would secure greater economy, efficiency, and uniformity. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name:— "That the Item, Class 2, Vote 5 (Foreign Office), be reduced by £200."
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): I will endeavour to answer the various questions which the hon. Member has put to me so far as the materials at my disposal allow. He inquires about the state of affairs in the interior parts of the Protectorate. At no time has the status of slavery been recognised by us, nor is it the intention of the Government to recognise it, in the countries that have there come under our Protectorate. The hon. Member asks us for papers and correspondence. We propose at a very early date to lay upon the Table the Dispatches that we have received since the last Papers were presented to the House. They will carry the history of events up to the present time, and they form to a large extent the foundation of my remarks to-night. The hon. Member has
  316
  invited me to make the promised statement with reference to the policy of the Government, and I will therefore take up the case at the point mentioned by him—at the point, that is to say, when this House received what he described as the satisfactory promise made in the Debate of last August. It is quite true that upon that occasion my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did repeat the assurance which had been given by our predecessors in office as to the abolition at as early a date as possible of the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba. During the Parliamentary Recess we have been very busily occupied in discussing the conditions, and in considering the machinery that should be applied for the purpose, and I had hoped to be in a position to make a statement on this subject at the opening of this Session. But hon. Members may remember that towards the latter part of last year an insurrectionary movement broke out upon the mainland north of the island of Zanzibar, which movement, at the beginning of this year, attained somewhat grave and serious dimensions. One or two important chiefs were drawn into the rebellion, and the troops of the Protectorate on the spot were not capable of dealing with it satisfactorily. The dissatisfaction spread over a considerable area, and we had to send to India for a native regiment to compose this difficulty. Hon. Members may quite properly ask, "To what cause has this movement on the mainland been due?'' and I will endeavour to satisfy them. I believe it to have been in the first place the inevitable consequence of the taking over by the Government of the British Protectorate in East Africa. It will be understood that the British Government, with its organised forces and with its far-reaching administration, is a more formidable body than the company which preceded it, and it is the case that some of the big chiefs near the coast seem to have thought that their independence would be compromised, and that they would be likely to suffer greater interference under the new regime of the central authority than they experienced under the former state of things. Then, in Mahomedan countries there are always smouldering certain sparks of religious feeling and fanaticism which it is easy

  317
  to fan into a flame, as has been done in this case. In the third place, anticipations respecting the legislation which has been foreshadowed and promised in this House have had a very marked effect upon the minds of some of the chiefs and tribes of the mainland. It is a fortunate thing that many of the principal Arabs have remained loyal to our service, and matters have now reached a point at which it is reasonable to hope that the movement will be put down shortly, and that it will be possible to put into operation the measures of pacification which have been thought out. These events have caused a temporary suspension of the original plan of the Government. I think that hon. Members opposite will admit that the first condition before taking any such action as is contemplated, action which the Committee must remember is directed against the immemorial traditions and feelings and prejudices, if you like, of the people with whom you are dealing—that the first condition of any such action is a state of tranquillity among the population concerned. Such a state of tranquillity is particularly essential in East Africa at this moment—on the one hand for the consolidation of the Government Protectorate; and, on the other hand, for the commencement of the works on the Uganda Railway. At such a moment we could not afford to alienate the principal Arab chieftains and tribes from our side. Any sudden step would have shaken their confidence in our administration, and would have sent large numbers of this population over to the rebel side. If we had acted with indiscriminate haste, what was a small, although a serious, political revolution might very easily have swollen into a very formidable religious war. That was the view that was pressed upon us by the British Agent at Zanzibar. It was the view held by every British officer, so far as we know, in the Service. It was the view taken by the missionaries, whose righteous interest in this question cannot be doubted. It was the view taken by the Protectorate, Council of East Africa, and by others. It will also be clear to hon. Members that no decisive step of the character spoken of could be taken except in the presence of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar. We could not
  318
  take it either while he is away in the interior, or while a deputy is acting on his behalf. Owing to the movement of which I have spoken, Mr. Harding has been for two or three months almost entirely on the mainland. He is only just about to return to Zanzibar. He proposes to come to this country, to enjoy what I think is a very well-earned holiday, in about two months from now, and we propose to take advantage of his presence here to consult with him as to the final measures that we intend to adopt, which measures will be put into execution when he returns there in the autumn. This is a course of action which, I have explained to the Committee, has been dictated to us by political and other exigencies which we could not foresee, but I venture to submit that no other course was possible. No Government, however strong an impulse it receives from this House, or however upright and honourable the motives by which it is actuated, has any right to trifle with the feelings and sentiments of native populations. Our duty in taking over the Protectorate in East Africa was to pacify the people, to win their confidence, to allay their suspicions, to familiarise them with our good intentions, and in no degree rashly to irritate or to alarm them. Steps, which may be possible and easy six or 12 months hence, would not only have been difficult but dangerous now, and I submit that the Government had no right in their desire to redress an admitted wrong to run the risk of creating a political revolution. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction spoke with great frankness about difficulties which, as he well knows, stand in the way of carrying out this Resolution. During the past six months it has been my duty very carefully to study the ins and the outs of this question. It is not, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, a question of great simplicity, but, on the contrary, the more you examine it the more complicated and difficult it proves to be. It is a question which, if at all rashly handled, might lead us to consequences which hon. Gentlemen most interested would be the last to desire. The Committee must remember that in carrying out this proposal you have against you the whole weight of the traditions and the religious sentiment of the native peoples; you have to

  319
  deal with a Government and with Courts that are the Government and the Courts of a Mahomedan country. You have an absolute consensus of opinion on the part of every English authority, including the missionaries, on the spot, that any too sudden announcement might be attended with dangerous consequences, and when the step is taken, as we hope it shortly will be, you will have to accompany it by certain measures to prevent the occurrence of an immediate social and economic disorganisation. If one result more than another of taking the contemplated step can certainly be foretold, it is that a large number of slaves, enamoured with the fascinations of an idleness they have never hitherto enjoyed, will desert the plantations and flock into the towns, picking up there what small jobs they can to save them from starvation. That might constitute a positive risk to the peace and order of the towns, to meet which steps would have to be taken. But you might have even more alarming consequences on the plantations themselves. We have a recent report from Mr. Hardinge, in which he points out that one consequence of the great and increasing difficulty in procuring slaves, because of the vigour of the search which our men-of-war have carried on, is that a large number of plantations in Pemba are falling out of cultivation. If by the contemplated legislation you were still further to diminish that labour supply, if you were to cut it down by, as you might, 50 or 60 per cent., you might involve a large number of people in immediate financial ruin. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution suggested the introduction of free labour to take the place of slave labour. The Committee will remember that free labour, paid labour, is not indigenous to the place—it is an exotic, it would have to be imported, it would have to be carefully tended and watered to enable it to grow. The hon. Member seems to think that by a stroke of the pen you can import Indian coolies into Zanzibar to take the place of slave labour. I find that under existing regulations the Indian Government not only have it not in their power, but they would be most reluctant to allow Indian coolies to serve under Arab employers. But even if this difficulty were overcome, you have all the questions arising out of the hiring of
  320
  coolies, of their transportation, of the organisation of free labour, of the condition of the buildings in which they are to live, of medical supervision, and of hospitals for their careful tending. You have to see whether the employers could employ the men and pay them their wages. There will be the further danger that the large number of slaves who will take advantage of the abolition of the legal status may constitute a great temptation to the slave-owners on the mainland, and, whereas it has hitherto been attempted, and with very remarkable success, to stop the importation of slaves from the mainland to the island, you may have a serious reflux in the opposite direction—from the islands to the mainland. Again, the bulk of the planters are unfortunately in the hands of usurers, who act in the most extortionate manner. The majority of the estates are heavily mortgaged, and, supposing you diminish the labour supply in the way I have been speaking of, you would have these usurers in many cases foreclosing on the estates, and exacting, so far as they could, the utmost farthing. I submit we have no right to hand over a class, many of whom are exercising a legal right, to absolute ruin. Suggestions have been made—such as the institution of land banks or the creation of some sort of loan to tide over the difficulty—to bridge the interval between the first somewhat sharp consequences and the final settlement of the new order of things. Furthermore, when you carry out these proposals you will have to take steps with regard to the tribunals. Unless your new legislation is to be a dead letter from the day that it is proclaimed, you will have to constitute new tribunals to administer the new law. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Egypt. It is known that in Egypt a large number of slaves have taken out manumission papers and procured their freedom; and in Egypt the institution of homes into which slaves can go when they leave their masters, and stay till they get employment elsewhere, has been a great success. I think that at Zanzibar it might be very desirable to set up similar homes. All these points which I have endeavoured briefly to put before the Committee are points which must be met. They cannot be discussed at the end of a telegraph wire.

  321
  We cannot get replies to Dispatches in less than six weeks, and I do not think that the position which I have indicated to the Committee will be in reality disappointing to hon. Members. They do not want any sudden action, which might set back this movement for years. I hope in these few words I have clearly explained to the Committee the position of the Government. We do not depart from the assurances we have given. We repeat and renew those assurances. We have been prevented up to this moment by circumstances which we could not foresee from carrying them out. There remain a number of questions of practical importance, but Mr. Harding will be in London in June, when we hope to arrive at a decision as to the actual methods by which the new system can be put into operation and carried out when he returns to Zanzibar. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There are difficulties of two kinds which are now and always will be inseparable in dealing with this question. They are difficulties which always have to be faced whenever this question of slavery is dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman has faced those difficulties with that decision which he always has at his command; but at the same time, with all respect to him, I must remind him that the point reached last March was this. The difficulties were admitted they were known to exist. The Government of the day had promised that these difficulties should be overcome, and they were going to find a way to overcome them. ["Hear, hear!"] It must be a little disappointing to have these difficulties stated all over again, and to find that, as far as the information given to the Committee is concerned, we have advanced no further than a year ago. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last time I stated those difficulties the Government received no quarter whatever from his friends. [Cheers.] I remember the expression from one Member opposite that our policy was sufficient to make the bones of Wilber force turn in his grave, and in particular the present Secretary for the Colonies was very hostile. Our position was this. We stated that the difficulties were great, but they must come to an end. I stated, on behalf of the Government,
  322
  that until we received the Report which we were expecting we were entitled to plead for a little delay. The Secretary for the Colonies would not allow that, and he appealed to the House to decide whether or not slavery ought to go on in these islands. Now the present Government has received that Report. It has been in their possession ever since they have been in office, and now they come down to the House and, I suppose, ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. That must be most disappointing to many Members of the Committee, and I fear my right hon. Friend in his speech has been somewhat unconscious of the disappointment which must inevitably follow. I come next to the difficulty which has arisen from the conflict which has been going on in East Africa. That trouble had not arisen in our time. ["Hear, hear!"] The argument hitherto has been, as regards postponing these measures for the abolition of the legal status of slavery, the fear of disturbing the peace. Now we are told that steps cannot be taken because peace has already been disturbed. Undoubtedly you are running the risk of disturbances, and I think my right hon. Friend might have stated to-night that the Government was going to make a settlement of this question, and that a termination of this state of slavery must be a part of the settlement which must be come to at the end of these disputes. ["Hear, hear!"] Once before the demand was made, but there was not force enough to deal with it. Now there is force enough, and what I should like my right hon. Friend to assure the House is that, having got his force there, it is the intention of the Government to abolish the legal status of slavery in the islands, and that the extra force will not be withdrawn until that object has been carried out. [Cheers.] That certainly would be a step forward. It has been suggested that there may be financial grounds—that there may be economic disturbances—and that there is likely to be a Vote in this House to compensate for the loss of revenue which might be caused by the abolition of slavery. I think it is a little disappointing that no calculation has been made as regards that question. As to whether a Vote will eventually be required or not

  323
  we might have been told. I think there is no doubt that such a Vote would receive the support of the Committee, in the confident hope that something was going to be done. There is one further question I should like to raise in connection with this question of slavery and the Foreign Office policy, and that is the subject of the Madagascar Treaty—our Treaty rights in Madagascar. I do not know whether the Committee have followed this matter of our rights with regard to France. They were expressly reserved in August, 1890. These Treaty rights have been used, not only not to give annoyance to France; we have stretched a point to prevent giving them annoyance. We have given up the right of searching for slaves in the territorial waters of Madagascar. But we have received no reciprocity with regard to the view of other Powers. We want to know how our Treaty rights in Madagascar are likely to stand in the course of the next few years. There have been rumours that, owing to the changes to be made by the French Protectorate, those Treaty rights are to be denounced, and great apprehensions of danger have been entertained. Under the Declaration of 1890 those Treaty rights were expressly guaranteed when the Protectorate of France over Madagascar was recognised; that Declaration has at different times been the subject of much criticism, partly by supporters of Lord Salisbury himself, on the ground that it was a bargain which was not favourable enough to British interests. I do not think I have ever taken part in that criticism, but, undoubtedly, if we are presently to be told that one of the inevitable and ultimate consequences of those Declarations exchanged in 1890 is that our Treaty rights in Madagascar are going to disappear altogether, and that we are going to lose that most-favoured nation treatment which we have now under our present Treaty rights, then the policy of the Declarations which were then exchanged will become the subject of very serious criticism. ["Hear, hear!"] It will be a very serious thing if we are to lose the most-favoured nation position as regards our commerce in Madagascar. The other day I pressed my right hon. Friend to give some definite assurance to the House
  324
  that those Treaty rights would be maintained, and he then stated that it would be premature at present to make any statement on that subject—a statement which cannot have given great confidence to the commercial bodies who are anxiously watching the question.
  *MR. CURZON: The hon. Baronet is hardly fair to me——
  SIR E. GREY: I will confine myself to the fact that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman then made cannot have given confidence to commercial circles. I am using that argument, not necessarily to show that it was possible for my right hon. Friend to make a statement at that time, but as a justification for again bringing up the question and pressing him to give an assurance on this point as soon as possible. I hope that, having been told that it was premature then to make a statement, we shall not presently be told that it is too late to maintain our Treaty rights. Although I could understand that until my right hon. Friend has received the views and intentions of the French Government with regard to these Treaty rights, it might be premature to make a complete statement, still, I should have thought he might have said a little more as to what are the views of the British Government on the subject of our own Treaty rights. ["Hear, hear!"] If he cannot now make a complete statement, I ask him whether he cannot state the view of the British Government with regard to the maintenance of these Treaty rights, or, at least, give some assurance that that view has been made known to the French Government, and that Her Majesty's Government have made them fully aware of the importance which we attach to the provisions of our Treaty rights in Madagascar. I think that is not an unfair question to ask, because the question of whether the French Protectorate over Madagascar was to be modified or not is not one which has arisen in the course of the last few days, but was very much discussed in the autumn, when the change in the French Government was taking place—I think in November. The fact that there was possibly going to be a change in the French Protectorate over Madagascar has been known to the whole world for many months, and has been

  325
  discussed in Paris, I believe, from the point of view of the effect which it was likely to have on the Treaties of other Powers. That is why I ask for the best and fullest answer upon those points.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, he had always taken the strongest views on this Zanzibar question. He hoped no harm would accrue to British trade from what was passing in Madagascar. The interests of the United States were the same as our own, and the United States Government had declared that they would not recognise any such change as that which was in contemplation by France. He had no doubt that we should be able to agree with them on that point. All these Agreements which were entered into from time to time were full of pitfalls for the Government, and the Agreement in regard to Tunis was an even more important case than that of Madagascar. He would try and bring the Debate back to the particular question of Zanzibar slavery, which was more immediately before the Committee. He had himself, without much support, brought this matter before the House each year on the Foreign Office Vote, until last year, when his hon. Friend for the Tyneside Division raised the question on the Supplementary Estimate. The promise that was on that occasion made by the then Government, however, was much stronger than any promises which had been made that evening. ["Hear, hear!"] The late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs then said that this thing must be put an end to. He thought the late Government were to blame for allowing the matter to continue so long as they did, but they took note of their statement then, and, such as it was, it was a very strong and definite statement. That night the Under Secretary of State undoubtedly suggested that there must be new legislation; but he did not tell them that that new legislation was to mean the abolition of slavery. Not only was the time postponed, therefore, but the thing itself was far less definitely stated than it was in March last. The right hon. Member said that all the great authorities were in favour of extreme caution on this point, but there was no authority of greater weight than Sir John Kirk, and he thought the very strong opinion of Captain Lugard, although that was an
  326
  outside opinion, was well worthy or consideration. In the Malay Protectorate they had had the same difficulties as they had had in Zanzibar; there was there a fanatical Mohammedan population, and Mohammedan landowners owning plantation slaves, and carrying on slavery by the same means. There had been risings in the Malay Peninsula when it was proposed to abolish slavery there, the same as there had been in Zanzibar. Slavery had, nevertheless, been abolished throughout the whole of the Peninsula, and yet none of the consequences that had been prophesied had followed upon that abolition. Exactly the same fears were entertained from the abolition of slavery in the Malay Peninsula as were now entertained with regard to the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar. The fears, however, were not fulfilled, and such risings as did occur were very easily put down and it was well known how nourishing the Malay Peninsula was at the present time. It was said that the industries of the Peninsula could not be carried on with free labour, but the result had been to give a most remarkable instance of the advantages which flowed from British rule. It had been said on behalf of the Government that if we were to abolish slavery in Zanzibar we must make a complete change, in all the Departments of State there, and it was asserted that it would be necessary to establish new courts and other executive and administrative Departments. In his view all these military Protectorates ought to be placed under the control of the Colonial Office instead of the Foreign Office. These so-called Protectorates were in reality colonies. Great confusion arose in consequence of the present system, because Zanzibar, which was under the control of the Foreign Office, was more an integral portion of the British Empire than many of the so-called Protectorates which were under the control of the Colonial Office. We should never see the abolition of slavery carried out in Zanzibar until the control of that colony was taken over by the Colonial Office from the Foreign Office. He believed that it might be safely said that slavery was recognised in the courts, which were really British courts. The slaves were, in fact, British subjects, who were brought from territories which were under the British Protectorate and who

  327
  were subject to a horrible system of cruelty, and this system of slavery was recognised by the British courts there. He repeated that it was a fatal error that the Foreign Office should be allowed to administer colonies of this kind, and to keep up slavery. It was said that if disturbances continued on the mainland it would be impossible to abolish slavery at present. According to the inconvenient mode of procedure in Committee of Supply, it was impossible for hon. Members to discuss matters on a particular Vote that were closely connected with it. For instance, he could draw arguments from the total concealment by the Foreign Office in the Niger case, as to the manner in which they recognised slavery in Zanzibar. The House was not as full as it had been on the occasion when this subject was brought forward under the late Government. Perhaps that was because, on the previous occasion Parties were more evenly balanced, and the transfer of some 10 or a dozen votes from one side of the House to the other might have meant the upsetting of the Government. On that occasion many hon. Members who now sat opposite, had rejected the plea of the then Government for delay, but they now appeared to have forgotten the course they then took. He, however, had taken up his position then regardless of Party, and he did so on the present occasion. Perhaps, even now, before the Debate closed the Government might give the House a definite statement with regard to the new legislation which had been referred to. Did the Government mean that they intended to follow in the course which the late Government proposed to take and to abolish the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar? If they intended to take that course they should say so. It appeared, however, from what had fallen from the Government that night, that instead of making progress in relation to this subject we had rather receded from the position we had formerly occupied with regard to it.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHsaid, the difficulties in connection with the abolition of slavery in Pemba and Zanzibar had been before the world for a long time. Now, what they
  328
  wanted to know was, how those difficulties could be overcome. He contended, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Baronet who preceded him, that there had been some advance since a year ago. It was then said that the legal status of slavery ought to be abolished. Now it was said that when Mr. Hardinge came home next autumn slavery would be abolished. Attempts had been made to put down slavery by precautions at sea. These were entirely futile, for the reason to which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had alluded—namely, the jealousy the French had of any interference with their flag. This prevented the possibility of our work at sea being effective. The question of compensation was one which, on the Ministerial side of the House, certainly in the Debate that had been alluded to, they pledged themselves as willing to meet. But it should be borne in mind that compensation was a small matter, because it had been shown over and over again, that the percentage of legally held slaves was so very small that he did not think any one would propose to compensate the owners of any except those held under the old decrees, and they numbered five, six, or seven thousand. Another difficulty raised, and which carried most weight with many in the House, was how the supply of labour would be obtained if the legal status of slavery or slavery itself, was abolished. There was a difference of opinion as to the likelihood of freed slaves working. Last autumn there was a letter in The Times, understood to be from an authority on this matter, who gave a case in point. On the mainland, he said, opposite Zanzibar, and 50 miles distant, there existed a colony of 300 liberated slaves. They had diligently devoted themselves to the cultivation of the soil; their plantations extended over miles of ground, they were living in happiness and plenty, and showed themselves wonderfully ready to combine for good work. The writer added that his primary object was not to display the success of a piece of missionary effort, but to show that the freed slave had it in him, when he had a chance, to become a useful member of society. From the hon. Member's own knowledge native tribes could be

  329
  induced to work steadily and hard, and other tribes in the neighbourhood would furnish navvies ready to work under proper treatment and a moderate amount of pay. In regard to the question of labour, there was one special point—the nature of the industry upon which, in Zanzibar and Pemba, slaves were employed—namely, the clove plantations. This differed from other forms of industry, because these plantations supplied four-fifths of the whole quantity of cloves that the world produced. The consumption of cloves was not indefinite, and any limitation in the supply of cloves raised the price at once proportionately, or even more. If there was a Cecil Rhodes to take charge of the products of the clove plantations, by limiting the quantity of cloves the price could be kept up, and the whole value of the crop and the revenue of the colony derived from an ad valorem duty on cloves could be made even more considerable than if they increased the product. This was the view the late Sir Gerald Portal took in his Report of a year ago. The market was overstocked with cloves. High prices led to a great increase in the supply of doves, which led to a more than proportionate drop in the price. He was convinced that the fear in regard to labour was exaggerated. In the first place he had tried to show that freed slaves or other natives wore willing to work when they saw the prospect of getting a fair wage. In the second place, it was apparent that natives could not be induced to go into these islands so long as there was a danger of finding themselves again reduced to slavery. So long as the legal status of slavery existed in the island a man was afraid to go, even with the prospect of work, because he knew he might again become a slave. But if the legal status of slavery was abolished that fear would go, and natives would be attracted from the mainland who could be trusted to take care of themselves and who would come and go freely according to the demand of the market In that way he believed the labour difficulty would be found to vanish. He was glad the Under Secretary was prepared to fix a date at which the legal status of slavery would come to an end. ["No, no!"] He was only stating what he inferred from the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and to that
  330
  inference he understood the right hon. Gentleman to give his assent. Therefore, he hoped that in a few months the system of slavery in these islands would come to an end.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEYsaid, he must express his disappointment, which would be shared by many people, with the statement the Under Secretary had made. The facts as stated by Mr. Hardinge did not quite agree with some of the statements the right hon. Gentleman had made. According to the figures supplied by Mr. Hardinge, the total number of slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba was 140,000, and he said that, as the result of certain considerations which he stated, of these 140,000 not more than from 5 to 10 per cent. were persons who were lawfully held in slavery. So that the great Question they were discussing was whether, in the two islands where we had absolute control, we should give freedom to 140,000 slaves. For ten or fifteen years the Governments of this country had been discussing on what terms and conditions this number of slaves should be emancipated, and this was the whole question before the House. There were difficulties in the way and successive Governments had dwelt upon these difficulties. The Under Secretary had warned the Committee of the danger of acting in an impulsive manner, and of incurring the necessity of having to resort to physical force to suppress a native rising. But upon this point again he quoted Mr. Hardinge, who expressed an opinion that the landing of a force of some 300 or 400 blue jackets and marines would effectually suppress any outburst of popular discontent that might arise upon the status of slavery being abolished in the islands. At the present time the strength of the Navy in Zanzibar waters was amply sufficient to supply such a force. A very serious charge he had to make against a British subject in a responsible official position, was that he, an administrator responsible to the Crown and to Parliament, had illegally, contrary to Common Law, acknowledged and recognised the status of slavery within Her Majesty's dominions. Upon this point he had on several occasions put questions to the Government, and never had he received a satisfactory reply. He noted, however, that

  331
  the replies were always very carefully worded, and never acknowledged that a legal status of slavery existed within Her Majesty's dominions. But, however, in Mr. Hardinge's official Report there were passages plainly showing that the allegation was well founded. Mr. Hardinge referred to the grounds upon which slaves were now freed by the Sultan and by himself, plainly showing that he had the power of giving or withholding freedom, and that in fact he administered a law which acknowledged the legal status of slavery. Reporting what he did when a case of cruelty to a slave was brought before him, Mr. Hardinge said, "I either free him myself"—thus acknowledging that he had the power—"or if he belongs to the mainland I send him to the Sultan;" in other words, he sent him to slavery. There were societies who would, he hoped, take up this matter; and when Mr. Hardinge returned to this country he would like to see a prosecution instituted against him at Bow Street for the contravention of the Common Law. Surely this question of freeing the slaves in Zanzibar, which, as had been shown, was really of small dimensions, was ripe, and more than ripe, for settlement, and when the facts were really known the strong and determined feeling in the country would insist that representatives of Her Majesty in all parts of the Empire should wash their hands finally of any connection with or recognition of the status of slavery. Let the Government fix a date declaring that after that date slavery in Zanzibar shall cease, and Parliament would support them in carrying out a Measure for that purpose. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR EDWARD GREY: My intention was not to glorify myself at the expense of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. My complaint was that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the matter further.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL (York, E.R., Holdeness)said the hon. Baronet had himself said three years ago that he was going to solve the difficulty, but he had gone out of office and the difficulty still remained. It seemed to him that the Foreign Office were too much apt to indulge in finesse in these questions. They were very properly anxious to look as far ahead as they could; they did not want
  332
  to take any action until they saw their way clear; but there were times when the best policy was to do that which was immediately before one, and trust to the future to bring a solution of the problem that might arise hereafter. He thought the question was a simple question. If the abolition of the legal status of slavery were declared, it did not seem to him that there would be a necessity to take the steps to enforce it which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had indicated. The new condition of things would gradually grow into the customs of the people. He did not apprehend any difficulty in regard to labour. He rather thought that when the serfs were freed in Russia in 1863 the immediate difficulty as to labour was got over by committing the serfs to the owners for a certain period under certain advantages to the serfs; and though he did not think the case of Russia strictly analogous, he thought it showed that there would not be that complete absence of labour which some people feared if the legal status of slavery were abolished. He hoped he was right in interpreting the speech of the Under Secretary to mean that immediate steps would be taken for the abolition of the legal status of slavery. He thought that after the frequent votes of the House of Commons on this subject, and the sentiments that had been expressed, with general concurrence by both sides of the House, it was discreditable that this country—which had led the way in the abolition of slavery everywhere its influence was felt—should still, in fact if not in theory, allow the disgrace of slavery to exist under the British flag.
  *MR. CURZONthought he had made the position of the Government perfectly clear. He had begun his speech by stating that the assurance which was given on the part of the late Government in March of last year that early steps would be taken for the abolition of the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba had been repeated by the present Leader of the House last August, and that by that assurance the present Government still stood. He had also given the reasons why they had not yet been able to carry out that assurance. They wanted first to compose the difficulties with which they had been confronted in those territories,

  333
  and they were, he was glad to say, in a fair way of doing it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division had said the Government ought to make the abolition of the legal status of slavery part of the settlement of the dispute. They did not think it would be a wise thing to go, so to speak, with their troops in one hand and their proclamation in the other. They preferred to pacify the districts first, and then, when the districts were pacified, proceed to the completion of their policy. It had been asked what sum the Government might have to pay the Zanzibar Government. How could they put forward an estimate of what they would have to pay until they knew whether the Zanzibar Government had experienced a loss? That was a matter of dispute. Some authorities contended there would be a serious loss of revenue; other authorities denied it. The hon. Baronet also said the Government had been doing nothing during the last six months. The Government said the legal abolition of slavery was going to end. [Ironical laughter.] He had even indicated the time in which it would end, and therefore he could not understand the meaning of that laugh.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: Every Government for the last ten or fifteen years has said that this state of things was going to be ended. The last Government said it would be ended immediately, and the present Government have taken six months before they have even indicated their policy. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. CURZON: The hon. Gentleman must not judge of our virtues by the vices of the Party opposite. [Laughter.] The charge had been made against Mr. Harding, the British Agent, that in some cases he had handed natives back to slavery. That was not the case. Mr. Harding handed the natives over to the Sultan because they were subjects of the Sultan, but he handed them over to make them free. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean seemed to think it was desirable that our Protectorates in Africa should be given over to the control of the Colonial Office. But it must be remembered that many of these Protectorates were still in an inchoate condition. Their boundaries were not determined; questions arose concerning them which brought us into contact with foreign Powers; and these questions could
  334
  only be dealt with, and must be dealt with, by the Foreign Office. ["Hear, hear!"] He quite believed there was something in the argument that the Foreign Office had too much to do; and when those Protectorates had had their boundaries fixed and determined, it might well be that some portion of the burden could be handed to other Departments of the State. But the moment for that change had not yet arrived. The question of Madagascar was of extreme importance. The hon. Member who raised the question asked what were the views of the British Government. Those views must necessarily be determined by the attitude of the French Government itself, of which Her Majesty's Government had not yet been informed. A treaty of Protectorate was imposed upon Madagascar by the French forces under General Duchesne. That treaty had been since supplemented if not superseded by another declaration of the Queen of Madagascar. Since then a statement had been made by the French Foreign Minister to the French Chamber—a statement which, if correctly reported, was of the most serious character. That statement contained the announcement that a notification of the attitude taken up by the French Government was about to be sent to the Powers. It would be improper for any representative of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons to announce what the Government's action would be until that notification had been received. At the present time Her Majesty's Government knew no more of what the French Government intended than was in the newspapers. As soon as they heard they would take the proper steps to defend British interests; Her Majesty's Government were thoroughly conscious of what those interests were. They were perfectly aware of the clause in the Zanzibar Treaty of 1890; of the statement made by M. de Freycinet in 1885, when the Protectorate of Madagascar was first taken over by France; and of the statement made by the present Foreign Minister of France, as late as November 27 last, that:—
  "We have no need to declare that we shall respect the engagements which we have contracted with certain foreign Powers."
  On the one hand the British Government

  335
  had what they conceived to be British Treaty rights; and on the other hand they had a statement made in the French Chamber, unverified and un-reported to Her Majesty's Government, but accompanied by the assurance that a notification would be sent to the Powers. Until that notification was received Her Majesty's Government could take no steps; but the House might rest assured that what the Government held to be British Treaty rights would be efficiently guarded. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. GREYsaid, one or two words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman called for some reply. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the vices and broken pledges of the late Government in relation to slavery in Zanzibar. The pledge of the late Government was given about the month of March in last year. It was to the effect that slavery must come to an end; but the precise steps to be taken were not then announced, but were promised as soon as Mr. Harding's Report had been received That Report was received in June, very shortly before the Government resigned. The present Government had been in possession of that Report for a far longer time than the late Government were in possession of it; and the present Under Secretary had repeated the same general pledge which the late Government gave. But, in spite of having been in possession of the Report so long, the right hon. Gentleman had not announced the precise steps that would be taken. There never was an occasion when there was less justification for using words such as the right hon. Gentleman had permitted himself to use about his predecessors. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYpointed out that it was by agreement between both sides of the House that the discussion should terminate at midnight. There was a discussion to be raised on Siam, and on a question interesting to the Welsh Members, and, as his right hon. Friend had repeated the pledges already given, the Committee might now come to a decision on the question by dividing or by accepting the assurances of the Government.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that the whole question was when the promised abolition of slavery was to be carried out. Would the right hon. Gentleman name a date in August or September next when slavery in Zanzibar should come to an end? If he could do so it would give general satisfaction. There was nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman had as yet said which would prevent him telling the House next year that the determination of the Government remained the same, but that difficulties had occurred to delay its being carried out.
  *MR. CURZON: It would be unwise to name a day, or even a month. But I am quite willing to give an assurance that our representative at Zanzibar will, in fact, put the decision of the Government into operation.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNhoped that the back of the Government would be as stiff as possible in regard to Madagascar. The interests of many of his constituents were threatened by the position which the French Government seemed to be taking up. M. Berthelot had made a declaration as to the imposition of tariffs, which was of most serious interest for British merchants.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, that he should like to withdraw his Amendment if he correctly understood the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to mean that Mr. Harding would go back to Zanzibar in the autumn with instructions to carry out immediately the abolition of the legal status of slavery.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAcalled attention to affairs in Siam, with special reference to the recent Anglo-French declaration and its influence upon this country. He reminded the Committee of the position in 1893, when the treaty was entered into between France and Siam, by which a certain part of the latter country was surrendered to France. The British Government, by means stronger than words, asserted its interest in the integrity of Siam. We sent more than one gunboat

  337
  into Siamese waters, not only to protect British industry in Bangkok, but to demonstrate British interests in the integrity of Siam. He quoted a letter, addressed by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce to Lord Rosebery, warning the late Prime Minister that if the two provinces of Siem-rap and Patabang were wrested from Siam, a serious blow would be dealt at our trade, and heavy-duties would be imposed. The present Under Secretary, too, speaking in 1893, after a personal visit, stated that the possession of the provinces was essential to Siam, and that the independence and integrity of the country would be irretrievably injured if they were allowed to pass into the hands of any foreign Power. It was perfectly true, he said, that under the Anglo-French declaration the provinces of Siem-rap and Patabang had not been in so many words surrendered to France; but, to show that they had been practically surrendered, he had only to point to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. He found that in 1893, when the French were already in possession of the town of Chantabun, the right hon. Gentleman was considerably afraid that the possession of Chantabun by the French would lead to the acquisition of those provinces by that country. Now, the position as it existed then, however bad it was, had at any rate this advantage for the Siamese, that the British Government had declared its interest in the integrity of Siam. But, under the declaration in question, the British Government had withdrawn its interest in the integrity of Siam as far as those two provinces were concerned. A forecast made by the right hon. Gentleman that, if Great Britain did not preserve her interest in the integrity of Siam, those provinces would be lost to her, appeared to have been verified. The right hon. Gentleman used words in a prophetic sense when, speaking of the occupation of Chantabun, he said:—
  "I respectfully invite him
  (that was the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs)
  "to keep his eye on Chantabun during the next few weeks and to pause until it has been evacuated before he congratulates the Government and the House upon having saved those provinces for the
  338
  Siamese Government, and upon the fact that the French and Siamese question has been satisfactorily settled."
  He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to explain that language, in view of the fact that the French had still not evacuated Chantabun. He asked him whether, under these circumstances, he could reassure the House that the Anglo-French declaration did not, as a matter of fact, amount to an actual surrender of the two provinces mentioned. He also wished to bring before the attention of the Committee the complete surrender of the upper reaches of the Mekong into French hands. They still retained control over the river-way. They had, for the purposes at any rate of bargaining, a direct means of communication with the Province of Yunnan, but they had sacrificed territory undeniably in their occupation on the banks of the Mekong without receiving any compensation whatever in return. It was true that the treaty purported to open to this country the trade in the three Chinese towns which, under the Franco-Chinese Treaty, were devoted exclusively to French trade. But when he reminded the Committee that these three particular towns in the Province of Yunnan were upon the borders of Annan, and consequently were only open to Annanist trade, they would see it would be idle to say that it was compensation to this country, if they were to sacrifice a great water-way, that they should receive freedom of trade with three towns in Yunnan, which were nowhere near their borders, but which were in immediate proximity to the French border. By Article 7 of the present Convention this trade was expressly excluded from the general favoured nation clause upon the ground of special circumstances, those special circumstances being that those three towns in Yunnan were upon the borders of Annan, and consequently the direct trade between them and Annan gave rise to special circumstances which did not affect other countries. When he reminded the Committee that the course of the Mekong lay between these towns and their possessions in Burma; that the trade of Yunnan must of necessity pursue either one or the other of the two great waterways, one of which was French and the

  339
  other of which they had made French; that this arrangement further gave to the French facilities for building railways which they did not before possess, the Committee would see that they were handicapped in a way that did not exist before in regard to developing the trade with South West China, and he asked them to agree that this Declaration had not given them any compensation for the sacrifices they had undeniably made. He also wished to refer to the commercial stipulations with Tunis. Was it proposed that those commercial stipulations were to be revised in any sense unfavourable to this country? If it were not so proposed, he could only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the French expected it would be done ["hear, hear!"], and it was surely not calculated to lead to better terms of friendship between the two countries if they raised hopes in their minds upon a trade subject which they had no intention of realising. If, on the other hand, it was intended to sacrifice their trade interests in Tunis, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out to the Committee what compensating advantage they were to get by the surrender of these privileges.
  *MR. CURZON: In reply to the Question which has just been put to me by the hon. Member about Tunis, I would remind him of the actual words of the Agreement. I think he will see, in Article 6, that our agreement with the French Government is governed by the stipulations of Article 40 of the treaty of 1875, which provides only for the revision of that treaty in order that the two contracting parties may have an opportunity of hereafter agreeing upon such an arrangement as may tend still further to the improvement of their mutual intercourse and the advancement of the interests of their respective peoples. That is a clear definition of the objects we have in view, and we shall certainly not lose sight of them in any negotiations we have with regard to Tunis. I welcome the opportunity of being permitted to say a few words upon the question of Siam. I am glad at last that the Government have been challenged in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] We have had a great deal of outside challenging by
  340
  distinguished personages, and, notably, by the late Prime Minister, who, commencing with a moderate statement at the beginning of the Session, has emboldened himself speech by speech until, during the last few weeks, he has reached the point of talking of "the surrender of Siam." [Laughter.] If we had been guilty of any surrender of Siam I want to know what the deputy of the late Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman opposite, has been doing during the last three months. ["Hear, hear!"] Parliament has been sitting since February 11, and if we have been guilty of this surrender of Siam, or even of British interests in Siam, why have we not had this question brought before the House——
  *SIR C. DILKE: I myself and two other hon. Members raised it on the Address.
  *MR. CURZON: Yes, but why have we not had it raised by official representatives on that Bench; why have we not had a formal Vote of Censure moved; why have we not had a day asked; why have we not had the adjournment of the House moved? [Cheers.] Why am I now to get up in the House and answer the mild and mellifluous harangue which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite? [Laughter.] I wait to hear repeated in this House, or anywhere else where we can answer, not on the public platform, the charges against Her Majesty's Government for having sacrificed either British or Siamese interests, and when those charges are made I shall be ready to answer them. It is my duty, however, to deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member. His Question is—
  "Why was the guarantee of Siam secured by the declaration limited, why did it not extend to the whole of the Siamese dominions?"
  We should have been glad to have guaranteed the whole of Siam; we were willing to give such a guarantee ourselves, but we were unable to procure it. The obstacle was that by the Treaty of 1893 Siam had ceded to France certain privileges and had deprived herself of other privileges in that part of the country which lay outside the Menam basin. We accepted the status quo; but there

  341
  Were special reasons why the Menam basin was selected. It was stated by Lord Salisbury in his accompanying Dispatch that it was a part of Siam in which British trade is chiefly interested. Out of the whole of the British subjects in Siam, of whom there are over 10,000, a large proportion are miners, pedlars, shopkeepers, and small traders engaged in that part of the country. If we look at the question from the point of view of Siam itself, it is true that on the map the superficial area of the Mekong basin is perhaps greater than the Menam basin. But maps give no idea of the value of territory; they only give a notion of its extent. In order that the Committee may learn what the Menam watershed is as against the Mekong watershed, let me point out that, out of 7,000,000 people in Siam, 5,000,000 live in the Menam basin. The export of rice from that part of the country is £2,000,000 a year, and of teak £75,000; so that the area which we have guaranteed to France is on the one hand that part of the kingdom which is most important to British interests, and, on the other, most essential to the security, prosperity, and development of Siam. I pass to the next point. The hon. Member in speaking of the provinces of Battambong and Angkor gave currency to a popular illusion, which it is most desirable should be corrected in this House. It is the illusion that under this Agreement there has been what may be called a partition of Siam, that is to say, the creation and guarantee of a central zone and the erection of two spheres of influence, possibly at some future day of possession, on either side, by the French on the east and the British on the south-west. I have often heard of the faculty that is possessed by ingenious persons of reading interpretations into treaties and Acts of Parliament which were not in the minds of the original designers; but I defy the most ingenious, or even the most unscrupulous exegesis to read any such interpretation as that which the hon. Member has suggested into this declaration before the House. Siamese rights remain intact over the whole of their dominions. They have not been added to and they have not been impaired by this agreement. France has not gained and Great Britain has not gained a single right under this agree-
  342
  ment beyond that which either possessed before. If there should be any doubt I would refer hon. Members to the view of Lord Salisbury as declared in his accompanying Dispatch: —
  "It might be thought that because we have engaged ourselves and have received the engagement of France not under any circumstances to invade this territory, that therefore we are throwing doubt upon the complete title and rights of the Siamese to the remainder of their kingdom, or, at all events, treating those rights with disregard. Any such interpretation would entirely misrepresent the intention with which this arrangement has been signed. We fully recognise the rights of Siam to the full and undisturbed enjoyment, in accordance with long usage or with existing treaties, of the entire territory comprised within her dominions, and nothing in our present action would detract in any degree from the validity of the rights of the King of Siam to those portions of his territory which are not affected by this treaty."
  Further, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a speech made in the French Chamber on February 24, said:——
  "If certain parts of the kingdom of Siam remain outside the clause of reciprocal neutralisation the omission must not be interpreted as implying the idea of a formal partition of these regions between the two contracting Powers."
  Whilst, in his speech closing the Debate on February 27 he spoke as follows:——
  "All the territories of the kingdom of Siam situated outside the basin of the Menam remain in exactly the same position as they were before."
  If, therefore, those were the declarations of the two Ministers who signed this Agreement, I fail to see where the opportunity for the interpretation of the hon. Member comes in. Then I come to the surrender of the trans-Mekong possession of Keng-Cheng. The hon. Member spoke about the sacrifice of this great waterway. What did he mean? The great waterway of the Mekong is a waterway which, in its upper reaches, no steamer has ever mounted or ever will mount, because there are rapids in every few score of miles of its course. It has never there been navigated, and never will be navigated; but even if it were navigable we have not sacrificed it, for under this Agreement we retain the right. Then the hon. Member says, "Why have you surrendered Keng-Cheng?" and Lord Rosebery in his speeches has made a great point about this surrender of British territory.

  343
  Why, with reference to this small slice of territory, about the sacrifice of which so much has been said, Lord Bosebery himself was prepared to give it away in 1893 as part of the buffer State; indeed, he proposed not only to give away that part of the district over the river, but also the part that lies on this side of the river. Let the Committee consider what is the character and extent of this territory alleged to be so wrongly surrendered. It is a small physical protuberance on the frontier of India; no trade route runs through it; it is from 14 to 21 days' distant from the nearest British military post, and 7 weeks distant from the nearest point on the railway; and it is cut off from communication with Burmah and India during the rains. On the other hand, this trans-Mekong possession had certain attractions for France; it was contiguous to her territories and she also had claims to it which she was unwilling to give up. In order, then, to secure an easy and intelligible frontier between the two countries this small excrescence of territory was surrendered. It is 1,250 square miles, mostly composed of mountains, with very few plains scattered between, and is inhabited by about 3,000 people only. This is the full extent of the great sacrifice and of the terrible surrender of British interests which has supplied Lord Rosebery with more than one platform peroration during the last two months. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Next, the Government have been asked why they did not by this Agreement secure the evacuation by the French of Chantabun. Assurances have been previously given in this matter, and I am sure those assurances will not be lost sight of by the French Government. But I would again point out to the Committee that the question of Chantabun was regulated by the Convention between France and Siam in 1893. Our object was not to revise that Convention; it was a matter of agreement between France and Siam themselves. We accepted the conventional status quo, and the object we had in view was, not the supercession or even the execution of that Convention, but the future security of Siam. The hon. Member then went on to throw scorn upon the reciprocity of commercial advantages that have been granted in the provinces of Yun-nan and Szu-chuan,
  344
  but I do not think that either England or France derives any special advantage from that part of the Agreement. In one province France will have a slightly superior position, and in the other England will have a corresponding advantage. Commercial arrangements and reciprocity are the best possible guarantee that we can have for the development of this remote and interesting country without friction arising between two great countries trading with it. ["Hear, hear!"] I hope that in the few words I have said I have shown the Committee that in this matter there has been no sacrifice of British interests on the one hand and no surrender of Siamese rights on the other. ["Hear, hear!"] I would here remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that, while we have had Lord Rosebery going up and down the country talking of the surrender of Siamese territory and the sacrifice of British interests, the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs, in his speech about Egypt, made the very important remark that he for one was delighted with the agreement relating with Siam. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to British interests we have done that which ought to be the object of our policy in Siam. We abandoned the idea of creating a small and fictitious buffer State in the remote region of the Upper Mekong—which was the object of the late Prime Minister—and we have constituted a genuine buffer State between France and England in the shape of the core and centre of Siam itself; and this has been done without abrogating one tittle of the rights of Siam. ["Hear, hear!"] After all, who are the persons qualified to criticise or to express approbation of this Agreement? I imagine they are three in number—the Siamese Government, the British traders in Siam. and the Indian Government. Well, the Siamese Government welcome the conclusion arrived at, and, on the whole, are satisfied with it; I have been in communication with British merchants and traders in Siam, and I can say on their behalf that they are gratified with the Agreement; and I have reason to believe that the Indian Government are equally content. I do not wish, however, the remarks I have made to be taken as implying that this Siamese Agreement is to be regarded

  345
  as a British victory. I should be sorry to suggest any such view as that. For my own part I would prefer to eliminate from the consideration of the question all idea of conflict between two rivals, such as England and Prance, in which one must necessarily be the gainer and the other the loser. I would regard it rather as a compromise, achieved, as all compromises must be, in a spirit of good will and concession. I think we may quote this Siamese Agreement as a fair example of the methods by which great countries which sometimes find their interests opposed can, in circumstances of rather acute division, by a conciliatory attitude on the one side and the other, compose the, difficulties that threatened a short time ago to split them asunder. ["Hear, hear"!]
  SIR E. GREY: I must say a few words in answer to the challenge which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me. The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself somewhat sensitive to the criticism which has been passed upon the Agreement with the French Government about Siam. I think he might have borne in mind that the action of his predecessors with regard to Siam was frequently made the subject of criticism by himself and other hon. Members opposite both inside and outside this House. Where the conduct of his predecessors has been the subject of very acute criticism from himself and his friends he must, at least, be prepared to meet with criticism in return. Under this Agreement the Government have undoubtedly made very large concessions, and I cannot help feeling surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have been a party to making them. The buffer State which was proposed has gone. It was never in our opinion the only expedient, but we thought it was a good expedient at the time when it was first proposed because it appeared to be acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman told us on a former occasion that he did not attach very much importance to the so-called buffer State because, British interests could be maintained in another way, but the alternative scheme which he favoured has disappeared. Remembering the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in the last Parliament, and the importance which he then attached to Kiang-cheng, it is surprising to us
  346
  that he should have spoken to-night in so different a tone. The object of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman pressed upon his predecessors when he was in Opposition was that there should be a joint guarantee of the integrity of Siam, but he has only achieved that object himself very partially. He used to tell us that Chantabun was of considerable importance to British trade, and in Opposition he never admitted the right of the French to remain in possession of Chantabun. I think he might at least, have made some condition with regard to the occupation of Chantabun before he made the concession with regard to Kiang-cheng. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it cannot be supposed that the existing title to Patabang and Ankor has been weakened, I admit that he is right as regards the terms of the Agreement, but when he says that it is only persons possessing an ingenious faculty who could put another interpretation upon the matter, I may point out that there is a great excuse for that interpretation. I read a speech delivered by the Foreign Minister in the French Chamber a short time ago, and he used words to the effect that there was a zone of protection and influence which embraced the province of Patabang and Ankor. These words, I think, supply an excuse for the interpretation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Under this Agreement the control of the waterway of the Mekong has been handed over to the French Government. The French desire this because they believe that this waterway will be an avenue to trade and can be used as an entrance into certain provinces of China. I do not quarrel with that part of the Agreement, unless by its operation we have prejudiced our own rights of access to China and our own avenues of trade. If our opportunities of trade with China have not been prejudiced by what has been done, I should not grudge this concession to France. But I ask for an assurance that our access to China has not been prejudices. Our true policy is not to shirk competition in trade, to obtain most-favoured-nation terms, to have our own routes, and not to be jealous of other Powers. We are rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have been the person to make these great concessions, but, if they

  347
  bring about a better feeling between ourselves and the French Government, we shall have a quid pro quo. You cannot measure the merits of an agreement of this kind by reckoning items and striking a mere business balance. I would judge it by larger considerations, and, in as far as it promoted better relations between us and the French Government, it must meet with our approval. I believe it did promote better relations at the time, but I regret to say that recent policy has tended to make the relations that were then formed less fruitful and less fertile than they promised at one time to be. However, I hope that the difficulties to which I allude may pass away. We wish to clearly understand what the policy of the Government is; we wished to be assured, not necessarily now, that we are not making these concessions as a part of a hand-to-mouth policy merely to suit the convenience of the moment, but as part of a large and consistent policy in which we shall get a quid pro quo and increase our friendly relations with foreign Powers.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTdid not propose to go into the questions debated between the two eminent Gentlemen who represented the present and the late Governments on Foreign affairs; it was quite apparent that both those Gentlemen took somewhat different views of the duties of this country in regard to Siam when they were in Opposition to when they were in Office. There had undoubtedly been great concessions made to France in the last Siamese Convention. When the subject was raised in the first Debate of the Session he refrained from going into any details because he hoped the concession to France was, to use the words of the hon. Baronet, part of a large settlement. By making it he hoped we were on the point of obtaining some corresponding concessions from the Government of France, and were doing something to ease and mitigate the various European and other difficulties with which England was confronted. He objected to the cession of the district of which Mongsin was the capital because, only a few months ago, the British representative in Burmah promised the tribes around that country that their country should never be given up. Sometimes
  348
  promises of that kind had to be broken, and he did not propose to go, on this occasion, closely into the questions of the various points of the concessions to France made in the last Siamese Convention. He was, however, much surprised to find that the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) objected to the policy of the Government on this point, because he remembered the period for which the Government that included the hon. Baronet was responsible, made concession after concession with regard to Siam, and got absolutely no quid pro quo. In fact, it was undoubtedly the very grave blunders made by Lord Rosebery's Government in 1893 which had led to the present unfortunate condition of affairs in Siam. During the last two or three years we had made concessions to France in almost every quarter of the globe. We had abandoned not only this great territory in Siam, but the late Government gave up the whole Hinterland of Sierra Leone. We allowed the French to make encroachments on our Niger territory, and we had made enormous concessions to France in Madagascar. To-night they heard there was a good prospect even of our commercial rights—under existing treaties— being abrogated. We had followed the French and Russian lead in Armenia, to our great loss and to the injury of the Armenians. In the Far East, the late Government allowed France and Russia to have their own way. As to the settlement of the war between China and Japan, Lord Rosebery allowed our natural ally—Japan—to be crushed out of the advantages she had gained in Northern China, to be driven out of Port Arthur, and probably out of Korea also. We allowed great advantages to be obtained by Russia in the north of China, and we allowed equally great advantages to be gained by France in relation to her trade in South-Eastern China. We had made all these concessions to the Government of the French Republic. He was not prepared to say that some of them would not have been worth making if there was the slightest evidence that we had got anything in return; but he could not find a trace of any quid pro quo. As to their new Egyptian policy, he heartily congratulated the Government, because by the advance to Dongola we were endeavouring to undo in

  349
  some degree the appalling results of the greatest crime and blunder which was ever committed by any Government in this century, viz., the evacuation of the Soudan in 1884 and 1885. That blunder had cost the Soudan loss incredible and indescribable, and horrors and sufferings almost unparalleled in the history of the world. No one could read the accounts given by Father Ohrwalder and Slatin Pasha without realising the horrible suffering which our cowardly policy in 1884 and 1885 inflicted upon the unfortunate people of the Soudan. The Government proposed under the stress of necessity to try to undo a portion of the misery inflicted by that surrender. It might have been supposed that this would have been an occasion on which we should have had the congratulation and support of the Government of the French Republic. Quite the contrary. The moment we undertook a necessary and humane policy of this kind, every difficulty was thrown in our way by the French Government. He would not deal with the Dongola question in detail, but that expedition and the conduct of the French Government with regard to that advance had been of great use to this country in one respect. It had been the touchstone which had shown them who were their true friends and where their true support could be found. They were embarked on, perhaps, an expensive and prolonged enterprise in the interest of Egypt and the Soudan, yet they found themselves harassed at every point by the French Government assisted by Russia. Where did their support come from? The Governments of Italy and Austria heartily supported them, and Germany, though with less enthusiasm, perhaps, joined in supporting the policy of the Government. That was a point he bad often endeavoured to impress upon the House—that their true allies were the great stable monarchies of Central Europe, and that it was impossible to hope for any satisfactory alliance or any considerable understanding with France or Russia in matters of European policy. He hoped this lesson would not be lost on the country. Their only hope of recovering their position in Europe, and, above all, defending the general peace was to rely on the support of what is known as the
  350
  Triple Alliance. He wanted to say a few words about the position of affairs in the Far East. Although not at the moment attracting great public notice, and although not openly menacing at the present time, affairs in the Far East might develop an early crisis. The Japanese were deprived of the position which they had won by their courage and skill by a combination of Great European Powers, and he contended that the only way in which England could uphold her enormous interests in the Far East, in China and in the Northern Pacific, was by an understanding with Japan. The late Government allowed Japan to be deprived of the main results of its victory over China. It was in the power of this country, without challenging a contest with any Great Power, but simply by her moral influence and support, to give Japan on the seas that protection which alone Japan required in order to hold her own in the North-East of Asia. That was a matter to which he ventured to call the attention of the Government. The late Government were confronted by the crisis, and they had it in their power, by raising their hand, to prevent the coercion of Japan by France and Russia. As a matter of fact, they abandoned Japan to the Franco-Russian coercion, and then, forsooth, tried to take credit for not joining the coercers of Japan. He trusted nothing of the kind would be allowed to happen in future. A close entente with the gallant and progressive Japanese nation was the true policy for this country in the Far East.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid, the Under Secretary of State, in his reply, had referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire as a mellifluous speech. He thought that speech was a very good one, and put the case admirably. The right hon. Gentleman had actually denied that night that the river Mekong flowed through the province of Yunnan; he thought the right hon. Gentleman, since he had come into office, must have lost that accurate knowledge of Siam which he once possessed.
  *MR. CURZONsaid, the right hon. Member had misunderstood him. He had said that the river rose in Tibet.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might forget what he had said; but it was as he had stated, and

  351
  his hon. Friend beside him was perfectly accurate in the statement he had made. He agreed with what had fallen from the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to this Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary had said that this Treaty was popular with the Government of India, the Government of Siam, and the British merchants, and that those were the parties principally concerned. The Indian Government might be to some extent satisfied with that part of the Treaty which dealt with their side of Siam, but as regarded the other two parties, he doubted if the right hon. Gentleman had represented the facts of the case. Although one or two traders having financial interests in the centre of Siam might have professed satisfaction with the Treaty, he very much doubted whether the Chambers of Commerce were satisfied with the arrangements which had been made. He had read translations of the publications of the Siamese Government as to this Agreement, and, so far from expressing their satisfaction with this Treaty, they said that they hoped for the best because they were advised by their Legations in Paris and London that nothing better could be done for them. The tone of that statement was not that of satisfaction. There were several clauses which were peculiar and exceptional in this Treaty. There was the clause about Tunis, and about the Lower Niger, and it was difficult to explain why those clauses appeared in this Treaty at all. Who was to be pleased by these clauses being put in? Arrangements with regard to the delimitation of our territory on the Lower Niger were taking place before this Treaty was signed. The reason why the Tunis Clause, and the Niger Clause were put into this Siamese arrangement must have been to make this thing more pleasant to French feeling than it would have been without these clauses. Of course, there were make-weights in the Treaty in our favour. For instance, there were those clauses in it which gave us rights in China which France had obtained for herself under her Treaty with China. His hon. Friend had read to the Committee the actual words of the clauses, and showed that the rights conferred upon France by the terms of her Treaty with China were
  352
  rights that were geographically peculiar to France and limited to her alone, and that therefore they could not be transferred even by France herself to Great Britain. France had annexed to the Treaty a Declaration intended for home consumption, which showed that we could obtain no advantages under those rights so transferred to us. No doubt these clauses, which purported to embody the agreement arrived at between the two countries had been considered by Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, and had been drawn up with the view of pacifying the French, but he was afraid that that object had not been attained. With regard to Siam, the Treaty had been entered into, and all that we could do now was to endeavour to make the best of it. One complaint he had to make was that the Foreign Office did not give the country the information with regard to the territories under its control that the Colonial Office did. If they had received as much information with regard to the Niger as they would if the territories had been under the control of the Colonial Office, they would have known more of the communications which had passed during the last few years between the Niger Company and the French Government. As it was, however, there was a total absence of information on the subject. No such information was given by the Foreign Office as the Colonial Office would and did give with regard to the territories under their control. No account had been given of the revenues derived from these territories. An undertaking had, however, been now given that the boundaries of the territories on the Lower Niger should be settled. That in itself was a matter much to be desired, because, during the last few years, the delimitation of these boundaries had almost led to war.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he did not know that he so entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman sitting by his side with regard to the Siamese question as he did in regard to some other matters. This question of the frontiers, to use a vulgarism, never caught on in England, and, indeed, no one cared very much about it. Inasmuch as nobody seemed to know whence the Mekong came and whither it flowed, it did seem absolutely ridiculous

  353
  to think that under the late Government we were within an inch of war upon some question as to the frontier that should be drawn on one side or other of this river. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked why it was that a vote of want of confidence had not been proposed from the Front Opposition Bench in regard to the action of the Government upon the Siamese question. The reason was that if anyone had got up on that Bench and moved a vote of want of confidence in the Government because they had come to what he called a reasonable settlement of this question, he would find himself in a minority even on the Bench on which he sat. He congratulated the Government on having been wise in this matter, and his only regret was that they had not applied to other parts of the world the principle they had applied to the settlement of the Mekong difficulty. Complaint was made that although better relations had been established with France in Asia, the effect of that had been weakened by the action of the Government elsewhere. He was sorry that was so; but still, he thought, so far, so good, and he was glad to think that if we were not entirely in harmony with France in Africa, at least, thanks to the present Government, we were in harmony with her in Asia. As to Siam, we had no more right to Siam than the French. First we took Lower Burma, then we took Upper Burma, and because we did so we came to the conclusion that we had special rights in Siam. If we acquired any rights in Siam for having stolen a province on one side, surely the French had acquired the same rights by stealing a province on the other side. [Laughter.] He would have preferred to see both the French and English Governments leave the Siamese to themselves. He was altogether opposed to European Governments going about in this grandiose way and annexing territories nominally in the interests of civilisation or Christianity, or for the purpose of putting down plurality of marriages—[laughter]—whereas, in reality, they wanted to steal other persons' goods. Both the English and French Governments had cast their eyes on this Naboth's vineyard, and he was, therefore, very glad that instead of foolishly going to war, the Government had come
  354
  to a reasonable agreement in the matter. He had not the slightest idea as to the merits or any of the details of the question. He could not even follow the names of the different places alluded to; but he did say that whenever a Government—he did not care whether it was Liberal or Conservative—substituted for bullying and threatening and declarations of possible war, a fair and reasonable negotiation based on the give and take principle, with an ultimate proposal for arbitration, that Government would have his support.
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Curzon) had attacked him for asserting that the Mekong was a possible waterway for commercial purposes. He now held in his hand a book, to a passage of which he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The book was published this year by a gentleman who had been in Siam and had been upon the Mekong himself, which was more, he believed, than the right hon. Gentleman had done. He said:—
  "Bordering on the three Chinese provinces of Yun-nan, Kwang-si and Kwang-tung, and within easy reach of Szu-chuan, they possess in the two important waterways of the Mongka and the Mekong unrivalled facilities for penetrating into the heart of China."
  MR. W. ALLENcalled attention to certain grievances of the natives of the Niger Company's territory. These grievances arose out of the right of the natives to trade in their own markets. It appeared that complaints were made by the natives to the Home Government as far back as 1876, when certain proposals were made to which the natives objected, and a long dispute ensued, extending over a period of six years. Then, Consul Hewitt went up the Niger and opened the question again with the natives, and they signed an agreement with him which assured to them the sole trading rights in their own markets. This did not satisfy the natives, and in 1884 and 1885 the French Government made advances to them and tried to induce them to sign certain commercial treaties with the French to the exclusion of the English merchants who had before been in possession of these markets. The natives declined to sign the treaties, and in 1886 they entered into an important

  355
  trade treaty with this country by which it was agreed that all the markets should be absolutely free, and that the natives and European traders should be able to use them equally. Article 6 of the treaty laid this down perfectly clear. But very soon after the treaty was signed Consul Hewitt again went back to the Niger territory and acquainted the chiefs with the fact that the Government had granted a Charter to the Royal Niger Company. By the rules of the Charter and the regulations enforced under it, which were approved by that House, the natives were prevented trading in the markets which had been guaranteed them by their treaty with this country only a very short time before. The Report of Sir John Kirke, and the disturbances in the Brass district, conclusively proved that, under the present regulations, it was absolutely impossible for the natives to trade in their own markets. In order to be able to trade equally on the Niger, any native of Brass had to pay, in the first place, £50 for a licence to trade, then £10 a year extra for every trade station at which he carried on his trade, and £100 annually if he carried on a trade in liquor. Without making these payments it was absolutely impossible for the natives to do any business in the Niger territory. In consequence of being thus deprived of their trade the natives had been obliged to take to smuggling. They had practically to choose between smuggling and losing their trade in the markets which they had been using for generations. Sir John Kirke himself said that under existing conditions there was and must be smugglers if the natives were to trade at all in these markets. It seemed to him most unjust, after this country had guaranteed the natives free rights in all the markets of the Niger territory, that then the House should approve of regulations which practically compelled the selfsame natives to have recourse to smuggling in order to keep from starvation. Their canoes were seized by the Company's servants, and without being challenged the natives were shot on the assumption that they were engaged in smuggling. It seemed rather a strong punishment to be shot for smuggling, but to be shot without even being challenged, without any contraband goods being found upon them,
  356
  but when they were simply carrying goods from one part to another, was a high handed proceeding, and one which the Government ought to render it impossible for the Niger Company to carry on any longer. There were also allegations that the Company ill-treated native women in these districts, and whilst they had not attempted in any way to meet many of the charges, they had answered others by the evidence of servants in their own pay which, he contended, was the most unsatisfactory testimony it was possible to obtain. He would ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to ascertain if the regulations of the Niger Company could not be revised so as to prevent the natives being unjustly treated in the future as they had been in the past.
  MR. VESEY KNOXasked if the Government had come to any conclusion as to the Niger Protectorate being transferred from the control of the Foreign to that of the Colonial Office. It was essential that if any control was to be kept over a Chartered Company like the Niger Company it should be transferred to the Colonial Office, which was better equipped for dealing with it than the Foreign Office could be. The latter had so many things of a different nature to deal with that it could not keep proper control over the Niger Company. On the Opposition side of the House it was recognised that the Colonial Secretary, in dealing with African matters, had shown an energetic and powerful spirit, and that he had dealt in the spirit of a strong man with the Chartered Company. It was eminently desirable that the same spirit shown in South Africa should be shown in West Africa to the Niger Company, and that the transfer of the Niger Coast Protectorate from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office should be carried out.
  *MR. CURZONexplained that the transfer could not be carried out. A Conference relating to the Niger Protectorate was even now taking place in Paris. It was essentially a Foreign Office Conference, held under Foreign Office auspices, and all the negotiations had been through the Foreign Office. The other matter that had been alluded to was under the consideration of the Foreign Office at that moment. Sir

  357
  George Goldie had been in communication with our representative at Old Calabar. ft was hoped to prevent a recurrence of recent events, and to take steps which would tend to the consolidation of the Protectorate in the future.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONappealed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Colonial Secretary to give the suggested transfer of the Niger Protectorate from the Foreign to the Colonial Office their attention. His own experience at the Colonial Office, and seeing something of the working of the Niger Company, decidedly led him to the conclusion, not necessarily that it was badly administered, but that there was a strong suspicion on the part of merchants dealing with West Africa that the Niger Company was treated in a different way from others, and that the Company had a monopoly from which a great deal of evil resulted.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, he wished to address to the Secretary for the Colonies questions which concerned his Department. Was there any truth in the statements which had appeared in the last few days reporting the immediate retirement of Sir Hercules Robinson from the post he occupies; what precautions, if any, are taken in South Africa to keep the Colonial Office better informed than the officials appear to have been during certain recent occurrences in that part of the world? Without referring to those occurrences, he was justified in asking whether the Colonial Office had taken any steps to improve the character of what he might term their Intelligence Department so far as South Africa was concerned. There was a widespread feeling that the Colonial Office were, to some extent, in the dark as regarded these occurrences; and he asked for an assurance that steps would be taken to improve the method of obtaining information for the Colonial Office. Another point he wished to mention was one on which at Question time a Question was addressed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the answer he gave was not, under the circumstances, a surprising one; he asked that notice should be given of the Question. It related to Delagoa Bay; the character of the reply was calculated to give rise to one interpretation only,
  358
  and that was that he was not prepared to deny the statement which had been published in the newspapers. There were reasons why the House ought to know at the earliest possible time whether or not there was any foundation for the statement respecting the alleged purchase of Delagoa Bay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any truth in the report about the retirement of Sir H. Robinson. I have not seen any such report, and I have not heard anything about it either from Sir H. Robinson or anyone else. The hon. Member asks me whether any change will be made in the Intelligence Department of the Colonial Office. The speaker who preceded him was anxious that very large additional territory should be transferred to the Colonial Office. If the Colonial Office is already so badly served I am afraid we shall not be able to put in a claim to larger responsibilities. But I am not aware that the Colonial Office has been badly served with regard to its intelligence from South Africa; on the contrary, I am perfectly satisfied with it, and I think there is no occasion to make any change. As to the matter of very great importance referred to by the hon. Member respecting Delagoa Bay, I am very glad to be able to give a reply. I understand that in some papers a definite statement has appeared to the effect that the purchase of Delagoa Bay has been concluded, and that even the sum said to have been paid for it has been stated. Sir, there is not an atom of foundation for the statement. [Cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEurged that the Report stage of the Vote might be taken at an hour when there would be time to raise questions which had not been discussed in Committee.
  MR. FLYNN and MR. VESEY KNOXmade a similar appeal.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the Education Bill would be brought in on Tuesday. On Monday, the first Order would be the Naval Works Bill, which ought not to take long; then would come the Motion to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and then the Report of the Vote on Account,

  359
  when there ought to be time to discuss any questions left unconsidered.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES (COMPENSATION, &c.).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation for damage caused to any lands, within the limits prescribed by Order of Her Majesty in Council, that may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the execution of Military Manœuvres; and the payment of remuneration to the Compensation Officers and Members of the Court of Arbitration appointed under the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 27th April.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (LONDON) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 24th June.
  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 24th April.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 17th April.
  RIGHTS OF WAY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 21st April.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 22nd April.
  DERELICT VESSELS (REPORT), BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 15th April.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  FISHERIES ACTS (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Fisheries Acts relating to Norfolk and Suffolk; ordered to be brought in by Captain Pretyman, Mr. Penrose FitzGerald, and Mr. Legh; presented accordingly, and read 1°; to be read 2° upon Thursday 9th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 164.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Question that "This House do now adjourn,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, I wish to make it clear what business is to be taken on Monday and Tuesday of next week. On Monday the first Order will be the Third Reading of the Naval Works Bill; the next will be the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates; and the third will be the Report of the Vote on Account and the Report of the Supply already taken. I shall move to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule in order that business may not be interrupted, and I shall give notice of the Motion by which the House will be asked to meet at 12 o'clock on Tuesday, in order that the Education Bill may be introduced.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNasked whether the Naval Works Bill and the Vote on Account could not be got through early on Monday, as his hon. Friends had no desire to sit late.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the hon. Member will use his influence with his friends I will use my influence with mine. [Laughter.]
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.