Commons Sitting of 4 August 1897

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
Lords Amendments to this Bill considered, and agreed to.
FOREIGN OFFICE.

  QUESTION OF ORDER.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to call the attention of Mr. Speaker to the incident which occurred yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall for information to a speech of Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords. In answer to a question whether there was any precedent for an hon. Member of the House being referred for information to a speech made in the other House, Mr. Speaker said that he believed that a precedent

  325
  had occurred during the present Session. But as far back as two years ago, on August 19, 1895, he had protested against the establishment of a precedent of the kind. On that occasion he had asked the Under Secretary for War on whom the appointment of Commander-in Chief of the Army had been conferred, and the right hon. Gentleman had informed him that a statement on the subject would be made by the Secretary for War in the House of Lords. The Speaker had then said that the question of privilege did not arise, but the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War thought better of the matter, and gave the House of Commons the information which was intended to be given first, in the House of Lords. He wished to know from the Speaker whether the question raised a point of order or of privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think, as I said yesterday, and as I seem to have said in 1895, although I had forgotten it, that any question of order arises, nor do I think that a question of privilege arises, though it is no doubt the case that in the House of Commons information is more generally given directly to the House—["hear, hear!"]—and not by reference to the House of Lords. It is a somewhat unusual occurrence, but I do not think that any question of order or of privilege in the strict sense can arise.
  MR. MACNEILL: Oh, yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: It not being a question of order or of privilege, I do not quite see what is the locus standi of the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for the Colonies who were to be the members of the reconstructed Board of Directors of the British South Africa Company, and who among those directors were to be specially appointed to represent and protect Imperial interests.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I think that this question has been put down under some misapprehension, and the hon. Member must be aware of what took place on the
  326
  subject. The Government undertook, as soon as the Inquiry of the Commission, into South African matters was concluded to consider and to deal with the whole question of the administration of the Chartered Company. We are now engaged in that Inquiry, which may take us some time. We have further undertaken, as soon as we have formed some views of our own on the subject we would submit them to the Chartered Company, to the High Commissioner and to the Government of Cape Colony, and I have since undertaken to submit them also to the Government of Natal for their criticisms and suggestions, and it will be only after that has been gone through that we can make any statement upon the matter.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I put down the question in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was to be a reconstruction of the Board.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested during my speech that the present constitution of the Board had proved to be unsatisfactory. No doubt that is one of the matters which will receive our most careful attention.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND TRANSFER BILL.
  Bill, as amended, further considered.
  Clause 20,—

  POWER TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF TITLE ON SALE.
  (1.) Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order in Council, declare, as respects any county or part of a county mentioned or defined in the Order, that, on and after a day specified in the Order, registration of title to land is to be compulsory on sale, and thereupon a person shall not, under conveyance on sale executed on or after the day so specified, acquire the legal estate in any freehold land in that county, or part of a county, unless or until he is registered as proprietor of the land.
  (2.) In this section the expression "conveyance on sale" moans an instrument executed on sale by virtue whereof there is conferred or completed, a title under which an application for registration as first proprietor of land may be made under the principal Act.
  (3.) The title with which a proprietor of freehold land is registered in pursuance of this section shall be not less than a possessory title; but nothing in this section shall prevent

  327
  any person from being registered with any other title if the Registrar is satisfied of his title.
  (4.) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to revoke or vary any Order made under this section.
  (5.) In the case of every Order proposed to be made under this section, notice shall, six months before the Order is made, be given to the council of the county to which such Order is proposed to be applied. A draft of the proposed Order, together with the name of at least one place within or conveniently near to the county where a district registry office will be established, shall accompany the notice, and shall also be published in the Gazette.
  (6.) If within three months after receipt of the draft the county council, at a meeting specially called for the purpose, at which two-thirds of the whole number of the members shall be present, resolve, and communicate to the Privy Council their resolution, that in their opinion compulsory registration of title would not tend to facilitate or cheapen the transfer of land in their county the Order shall not be made.
  (7.) The first Order made under this section shall not affect more than one county.
  (8.) Except as to a county which shall have signified through its county council, pursuant to a resolution of such council passed at a meeting at which two-thirds of the whole number of the members shall be present, its desire that registration of title shall be compulsorily applied to it, no further order shall be made under this section until the expiration of three years from the making of the first Order.
  (9.) Any Order made under this section shall be made with due regard to the utilisation (if practicable) of any land registry existing in the county to which compulsory registration is proposed to be applied or in any adjoining county.
  (10.) For the purposes of this section the word county shall have the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1888, and shall include a county borough; and the word county council shall include the council of such borough.
  (11.) The City of London shall be a separate county, and the mayor, aldermen, and commons, in common council assembled, shall be deemed the county council thereof; and for the purpose of this section the representation of the said city on the London County Council shall not be computed in the number of the county council not entitled to vote.
  (12.) Proceedings in regard to any proposed Order may be taken at any time after the passing of this Act.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEmoved to insert after the word "county" the words "and such county shall not be the County of London." He said that the Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, had said that it was proposed by the Measure to proceed by the most gradual steps and to put its provisions into operation in a limited area only, so
  328
  that Parliament might be guided in future legislation on the subject by the light of experience. It was now, however, proposed that the experiments should be tried in the administrative County of London. Undoubtedly the County of London was a limited area, but so was England, and, for that matter, the world itself, but it was an area that contained the greater part of the wealth of the country. It had evidently been the original intention of the framers of the Bill that the "limited area" in question should contain a due proportion of agricultural land, whereas the administrative County of London consisted exclusively of houses and building land. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Privy Council from issuing an Order bringing the provisions of the Measure into operation in any county within three months from next week. In his opinion those provisions ought not to come into operation until the new County Council was elected. The effect of the operation of the measure would be to put a stop to the transfer of land in Greater London for a long period. He appealed to the Government and to the House to require that the experiment to be carried out under the Bill should be tried in the first instance in a really limited area, not in the enormous area of the county of London. He begged to move the amendment which stood upon the paper in his name. ["Hear!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that the hon. Gentleman had repeated with great emphasis the speech he had made last night and had expressed his fear that the Privy Council might rush the operation of the Bill during the existence of the expiring London County Council. It was evident that the hon. Gentleman had not read Clause 24 of the Bill, under which the provisions of the Measure were not to come into operation until the 1st of January, 1898, before which time no steps whatever could be taken towards putting the provisions into force. The reason why the administrative county of London had been selected for carrying out the experiment proposed to be tried under the Measure, was because there was already existing in it a Register Office

  329
  under the management of officers of great experience who were well acquainted with the work that would have to be performed in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, and because the County of London was the area in which the best experience could be gained with the least friction. He could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to leave out from the word "section" to "order" in order to insert the words "and in any case no other Order shall be made under this sub-section." He believed that that Amendment would carry out the understanding that had been arrived at last night.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERthought the words a considerable improvement, and he was willing to accept the statement of the Attorney General that they carried out the arrangement come to last night, but to prevent any possible misconstruction he wished to state what he understood to be the position. In the first instance the Lord Chancellor might select any county he thinks proper, and there was a distinct understanding that that county was to be the administrative county of London.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Excluding the City.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Excluding the City. The Lord Chancellor might give notice to the County Council of London, and they would have the option, within three months, of determining whether or not they would have this compulsion. If they said they would not then the Lord Chancellor would have to select some other county on which to try the experiment; but assuming they did accept it, and assuming the Act to be put in force in London, then no further Order was to be made under this Act at all for three years. Then, at the expiration of three years, no Order could be made by the Privy Council unless and until the County Council asks for it in accordance with the terms of the Act. If the County Council asks for it, and the Lord Chancellor is disposed to advise the Privy Council to make the Order, then the Order shall lie on the Table of either House of Parliament, and, no objection being taken, the Order can then
  330
  be made; but at the expiration of three years, the County Council asking for it, and Parliament not dissenting, this order can be made to cover any county or part of a county. On the understanding that the words of the Attorney General carried out that arrangement he accepted them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the right hon. Gentleman had with perfect lucidity explained the arrangement come to last night in the House, and which the Government thought would be completely carried out by the Amendment proposed by the Attorney General.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLcould not see why the first Order should be limited to one county and why the Lord Chancellor should not have several "tries" of his system at the same time.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid that while he too should like to see the Bill tried on a larger scale, they must take what they could get, and he was well pleased to think that what they had got would provide a thoroughly adequate test of the efficiency of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. G. BUTCHERmoved to add at the end of Sub-section (8), "and provided that in the case of an Order made under this Sub-section the provisions of Sub-section (6), shall not apply."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (8) insert,—
  (9) Every Order of Council made under this Section shall, within thirty days from the date thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, or within twenty days from the commencement of the next Session, if Parliament be not sitting, be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if within forty days of any Order being so laid an Address in either House disapproving of such Order be carried, such Order shall be void and of no effect."—(Attorney General.)
  MR. BUTCHERmoved at the end of Sub-section (10) to insert—
  "10a.—(1) In the event of any portion of a county or part of a county as regards which an Order has been made under this section being included in a county borough as regards which

  331
  no Order has been made under this section, such Order shall cease to be in force within such included portion of the county.
  "(2) In the event of any portion of a county or part of a county as regards which no Order has been made under this section being included in a county borough as regards which an Order has been made under this section, such Order shall apply to such included portion of the county."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after each "in," in the words "a county borough" the words "another county or in."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to; Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (12).—(Mr. Butcher.)

  RULES AND FEE ORDERS.
  (1.) General rules under section one hundred and eleven of the principal Act shall be made by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the registrar, a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court to be chosen by the Judges of that Division, and three other persons, one to be chosen by the General Council of the Bar, one by the Board of Agriculture, and one by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) at beginning, insert:—
  "Regulations may be made by the Lord Chancellor, under section one hundred and six of the principal Act, altering or adding to the official styles of the registrar and other officers of the registry, for the purposes of this Act."—(Attorney General.)
  SIR H. FOWLER: As an Amendment to the Attorney General's New Clause (Provision for the Yorkshire registries of deeds), line 13, after "agreement" moved to insert "but no sum shall be payable for compensation in respect of any future loss of fees consequent upon such transfer." As matters stood, if the County Councils of Yorkshire should assent to the land registries being transferred to the Land Registry and should say that we should have had more fees if we had not assented to this, they might claim to be compensated out of the Consolidated Fund at the expense of the other taxpayers in the country for a benefit which was conferred upon the county of York alone. He submitted
  332
  that that was radically unsound, and would be an entirely new precedent which ought never to be instituted, and it would militate against any reforms in future it might be desirable to make in the law. The answer to this case was that the county of York under the clause need not have this registry unless it chose; it could not have it unless it was asked for. The County Council had no business to make any profit out of the registry at all. It was established in the interests of the freeholders of the county to be a self-supporting institution, as it had been during a long course of years. They had no right to tax the ratepayers for an institution which ought to be self-supporting; and he wanted to guard against their being entitled to claim compensation in respect of future loss of fees consequent on such transfer. He did not wish to interfere with the status quo. The County Council had to pay a considerable pension to the retired registrar, and he did not wish to impose an additional burden on the County Council. If the Government did not yield to his view he must take the opinion of the House, because it was a dangerous precedent to establish.
  MR. GEDGEassociated himself with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole of this sub-section might come out. It was not a Party matter but one of principle.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLagreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the principle mentioned. He did not agree, however, with the Amendment and he should vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment came in at the end of the third sub-section which applied to the case of the final agreement being made between the Government and the Local Authority. There was no suggestion in that sub-section that there should be any compensation paid in respect of the loss of fees, nor was such a suggestion made in the transference of registry in 1891. The next sub-section to which the argument of the right hon. Gentleman applied had nothing to do with the sub-section with which they were now dealing. If the proposed registry was set up alongside the registry of fees which existed now, it was obvious that the staff of the registry of fees would have to be maintained. The new registry working alongside the old might take

  333
  away a considerable part of their profits, and the result would be a considerable loss to the county.
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid that if the new Order came into force the registry of deeds would cease ipso facto, and they could not have the two systems going on side by side.
  CAPT. BETHELLsaid that for a certain time at any rate the two systems would be running side by side, and there would be two sets of officials. If they left it an open question, it was just at any rate that the county, having been at the expense during a long time to set up these establishments, to carry out the views of the State, ought not to be damnified by the fact that the State was now setting up a new system side by side with the old, until a final agreement was made therefor, and if the county lost money by the arrangement, then it ought to be compensated.
  MR. W. L. JACKSONhoped that the Government would adhere to the clause inserted in the Bill. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman object to the application of the principle in this case to the County of York, because he was under the impression that a similar principle was inserted in the Local Government Act for which the right hon. Gentleman was mainly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman was fearful that the Treasury would suffer, but the Treasury had agreed to the clause, and this fact was sufficient evidence to prove that in the opinion of the Treasury it was only a reasonable protection for the interests of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The Amendment would be in effect restrictive of the discretion of the arbitrator as to the amount he should award.
  MR. BUTCHERwished to support the clause as drawn by the Government. He believed that in the East Riding there was a loss on the fees, but in the West Riding a small profit, and he understood that what the Government proposed was that the ratepayers of the West Riding should not be deprived of the small advantage they gained from the existing system, while the intention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. H. Fowler) was that the arbitrator should be bound to exclude from his consideration any profit of this kind.
  MR. J. BRIGGsaid he was sorry to differ from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, whose experience of Parliament and legal matters he respected, but at the same time he had a right to speak, knowing as he did something of the West Riding of Yorkshire. He hoped that the clause which had been proposed by the Attorney General would be incorporated in the Bill. Under the circumstances there was no guarantee that Yorkshire would not be interfered with in the future, because it only required somebody to object and then the Act would soon be made to apply to Yorkshire, or there might come a time when the County Council itself would apply to put the compulsory part of the Bill in operation. Although he was not old enough to know the circumstances under which the Wine and Coal Dues of London were purchased, he was told that the circumstances of the London Bill were not by any means analogous to the circumstances of this present Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the registration fees charged in Yorkshire, and about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was in such trouble, it would be very difficult to so regulate them under this Bill, either to insure a profit or to save a loss. Indeed, at the present moment in the East Riding there was an actual loss. The fees were very small, ranging only from 1s. to 7s. 6d., and upon a transaction of £1,000 the fee would only amount to a 200th part of one per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] To make a reduction on that could only be a reduction from 1s. to 10d. and he did not think that 2d. would be an appreciable relief. And these fees, such as they were, were taken from the county as a whole and went back to the county. The fees were statutory fees and the whole thing had been arranged without an attempt at earning a profit. These Registries in Yorkshire had been carried on for at least 200 years, and Yorkshire was justified in asking that the fees paid should be the same as in the past. There had been a loss for many years and what little profit now went into the county fund for the West Riding was only obtained by skilful management and energetic work. Under the new arrangement, if this Bill passed into law, the

  335
  profit would be transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and the nation would receive the benefit instead of the county. He appealed to the House whether it was fair that the enterprise and intelligence of Yorkshire, which as a county had done so much for this question of registries and had incited the Government to adopt the system for the whole country, should be mulcted in the way proposed. It ought rather to be rewarded for the example it had set to the rest of the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid everybody would be glad to recognise the action taken by the great county of York in dealing with this question of land transfer. He thought they owed the county a debt of gratitude for the energy and public spirit it had shown, and for the steps it had already taken to advance to a rational solution of this question. ["Hear, hear!"] But, though he held that opinion and had no desire to run counter in any way to the powerful representation which the county of Yorkshire had, and deservedly had, in that House, he must confess that he did not appreciate the force of one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for the city of York. He said that there was a loss on the registration work in the East Riding and a gain in the West Riding, and he said that it would be very unfair to deprive the West Riding of this gain, and that full compensation should be given out of the Treasury. If that argument had any value, he presumed that it would be equally fair to ask the East Riding for a contribution to the Treasury for saving it from loss by the operation of this Bill. He did not know whether or not the argument of his hon. Friend carried him to that conclusion. He was not arguing the point, but he must say that he did not see that any answer could be made to the claim that might be put forward by the country in the case of the East Riding if the views of his hon. Friend were sound. But he did not think they need go into these matters in detail. There had been a great alteration in the position of this question since the Amendment introduced by the Attorney General in Clause 20 by arrangement between both sides of the House last night. When the new clause they were now discussing was put on the Paper it rested with the Lord Chancellor
  336
  and the Privy Council to compel the county of York to adopt the new system. It may have been right, and probably it was right, to say that under those circumstances, if such compulsion were exercised, the county of York should be compensated for any loss it sustained in consequence. But now the matter was entirely voluntary. It rested with the county of York alone to say whether or not it would adopt the new Bill, and before it decided to adopt the new Bill it could make itself acquainted with all the terms of arrangement which the Treasury were prepared to make in connection with the taking over of the existing system. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole matter, both as regarded the adoption of the Act and the terms of arrangement, had been modified from beginning to end. He did not think, therefore, that under the circumstances, they ought to press too far an argument which, if it had any weight, would lead them not only to compensation for loss of profits, but to contribution for relief from losses. The Government were not bound in this matter to exercise any pressure one way or other on the House; but individually, if the matter went to a Division, he should vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 14.—(Division List, No. 375.)
  First Schedule—
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALmoved an Amendment providing that Section 18 of the Principal Act (various rights and liabilities not to be "incumbrances") should include "Estate Duty."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  SOUTH AFRICA AND COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  On the Order for the Second Heading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid that he wished to make some observations with regard to the policy of the Colonial Office. It had been his intention to speak on the Report of the Colonial Office Vote, but he missed the opportunity owing to the circumstance that when the Resolution was read out at the Table it did not reach his ears. In his opinion, the policy of the Colonial Secretary was a dangerous policy and likely to impair our reputation abroad. In the last 18 months the most interesting topic of public discussion had been the raid into the Transvaal at the beginning of last year. The proceedings of the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the raid he, like everybody else, had followed with great interest. He had expected that the Committee would report, "We have done that which we ought not to have done and have left undone that which we ought to have done, and there is no health in us." [A laugh.] He was glad to see, however, that their Report did contain something more satisfactory. In the first place, the Committee reported very strongly on the conduct of Mr. Rhodes, saying that there was no justification for a person in Mr. Rhodes' position subsidising and organising an armed insurrection against the Government of the South African Republic. The Committee went on to say that he had deceived the High Commissioner, representing the Imperial Government, that he had concealed his views from his colleagues and from the Board of the British South Africa Company, and that he had led his subordinates to believe that his plans were approved by his superiors. That, he maintained, was one of the heaviest indictments ever brought within his recollection against a public man. His point was this, that such conduct had been endorsed and approved by the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary having subscribed to the Report which gave such an account of Mr. Rhodes, yet proclaimed that nothing had
  338
  been proved which affected Mr. Rhodes' personal position as a man of honour. The right hon. Gentleman's definition of a man of honour was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. Everyone had his own standard of honour; but here was a filibuster, a deceiver and a betrayer, and they were called upon to consider that man a man of honour. That was the proud position to which the British Parliament had fallen, and in his belief it had made Great Britain a by-word with other nations. Suppose a French adventurer had made a raid on one of our colonies and a leading man in the French Parliament had got up and extolled that adventurer. Suppose he had travelled about France and been received with honour by the highest people in the country, were there any words of opprobrium and contempt we should not have used against France? But what made it still more pitiable and contemptible in the eyes of every honest man was that while we had conferred all these honours upon and extolled this man, we had inflicted heavy punishment on his unfortunate tools and subordinates. Some months ago he was very pleased to read Mr. Rhodes' definition of English public opinion. He called it "unctuous rectitude." He was not sure that he liked the phrase so well now. There was plenty of unction but no rectitude at all. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not care for foreign public opinion, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find sooner or later that the opinion of the civilised world could not be flouted, and that loss of character was in the end loss of power. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Colonial Secretary thought that a man could indulge in treason and treachery without losing his honour, what guarantee was there that he would not act so himself? He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman had two standards of honour. He belonged to the sect of Little Englanders, and he was proud of it, because it meant that England's policy should be a policy of peace and justice instead of one of force and fraud. He was a rather old Member of the House. That was the only honour he possessed, but the position was dear to him and, he believed, dear to every Member of the House, and therefore it

  339
  was that he made this protest against a policy which had reduced the country to the humiliating position he had described. He regretted he was not able to record his vote against this policy, but he trusted there were other Members who would join him in his protest in order to shew that they had no part nor lot in a policy which was so odious, so dangerous and so degrading. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid there was one matter connected with the Report of the Committee to which he desired to draw attention, and that was the restoration of their commissions to the officers who took part in the Jameson Expedition. It was admitted, certainly, by the principals themselves, that they took upon themselves the full responsibility for the action that resulted in the raid. They had also expressed the desire not to cast any of the responsibility on their subordinates. Apart from any special warning that what they were doing was inconsistent with their position as officers, these officers were bound as a matter of ordinary discipline and duty to obey the commands they received. He was of course not dealing with Sir John Willoughby, but only with the other officers. The only thing communicated to them before the raid was Dr. Jameson's, now known as the "women and children," letter. Was there the slightest evidence that these officers knew, as was now known, that that letter had been written at a previous time under different conditions, and was not applicable to the immediate expedition they were called upon to take up? They had no intimation but that letter, and they were asked to follow Dr. Jameson for the purpose of protecting the women and children in Johannesburg. There was no doubt that these officers believed generally that what they were doing was not only not opposed to their duty as Imperial officers, but was being carried out more or less with the cognisance and knowledge of the Imperial authorities. The hardship was that these officers should be judged with reference to the knowledge now possessed in this country. It was no part, of the duty of the South African Committee to pass sentence on any one, but they did find that Mr. Rhodes was the originator of the raid, and they condemned the raid in the most
  340
  unqualified language. But the Report was eloquent in favour of these officers. There was not a word in it that suggested that they were in default or were doing otherwise than performing their duty. ["Hear, hear!"] After the fullest investigation before the Committee, there was not a single word in the Report which imputed the slightest blame to any one of them.
  DR. CLARKsaid they had been unable to get any information in regard to this important matter owing to the action, of the Government. They postponed this Vote at various times, and then brought it on about half-past ten. All they could say was that if this was going to be a Standing or a Sessional Order the Government might prevent inconvenient discussions, and prevent Votes coming before Parliament for Debate. Here they had one of the most important Votes, and the House of Commons had never been able to discuss it or take a decision with regard to it. He regretted that the Colonial Secretary had done nothing to carry out the pledge which the Government, gave to the South African Republic in the matter. They were promised a full inquiry into the Company, and that then the Government would act. But they now knew that the Committee would never be re-appointed. There was another matter which the South Africa Republic pressed on the right hon. Gentleman. They asked him to see that Messrs. Rhodes, Beit, and Harris were prosecuted. They asked that these conspirators should be brought to trial for their criminal acts. Only a snubbing reply was returned—that the Government could only act in accordance with "English" law—an illegal term, as it should be British law. The action of the Colonial Office was viewed with suspicion in South Africa, in England, and in Europe. There were two or three things said by the Colonial Secretary which seemed to modify this policy. They were informed that Mr. Rhodes had rendered great service to the Empire, and that it was very undesirable that he should be punished. The whole proceedings of Rhodes and the Company were steeped in deceit, and he held that they ought to be placed upon their trial. From the very beginning Mr. Rhodes had

  341
  pursued a policy of deceit—from deceiving poor old Lobengula down to his deceiving the Colonial Secretary. It was quite clear that he had broken the law. Mr. Rhodes got Lobengula to sign a treaty, in English, and words were put in the reverse of what poor Lobengula understood was there. It must have been known that the concessions were obtained under false pretences. Now they heard that nothing was to be done—that Mr. Rhodes and his friends were to go scot free. In his evidence Mr. Schreiner misrepresented the condition of things in the Transvaal. He was examined as to the alleged interference of the Executive with the Judiciary, and the case he gave was that of Mr. Lippert who had been set free after being sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Mr. Lippert got a gunpowder and dynamite concession in South Africa. He formed a company and was sent out as managing director. Like a great many other companies started in London, the South Africa Explosives Company did not get much capital taken up, and Mr. Lippert spent a good deal of his own money in the interest of the Company. A dispute arose between the Company and Mr. Del, the latter being charged with misappropriating money. He, (Dr. Clark) joined the Board of Directors and was sent out with power of attorney to investigate the facts. When he got to South Africa, Mr. Lippert had been tried, and he found that that gentleman had really advanced money.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that these South African affairs were only material to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill in so far as they bore on the conduct of the Colonial Department.
  DR. CLARKsaid that he would confine his remarks to the action of the Colonial Secretary. It was upon his finding that there had been no misappropriation of funds that Mr. Lippert was liberated. There was considerable friction between the Transvaal Government and the Colonial Secretary with reference to the observance of the convention. The Colonial Secretary maintained that the Transvaal Government had been guilty of a breach of the convention. One of the articles of the convention provided that the Transvaal Government should not conclude any treaty with a foreign
  342
  Power without the consent of Her Majesty's Government, and that they should deliver to this Government a treaty immediately upon its completion. There had been three alleged breaches of the convention. The first was with regard to the Geneva Convention. That was a convention to which this country was a party, and at the time it was concluded Great Britain invited every civilised Power to sign it. The St. John's Ambulance Association pressed the Colonial Secretary to bring before the South African Republic the desirability of joining the Geneva Convention, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Sir Jacobus de Wet asking him to unofficially bring the matter before the Transvaal Government. That Government did sign the convention, and he supposed that the first intimation the Colonial Secretary received of the; fact was through the Foreign Office. It was said that in that respect the Transvaal Government had been guilty of a breach of the convention, but they never dreamt that in making a convention with Great Britain they required the sanction of Great Britain. It was alleged there had been breaches of the convention in the arrangements concluded with Holland and with Portugal. The latter arrangement, however, was never signed. The right hon. Gentleman desired that the words "shall deliver immediately upon its completion any treaty" should be interpreted to mean that whenever the Transvaal Government entered into any treaty and before its completion they should send it on. The words, however, were "before its completion." In regard to this and all other matters the Transvaal Government had proposed that any question which might arise under any clause of the Convention should be decided by arbitration. There was nothing novel in the suggestion, because, when a question arose regarding the rights of British subjects under the Convention, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor agreed that it should be decided by arbitration, and the Chief Justice of the Orange Free State was appointed to act and did act in the matter. The drifts' question nearly led to a war between the two countries, but the action of the Transvaal Government took in no shape or

  343
  form amounted to a breach of the Convention. All the Boers did was to close a drift between themselves and the Orange Free State, and there was no interference whatever with the passage of British produce. As to the alien question, the Transvaal Government thought they were justified in acting upon the principle adopted by Lord Salisbury in this country, and, certainly, in what they did there was no breach of the Convention. If the delegates of the Transvaal Government had thought that a new Colonial Secretary would come in who would differ from Lord Derby, they would probably have signed the Convention.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish they had.
  DR. CLARKsaid that the promise made to the delegates of the Transvaal was that of complete self-government, and abolition of all the conditions in the Treaty of Pretoria, except one—that no Treaty should be entered into which was contrary to the interests of this country or its colonies in South Africa. He hoped that during the Recess all these questions which had caused irritation would pass away, and that this Government would carry out the principle laid down by its predecessors—to refer to arbitration any question of dispute as to the interpretation of the London Convention.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that the Government had been asked to reconsider the sentences passed upon the Jameson officers with regard to the deprivation of their commissions. There was nothing further from the desire of the Government than to press heavily on those officers—[cheers]—who had, no doubt, been in error, but who had erred honestly, and perhaps in the belief that they were doing a public service. [Cheers.] But when his hon. Friend said that the Report of the Committee was eloquent in these officers' favour, he must remind him that it did not go to the extent of recommending the restoration of their commissions. The hon. Member said that the evidence pointed to the officers having received orders in the ordinary course of their duties. There were 13 officers involved, of whom eight were discharged because they had not been concerned in fitting out the expedition and only obeyed orders given at the last moment. But the remaining five were
  344
  found guilty of being prominently connected with the preparations for, and fitting out of, the expedition, and with inducing others to join it. It was true that Sir John Willoughby alone had Dr. Jameson's entire confidence; but there was every evidence that the other four knew perfectly well on what business they were engaged weeks before the expedition started. Colonel Grey and Captain Coventry told the men that they were not going by the Queen's order, but to establish the supremacy of the Queen's flag in South Africa; and there was every evidence that the five officers concerned were all aware of the circumstances and under what possible penalties they would engage in this expedition. ["Hear, hear!"] If there were any doubt whatever as to the circumstances in which they started, that doubt was resolved by the fact that messengers from the High Commissioner overtook the expedition, and handed letters, not to one, but to several of the officers, directing them to return immediately, and warning them that the attack upon a friendly State was repudiated by Her Majesty's Government, and that if they continued they were rendering themselves liable to severe penalties. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government could not get away from that. Men who went forward in the face of declarations of that kind went forward at their own risk. Looking at the matter solely from the point of view of military discipline and efficiency, it was impossible for the Government to come to any other conclusion than that at which they had arrived; and nothing had happened to cause them to doubt the justice of that conclusion. ["Hear, hear!"] The extreme penalty had not been inflicted on these officers. They might have been cashiered; but they were permitted to resign, taking with them the retired pay and such other advantages as attached to officers leaving Her Majesty's service. It had been said that these officers had been doubly punished, but every professional man convicted by a court of law must undergo a double punishment—it could not be avoided. As to Sir John Willoughby's letter to the War Office, drafted by his solicitor, and stating that his officers had acted in the genuine belief that the Government did not disapprove of the expedition, Sir John Willoughby explained to the Committee that the letter was

  345
  written merely with the object of postponing the taking away of their commissions. He had no solid foundation for his statements, and Dr. Jameson repudiated the drafting of the letter. These officers had been engaged for many weeks in preparing the expedition. They had warned the men that they were not going by Queen's orders. Colonel Grey had been warned by Mr. Newton. Messengers handed to them orders to return; and, in face of all this, these officers—believing that they were doing some public service, and acting, no doubt, from honourable but mistaken motives, disobeyed all the orders given to them, and went forward on this unfortunate expedition. ["Hear, hear!"] The position of the Government was this. They did not desire to press hardly on these officers, or to take any step which could be considered vindictive. But so far from these officers being punished for obeying military orders and doing their duty, they were punished for acting in a manlier not in accordance with their military duty; and the Government could not go back on the conclusion at which they had arrived. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid he thought the nation would approve of the refusal to fully pardon the officers engaged in the Jameson raid. His experience was that there was a strong feeling in favour of more severe measures being dealt out to these gallant officers; they had been guilty of a grave act of illegality, and ought to be made to suffer as a warning to others. He ventured again to press upon the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the case of Mr. Ben Tillet, He hoped the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be able to assure the House that this appeal to the Belgian Government would not be allowed to go by the board, and that he would continue to urge on the Belgian Government the necessity of coming to a settlement because it was urgent, for the time had long passed when full satisfaction should be given for this outrage on a British subject.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,)said there had been no delay, as the hon. Member seemed to think, with reference to the case of Mr. Tillett. Certainly there had been no delay for which the Government was responsible. At the earliest possible moment, finding that the Belgian Government did not take the same view as the English Foreign Office of the gravity of the case, the British Government pressed upon them the desirability of referring it to arbitration. An agreement for arbitration was drawn up, and a French jurist of the highest eminence was agreed upon, and the only further step before arbitration could take place was the ratification of the agreement by the Belgian Chamber. He saw by the newspapers that the matter was before the Belgian Chamber yesterday, but, for some reason which was not explained, a quorum was not present. He had no doubt however, that the temporary political difficulty with Belgium would soon be overcome. At any rate he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter would continue to receive the consideration to which, in the opinion of the Government, it was entitled.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid he did not rise to continue the discussion on African affairs. He had the privilege of saying what he had to say on the subject last week, and he had nothing to add to or retract from what he then said. But he desired for a few moments to refer to matters of extreme importance which occurred recently—he meant the denunciation by Her Majesty's Government of the commercial treaties between this country and Germany and Belgium. He did not in the least dispute the policy or necessity for the action of the Government in this respect. It could be abundantly shown that the step was one they could not do otherwise than adopt. But this step had been made the subject of much comment in foreign countries, especially Germany and France, who had built up, on a simple and natural action, a conclusion entirely unwarranted by the action itself; and he thought it desirable they should take the opportunity, before the House separated, of discussing exactly what had been done, and expressing

  347
  a caveat upon the extraordinary deductions which had been founded upon that action. They had been indulged in mainly in Berlin and Paris, but had not been confined to those capitals. He observed that the British Empire Trade League had passed a resolution that the denunciation of these treaties was a step towards the attainment of the object that league had in view. The Canadian Parliament, at the instance of the Canadian Ministry, had approved of legislation under which they proposed to admit goods from this country at a lower rate than similar goods from other countries. They held that this was entirely within their right, and not inconsistent with the treaty engagements into which Her Majesty's Government had entered. The Canadian Government made an elaborate argument to show that these treaties with other countries did not or could not extend to Canada. Her Majesty's Government had been advised that the covenants in the treaties that had been denounced extended to Canada, and the action of the Canadian Government could not be supported consistently with the treaties, and therefore the Canadian Government said, "Either we are free from the obligation of the treaties or we must claim we must be made free by the denunciation of the treaty." The Government had denounced the treaty and had taken steps to give the Canadian Government the freedom they desired. The action of the Government had simply been to enlarge the freedom of the Dominion of Canada to adopt what fiscal policy it pleased. It was simply a stop towards freedom and nothing more. Those who had had this matter under consideration had long recognised that it would be absolutely necessary to yield to the colonies that fiscal freedom which the Canadian Government was the first to demand. The Canadian Government asked for freedom to admit the goods of this country at lower duties than the duties imposed on similar goods from other countries. But a few years ago there was a strong party movement in Canada in favour of promoting almost complete fiscal freedom between the United States and Canada. But that could not be accomplished without differential duties as between goods imported from the United States and goods imported from this and other European
  348
  countries. This step towards the fiscal freedom of the colonies was a step rather towards disintegration than integration, towards separation rather than combination. Other stops might follow, but the action of the Government in denouncing the treaties with Germany and France was simply a step towards the fiscal liberation of our colonies. As a free trader he was never much in favour of commercial treaties with other countries. The excuse for them was that we bound ourselves to nothing under them which we should not observe without them. Never in any treaty had there been a covenant which did not express the policy of this country quite independently of treaty, and the "most favoured" nation clause was simply an expression of the principles of free trade which we should act upon, and he hoped would continue to act upon, without a treaty as well as with one. His object in rising was mainly if not entirely to enter a caveat against the hypothesis which had been built up on the step Her Majesty's Government had taken. We were not committed to any further action. If it was thought we were entering on a step which would involve a battle of tariffs against free trade, or other startling developments, the impression was due to insufficient knowledge of the working of our Constitution to suppose that such a step could be taken without the country and Parliament being agreeable, and supporting and approving of the step. He did not suppose our Government would recommend preferential treatment of our colonies. It would involve grave questions which could not be settled without considerable struggle and excitement. It would be impossible for a Parliament such as the present to abandon what had been the policy of half a century and enter on a policy of Protection, hostile tariffs, and preferential treatment without an excited controversy in the country. There was another point to which he should like to refer. He did not quite know how matters stood in Canada at this moment. The Canadian Parliament had passed a Customs and Revenue Bill embodying the principle of giving a rebate of duty of 12½ per cent. on goods coming from this country as compared with those from other countries. He also understood that the Law Officers of the Crown were

  349
  of opinion that this provision was in conflict with the covenants and treaties with France, Germany, and Belgium. That being so, had the Act which had passed the Canadian Legislature received the assent of the Crown, or if it had not, what was being done by Canada? Germany had protested against German goods being placed in a less advantageous position than British goods. Germany might take action of some sort or another against the proceedings which would be adopted under the Act that had just been passed by Canada. What was proposed to be done in respect of the complaint that German goods were to be exposed, under the Dominion Act, on their introduction to Canada, to a higher rate of duty than that to which British goods would be exposed? Should we undertake to make good the loss which would have been so porter, and thus uphold treaties to which we were pledged, or were we to call upon the Canadian Government to provide funds for doing so, or what would be done during the twelve months that the treaties would yet remain in force with the view to providing that the importers of the countries that were parties to the treaties should have their goods received in Canada on the same terms as British goods? He did not raise this matter in any controversial spirit, but there were certain obscure points in connection with it, and this would be the last opportunity they should have of raising the question again for several months. It was obvious that the subject might give rise to very considerable matters of interest and importance between this country and Belgium and Germany. If Germany insisted upon her rights under treaty, which we acknowledged, how were those rights to be observed concurrently with the action the Canadian Government had taken in imposing preferential duties?
  LORD HUGH CECIL, prompted by the sense of duty which Members of the House owed to cases of individual justice and injustice, ventured to intervene for a very few moments to support what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend on the subject of the officers who were concerned in the raid. It was, indeed, a most significant fact,
  350
  which he was sure would not be lost upon the Government, that a prominent member of the Committee which had been inquiring into South African affairs should hold the opinion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed. That was a matter of very grave importance, and ought to weigh with the Government in a way not dissimilar to that in which the opinion of a Judge on a criminal trial had influence with the Home Secretary. ["Hear, hear!"] He need not say that he did not in the least degree sympathise with some of the speeches which had been delivered in regard to this matter. His point of view was as opposite as possible to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, in none of whose apprehensions he shared. He approached the subject as a most hearty supporter of the policy of the Government as disclosed in the Colonial Secretary's great speech of a few nights ago. That speech appeared to him a most statesmanlike and most eloquent vindication of the position of the Government, and it was because he thought that the decision—he hoped the temporary decision—of the Government in regard to the commissions of these officers seemed to be out of symmetry with that policy and discordant with it that he ventured to press upon the Government the desirability of acting up to the very righteous and proper line they took on that occasion and pressing it home to its logical consequences. ["Hear, hear!"] What was the position in which the officers stood? The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War said he had no doubt they had been animated by zeal for the public service. ["Hear, hear!"] He should have thought that conceded the whole point. Were they going for ever to banish from the service of the Queen officers whose only fault was having been animated by an exaggerated and perhaps ill-directed zeal for the public service? [Cheers.] Let them examine a little more in detail the kind of case set up for withholding the commission from these officers. Among the criticisms of Mr. Rhodes which were made in the Report of the Committee was that he led the subordinates to believe that his plans were approved by their superiors. ["Hear, hear!"] Thus these officers engaged as they thought properly, but as hon. Members considered improperly, in the carrying out of these plans by the

  351
  raid. He thought they had no information whatever before they started that the Government did not approve of their proceedings—["hear, hear!"]—and it was in these circumstances that they found themselves actually engaged in the undertaking. Was it suggested that any person who was not beneath contempt would have retired at such a moment? [Cheers.] What would have been said of them, had they done so, on their return to Cape Town or Great Britain? The man who had so retired would have been told that he was a coward who left his friends in a critical moment of extreme difficulty. [Cheers.] Could he have urged that he received orders and came home because there was going to be a battle in a few hours? [Cheers.] He was quite sure that not all the approbation the War Office could have given him could have compensated him for the shame that would have overtaken him in that case. [Cheers.] He was convinced that the War Office would have expressed no approbation whatever, and that they would never encourage and promote an officer who would have been guilty of such an act. [Cheers.] Was it not, then, better to face the situation and say that these officers had acted over-zealously, that they rushed in where they ought to have refrained, but that the error was one of a generous nature—the error of those who in the day of real struggle would be among the most valuable servants of the Queen and country? [Cheers.] The principal offenders, whose offences were infinitely greater, were pardoned and an act of oblivion was being passed on the whole transaction. Were we to leave out of account the courage and admirable qualities of these men in the position they held and whose only fault was that, animated by patriotic motives and misled as to the attitude of the Imperial Government, they acted hastily in what they regarded as the interest of the public service? ["Hear, hear!"] They had been convicted under the Foreign Enlistment Act, but it was very doubtful indeed if the whole facts as now known had been before the Court any conviction would have taken place. It would be a good thing if the Government made inquiry of the Lord Chief Justice on the point, for it had the greatest possible weight on the matter. After all, it should be remembered we
  352
  were not to judge this as a strict matter of law or even of justice, but from the point of view of wise and statesmanlike mercy. Were these men to be shut out for ever from their professional prospects, the charge against them being no more than that he had stated? He hoped even now the Government would think that these officers had been sufficiently punished. ["Hear, hear!"] They had endured imprisonment and had been; deprived of a long term of service. The Government might not think that the punishment had been sufficient, but he hoped as the months went by the Government would not lose sight of the question with a view to extending to these, the humbler offenders, the mercy extended to others. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): In reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, I must point out that the matter concerns the discipline of the Army, with which the Colonial Office, therefore, has nothing to do, and I am unable to add anything to that which had been said by my right hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for War. I am sure we have listened with pleasure, as we always do, to the exposition of political economy and declaration of the true doctrines of free trade from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin; but even with the advantage of his exposition I am not quite sure of the object of his lengthy statement. I gather, however, that he had two things in view—hodesired to make an answer to comments in foreign and other newspaper correspondence and to the resolution passed by the Enquire League, and to give a warning to the Government. Now, as regards the resolution of the Empire League, it was simply congratulatory to the Government, and in the congratulation my right hon. Friend shares, and, if so, I think it was unnecessary to deliver a long speech on the subject. As to the newspaper correspondence, I think my right hon. Friend would be well advised to allow it to rest where it is. My right hon. Friend introduced some remarks to which I am inclined to take exception. He laid it down that if Canada had proceeded to make arrangements with a foreign Government by which differential duties would be imposed on the mother country

  353
  then, as a matter of course, the mother country would have had to submit. Now, I do not think that the most enthusiastic freetrader ever laid that down as the policy of this country, and I repudiate it altogether. I am happy to say it never has been the policy of the representative Government of any colony, though it may have been advocated by some politicians; but there are, as we know, politicians who will advocate anything. [Laughter.] We must not judge the policy of a country by the views of individual politicians. But it is, I think, a most undesirable thing that a politician in the position of my right hon. Friend should, as it were, hold out an invitation to a colony to take a step which would be certainly most unpatriotic, coupling it with an assurance that there would be no objection on the part of this country. A step of that kind would be a step that must lead to further and very important results—results I am convinced not desired by the colonies of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] My right hon. Friend referred to the denunciation of treaties, as it is termed—that is to say, our withdrawal from them. At the conference which took place between the colonial Premiers and myself various resolutions were passed. I regret it has not been possible to obtain printed copies of the report of the proceedings of the conference in time for this discussion, but I may say that one of the resolutions passed unanimously by the Premiers was as follows: "The Premiers of the self-governing colonies unanimously and earnestly recommend the denunciation at the earliest convenient time of any treaty now hampering the commercial relations between Great Britain and her colonies." [Cheers.] This was the unanimous wish of all the self-governing colonies, and it was accompanied by a most important and significant resolution, which was this:—"That, in the hope of improving the trade relations between the mother country and her colonies, the Premiers present undertake to confer with their colleagues with a view to seeing whether such a result would be properly secured by preference given by the colonies to the products of Great Britain." [Cheers.] On receipt of these resolutions the Government decided to withdraw their adherence to the treaties,
  354
  but this was not done upon any representation of the Law Officers. It is true that the Law Officers of the Canadian Government considered that they were entitled to give preference to the mother country without infringing these treaties, and this was referred to our Law Officers. The Canadian Government asked that they should be represented before the Law Officers gave a decision, and that demand, though an exceptional and unprecedented one, was acceded to, the Law Officers thinking that the situation was unprecedented and exceptional. Accordingly, up to the present time no decision has been given on that point, and until a decision is given whether the resolution of the Parliament of Canada does infringe these treaties it will be premature to discuss the possible difficulties that might arise from this situation, and which no doubt, we shall meet when they do arise.
  MR. COURTNEYasked if any objection had been taken?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No objection has been taken on this side. The matter comes to us in the shape of a resolution, and I hardly suppose that it will be followed by legislation. I do not speak with certainty, but, in any case, the resolution comes immediately into force, and British goods are receiving the advantage of 12½ per cent. My right hon. Friend observed that this was a step towards freedom, and, he went on to say, towards separation.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid it might be.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I will venture to say it is not a step towards separation. In all legislative action the intention must be looked to, and the intention of the colonies is distinctly against separation; the intention is expressed by the Prime Minister, who has the chief honour in this new legislation; the intention is to show gratitude to the mother country and to give proof of the loyalty of the colonies. [Cheers.] In this sense it is intended, and I can see no reason for the anticipations of my right hon. Friend that this might be a step in the direction of disintegration. I think it is quite unnecessary for me to follow my right hon. Friend's argument as to the principles of free trade. I agree with him that this is not the time to defend or attack them. Our intention is that the colonies should be enabled to

  355
  deal with us on preferential terms if so disposed, and to enable the resolution passed by Canada to be carried into effect. Then I turn to other subjects connected with the Colonial Department which have been raised during this Debate, and to two speeches which have some points of resemblance—the speeches from the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth and the hon. Member for Caithness. The latter has complained that time was not given for the discussion of the Colonial Office Vote, and in his characteristic way of putting simple facts into rather offensive language the hon. Gentleman said the Government, had postponed the Vote under various pretences, insinuating that the Government had desired the postponement of the Vote, and on various pretences secured their object. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that was not so. He knows that under the new plan in regard to the business of Supply—a plan which has worked with satisfaction to the vast majority of the House—the Government place themselves in the hands of the Opposition as to the order in which Votes shall be taken, and practically we express no opinion on the matter. We ascertain as far as possible what is the general desire of the House, and if it has happened that the Colonial Vote has been postponed that is only because other hon. Gentlemen do not share the intense desire of the hon. Member for Caithness to defend the Transvaal Government and to prove that they are always in the right and Great Britain always in the wrong. [Laughter.] Really the two speeches have one point in common, that they are belated. It is perfectly evident that they were prepared and intended to be delivered in the debate on the Report of the South Africa Committee. I sympathise with both hon. Gentlemen, and especially with the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth. It is said there is no question more unpleasant than to be suffering from what the French call discours manquê. [Laughter. He prepared a speech he was unable to deliver on the occasion for which it was prepared, and I rejoice that he has found opportunity for relief on the present occasion. But I will not be drawn into a re-discussion of matters finally settled in the Debate on the Report of the South Africa Committee.
  356
  On that occasion the Leaders of the Opposition expressed their opinion and I expressed mine, and I have nothing to add. The hon. Member for Caithness is more Boer than the Boers. Session after Session he comes down and makes speeches in favour of the Transvaal Government. According to him a more perfect and a more virtuous Government never existed, and it is infamously treated by the British Government, no matter whether it be a Liberal or a Unionist Government. It is the victim of oppression, and is deserving of the sympathy of this House. Generally and broadly, I differ from every word the hon. Gentleman said. I differ from his facts, I dispute his conclusions, and I do not agree with his arguments. [Cheers find laughter.] There is one point to which he referred on which I must say a few words. He went at length into a discussion of the two Dispatches sent to the Transvaal Government in May last, which complained of the Transvaal Government for certain breaches of the Convention and also for certain other proceedings which appeared to be intended to whittle away that Convention. The hon. Gentleman declared his unbiased opinion that none of these things constitute a breach of the Convention. I know the hon. Gentleman belongs to a learned profession, but I do not think it is the profession of the law, and, under these circumstances, I prefer the opinion of the Law Officers of the Cape Colony, supported by the Law Officers of the Crown to any ex parte opinion which he may give in favour of the Transvaal. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was the opinion upon which we acted in sending these Dispatches. I am not going to argue the matter now, because fortunately all necessity for it has been removed. The Transvaal Government, yielding, as I think, very wisely to argument and persuasion, have already repealed the Aliens' Immigration Act, which was declared to be a breach of the Convention, and have agreed to reconsider the Aliens' Expulsion Law, which was not declared to be a breach of the Convention, but the administration of which, it was pointed out, might easily become a breach of the Convention. As regards the notification of treaties, we are in negotiation with them on the subject, and I have very little doubt that

  357
  a satisfactory arrangement will be come to. There I should have sat down but for one observation of the hon. Gentleman, to which I think it is necessary to reply in order that there should be no misunderstanding. The hon. Member invites me to say that if any difficulty arises in regard to the Convention, Her Majesty's Government will, as their predecessors did, submit the difference to arbitration, and to the arbitration of a foreign Power. It would be a marvellous thing, if it were a true statement of the case, that the late Government had submitted the terms of a Convention between the suzerain and the subordinate Power to the arbitration of a foreign Power. That would have been a most extraordinary thing if the late Government had done it, but they never did it. What was submitted to arbitration was not the interpretation of the Convention, but some of the details by which effect should be given to it. That was submitted to the decision of the Chief Justice of the Free State, and his decision was perfectly satisfactory to this country. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can find a precedent anywhere for any such proposal as he has put forward on behalf of the Transvaal, and which the Transvaal Government have put forward on their own behalf without the slightest hope of its being accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I do not think he can find the slightest precedent for suggesting that in a matter of this kind a breach of a Convention made when Her Majesty's Government surrendered their rights and granted upon conditions the independence of the Transvaal should be submitted to any foreign State. [Cheers.]
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not care one button for the Transvaal Republic or for any other foreign nation. [Ministerial cheers.] He was one of those who believed that there was no country in the world which would not be better off for being brought under the rule of the British House of Commons. [Ministerial laughter.] There was one sentence in the speech which the Colonial Secretary delivered on Monday as to which he should want some explanation, not from the right hon. Gentleman himself, but from some other Member of the Government. The most important statement in that Debate was that which
  358
  the right hon. Gentleman made at the conclusion of his speech, and which there had been no opportunity of discussing until now. He might say, before developing that point, that he entirely sympathised with the conclusions of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, with reference to the punishment inflicted on the officers. He thought these comparatively humble instruments of this policy had been punished, not in excess of their demerits, but out of proportion to the treatment awarded to those who were their principals. It was odious, and disgusting to every man with a sense of justice that these officers should be twice punished by the State—first by a sentence of a Court of law, and secondly by the administrative act of the War Department which deprived them of their commissions. He thought that the Colonial Secretary's relations with the South Africa Committee had, in many respects, been unfortunate. He thought it was a pity that he sat as a member of the Committee. No doubt he was forced to do it, but knowing what they knew now he thought it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman yielded to the pressure put upon him. They knew now, by his own admission, that on that Committee the right hon. Gentleman held a three-fold capacity. He was a member of the Committee—in that respect he was a judge; he was head of the Colonial Department—in that respect he was a necessary witness; and he was accused, because charges were made against him by Mr. Rhodes and his friends.
  MR. G. WYNDHAMasked the hon. Member to quote any public document or any evidence to that effect?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid there were Mr. Rhodes's organs in the Press; Mr. Rhodes's agents undoubtedly, and the Committee itself, had found that certain documents had been used for creating the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned in this undertaking. A year or more ago, when the House appointed this Committee, the Colonial Secretary knew that he was in this position, but the House of Commons and the country did not know.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, objected to my appointment on that ground.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid the country was not aware of the charges which were the basis of the accusations against him; but whether that was so or not, knowing the capacity in which he would have to come before that Committee, he thought it was a matter of deep regret that he consented to accept a seat upon it. What was the right hon. Gentleman's deliberate statement to the House on the Committee's Report? He stated in his speech on Monday night that "there has been nothing-proved, and, in my opinion, there exists nothing"—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be entitled to take this opportunity of replying to a speech made in a previous Debate in this House. He is entitled to discuss the policy of the right hon. Gentleman as head of the Colonial Department, but not his conduct in the Committee, nor is he entitled to reply to the speech made by him on Monday evening.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he was going to ask for an explanation from other members of the Government as to the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of the Debate on Monday evening, in which he said that nothing had been proved, and that there existed nothing which in any way affected the position of Mr. Rhodes as a man of honour. Now, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared They declared that Mr. Rhodes had deceived the High Commissioner, his colleagues in the Cape Government—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)rising to order, submitted that if the hon. Member was going at length into the Report of the Committee, and to found charges upon it more or less affecting Her Majesty's Government, it would be necessary in fairness for him to ask to contravene the ruling Mr. Speaker had just laid down.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the action or findings of the Committee; he must confine himself to discussing matters that could be raised on the Votes.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he was not attempting to discuss the Report of
  360
  the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman declared that nothing found by the Committee was inconsistent with Mr. Rhodes's position as a man of honour. He wished to know whether that statement expressed the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or was it made with the assent, previously obtained, of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had also said he was not going to attempt in any way to punish Mr. Rhodes—a declaration which he I thought would produce a painful impression on the public mind. He deeply regretted that the end of this discussion should be so unsatisfactory, because it was calculated to perpetuate, both at home and abroad, the painful and deleterious impressions which at present prevailed.

  PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE.
  MR. WILLIAM JONEScalled attention to the position of the Board of Trade with reference to the Penrhyn Quarry dispute. The House would recollect that at the beginning of the Session he drew attention to the fact that the men had placed themselves unreservedly in the hands of the Board of Trade. Lord Penrhyn, however, had steadily refused to permit any outside intervention in the matter, and therefore the situation practically remained unchanged. There had been two conferences between Lord Penrhyn and, the men; but these had proved quite abortive. He would ask whether it was possible for the parties to arrive at an understanding unless the spirit of fairness and good temper prevailed during their negotiations. At one of the conferences the head manager of the quarry shouted across the table to the leaders of the men, "It is a lie." He knew that the manager was the more wealthy, but he ventured to say that the leaders of the men were the more gentlemanly. ["Hear, hear!"] It was the question of management that was preventing a true and equitable solution of the difficulty being arrived at. Lord Penrhyn had protested against any form of combination that sought to interfere with the management. The leaders of the men and the men themselves in mass meetings had persisted in maintaining that interference

  361
  with the management was not at all implied in the right of combination for which they stood. The combination they asked for was of the most modest kind, being merely in order to bring the grievances of their fellow-workmen before the management. "The difference as regards words," said The Times correspondent, who had taken upon himself to be the mouthpiece of Lord Penrhyn, "may appear small, but in fact is deep and serious." Now, for 11 months this dispute had, gone on, and the behaviour of the men during that time had been most exemplary. [Ministerial cheers.] Mr. Justice Ridley, in addressing the grand jury at Carnarvon Assizes on June 4, stated that the absence of crime in the counties he had already visited was a cause for congratulating them. "It is more so still," he continued,
  "in Carnarvonshire, where for several months hundreds if not thousands, of workmen have been out of work. I had hoped to be able to congratulate the jury on the termination of this dispute, into the merits of which I will not enter and of which I am not competent to speak. But, although it has continued so for many months, it is a pleasure to see there is not a trace or sign of it on the calendar."
  ["Hear, hear!"] That was owing to the high moral and religious character of these men. But there might be a strain on that moral character which would lead to serious consequences. He hoped not. It was sad to contemplate the stupendous one-man power which seemed to brood over and control the destinies of thousands of families among the most peace-loving and law-abiding citizens in the realm. The men were firm enough and received support enough to prolong the struggle for an indefinite period. According to The Times correspondent, who was in the secret of Lord Penrhyn and his management, "Lord Penrhyn holds it must be fought out to the bitter end." In the interest of home life and the community at large in North Wales, was it wise to let this continue? He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade, who had behaved most courteously and kindly, whether the Government could not induce Lord Penrhyn to accept a conciliator, or, better still, an arbitrator who would hold a just balance and endeavour to arrive at a real solution of the difficulty and bring an unhappy dispute to a peaceful close.
  362
  A better and nobler work could not possibly mark what ought to be the true and inward spirit of the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen. [Cheers.]
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)bore testimony to the moderate and conciliatory spirit which the hon. Member had invariably shown in his treatment of this question. The history of the dispute was well known to the House, and it was also known that the Board of Trade had endeavoured to bring about a meeting in order to arrive at a settlement. Lord Penrhyn, in the exorcise of what undoubtedly was his just rights, declined to countenance any outside interference on the ground that it was a matter which affected him and his workpeople only. He was glad to say that this had not been the attitude taken up generally with regard to disputes between employer and employed. Since the passing of the Conciliation Act there had been a large number of applications for the intervention of the Board of Trade both from employers and employed, and he was glad to think that the action of the Board of Trade had been, with one or two exceptions, of such a character as to secure the settlement of disputes on terms satisfactory to both, parties. He confessed that he had been in great hopes, that the meetings which were held between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen might result in a satisfactory settlement, but unfortunately this had not been the case. Without discussing the points in dispute which led to the non-success of these meetings, he thought that Lord Penrhyn did make certain concessions of a valuable character to the men. Lord Penrhyn was not able to meet the men entirely, and his impression was that if there had been some fair-minded person present, or some conciliator, the result of these meetings would have been more satisfactory than they were. Lord Penrhyn stated that he was prepared to consider points other than the one great point of the interference with the management of the quarry. On the other hand the men repudiated any intention to interfere with

  363
  the management; and this being the view of the two parties to the quarrel there was now some ground for hoping that some arrangements or agreement might be arrived at. It was impossible for the Board of Trade to propose to Lord Penrhyn, or to his workmen, anything in the nature of intervention at the present moment. Any suggestion which should lead to successful intervention, either by way of conciliation or arbitration, must come from the two parties themselves. He did not think that any good would result from any suggestion coming from him to Lord Penrhyn in favour of intervention, but he believed that if intervention were sought for by the two parties there was every ground for hoping that the settlement of the dispute might be arrived at. As far as he was personally concerned he would welcome with the greatest cordiality any step which might be taken in that direction on the part of Lord Penrhyn and his workmen.

  TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITTrenewed an appeal to the Government on behalf of amnesty being granted to the few remaining Irish political prisoners. Every month that was added to the terrible punishment of these men constituted a strong argument in favour of the exercise of clemency. He called attention to a remarkable petition from Tyneside, presented in favour of clemency being extended to these men, and signed by a large number of justices of the peace, town councillors, and others who in politics were staunch supporters of the Government. Within the next few weeks there was to be a Royal visit to Ireland. Surely it would appear to the Leader of the House and to the Government that it would soften feeling considerably in Ireland, and pave the way for that visit being a pleasant one all round, if this small act of clemency were extended to the few remaining political prisoners.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)assured the hon. Member that he was right in believing that the Members of the Government in not recommending the release of these prisoners were not animated by any feeling of vengeance. ["Hear, hear!"] Reference had been made to a remarkable petition which had been received from Tyneside in favour of the prisoners. That petition was one to which a Minister of the Crown was bound to give due weight when the proper time came to take into consideration the position of these prisoners. The position he had taken up from the beginning was the same as that taken up by preceding Governments—by Mr. Gladstone and by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him that day at the Home Office, that these prisoners should be treated exactly the same as other long-sentence prisoners; that they should be treated in a manner that was no better and no worse than others who were in prison for offences against the law. His predecessor refused, and he had himself steadily refused, to acknowledge the political character of their crimes. He had admitted that they were sentenced under the Treason Felony Act, which might have given some colour to the argument that their crime had a political motive. But what he had said from the beginning was that they must not look at the motives of these men. They had been convicted of crimes against society, which hon. Gentlemen who pleaded in their behalf were obliged to admit were serious crimes, for which they were properly sentenced; and it was altogether a misnomer to say that these men were in the strict sense of the word, or in fact in any sense of the word whatever, political prisoners. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Davitt) had alluded to the approaching Royal visit to Ireland, and said that it would be a very fit and appropriate occasion for the clemency of the Crown to be exercised. He was not

  365
  prepared to deny that if these men were purely political prisoners, who had been in prison a long time, there might be something in that argument. But he certainly did want to know how he should be justified in advising the clemency of the Crown to men who had been convicted of and ought to be treated as guilty of far more serious offences than any political crime, and who ought to be dealt with, on that ground and on that ground alone. ["Hear, hear!"] Arguments had been, used which had been derived from the length of time these men had been in prison, and which naturally led them and their friends to look to the near approach of the moment when they should be released; and reference had also been made to the fact that there were now very few of them remaining in prison. These were no doubt arguments which ought to have their weight. What he had to say now, and had said before, was that these men would be treated exactly on the same footing as other long-sentence prisoners whose cases it was the duty of the Home Office from time to time to consider. They were all under life sentences and their position would be considered at the expiration of 15 years. And again—if they should be so long in prison—at the end of 20 years, unless there were exceptional circumstances to justify dealing with them before. The end of the term of 15 years had not yet arrived, but it was not very far distant. He was making no special promise on behalf of these men when he said that at the expiration of the 15 years their cases would come up for consideration in the same way as the cases of every other convict in this country came up to be considered; and when that time came he should be as ready to take into consideration all the various circumstances alluded to by the hon. Gentleman and others, exactly as he should in the case of other long-sentence prisoners. He again repeated that if he found it to be his duty then to advise any remission of the sentence, nobody
  366
  would be more pleased than himself. He was afraid he could not answer more satisfactorily the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. The prisoners should be treated exactly on the same grounds as others, and that was the only safe ground upon which to treat them. ["Hear, hear!"]

  TURKEY AND GREECE.
  MR. WALLACEsaid that in proposing to submit a few observations to the House upon the Græco-Turkish question, he felt that he laid himself open to the charge alluded to by the Secretary for the Colonies—that he was labouring under the pain of going about with a prepared but undelivered speech. [Laughter.] He would like in one word to repudiate that possible charge. He had, he hoped, a salubrious capacity for consuming his own smoke—[laughter]—and no doubt it would very soon appear that even if he had prepared a speech it was a very imperfectly and badly prepared one. [Laughter.] Further he thought he had some right to intrude upon the House, notwithstanding the somewhat practical discussion of yesterday; because there were phases of the question upon which he felt deeply, which was not very clearly brought out in that Debate, confined as it was chiefly to the question of Crete. There were other and more important phases of the Eastern Question which he thought might have been brought before the House by persons of far more influence and command on the Opposition side of the House than himself. But as that had not been done, and as he felt strongly on the matter, he would take it upon himself—humble as he might be, and small as his influence might be—to speak his mind as far as the House would permit. But first of all he should like to make one remark upon a matter alluded to yesterday, viz., the policy of the Government as regarded the nature of the present blockade in Crete, which, as everybody knew, was a blockade of arms as against

  367
  the insurgents but in favour of the Turks and Mussulmans. He contended that it was an unfair and a one-sided policy. It was unnecessary to go into the matter very fully, and it was successfully treated yesterday by the late Attorney General and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. But he should like to add to their authority another authority which might have greater weight on the Government side—the authority of Lord Salisbury himself. Lord Salisbury, in a Dispatch of July 27, last year, speaking of the proposed blockade of Crete so as to keep out volunteers and ammunition from the insurgents, said that
  "such a blockade as was proposed would in effect place Great Britain in the position of an ally of the Sultan in the task of repressing an insurrection of his Christian subjects."
  And in another Dispatch of nearly the same date he said:—
  "They had always declined to intervene in cases of civil strife between a Government and its subjects, and their objection would be accentuated by the fact that they would be intervening in opposition to Christian insurgents who had very solid grievances to complain of."
  Lord Salisbury went on to say,—
  "There might be an exception in the case of Greece making any attack on the territorial integrity or independence of Turkey."
  As long as the Greek troops were in Crete with an offensive intention, that exception possibly existed. But, as was shown yesterday, that exceptional case was entirely cancelled. There was no longer any attack upon the territorial integrity or the independence of the Turkish Empire; and it appeared to him that Lord Salisbury's language of twelve months ago applied with precisely the same force to the present situation, and that at this moment Great Britain was in the position of an ally of the Sultan against the insurgent Christians in Crete. If the Admirals were able to keep the peace between the contending parties, they might be able to put weapons into the hands of the Turks on the plea that
  368
  they were professional soldiers and the insurgents were not—though, for his part, he claimed that the insurgents were belligerents with all the rights of belligerents. But it was vain to contend that the Admirals could maintain complete order. They did not profess to do it, and admittedly had not the means to do it. Accordingly, as the hon. Member for Ecclesall had told them, regular warlike operations were going on in Crete at the present moment; the island was in a state of civil war, some of the towns being besieged by Mussulmans and others being besieged by the insurgents.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me, and I must say that his statement is quite incorrect. There is no town in Crete besieged by Mussulmans.
  MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps he was wrong in imputing that amount of knowledge to the hon. Member. But that did not alter the circumstances under which he was making the statement. [Laughter from Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT.] His point was this—that the position of the Government was only arguable on the understanding that the Admirals were able from their position and the force of troops at their command to compel order in Crete, and that they were able to repress any attempt on the part of the Turkish authorities—any such, attempt as might presumably be made by Djevad Pasha, who, if the telegraphic news of that day were correct, was going to be reinforced by ten Turkish ironclads and such contents as they might bring with them. [A laugh.] His contention was that the Government were not able to protect the insurgents against a possible attack by Djevad Pasha and the Turkish troops, and that, therefore, the Government ought not to interfere to prevent the insurgents from providing themselves with arms. He wished to know whether the Powers were going themselves to appoint a governor in Crete, or whether they intended

  369
  to acknowledge in any way the right of the Cretan people to select their own governor. If the wishes of the Cretans were to be ignored in this matter, any settlement that might be arrived at could hardly be described as autonomy. To impose a governor upon a people was not to give them autonomy. One point to which the Government seemed hardly to have given sufficient consideration was the enormous delay that was taking place. Six months had now elapsed since the Admirals of Europe first established a quasi protectorate over Crete, and the acceptance of the proposal of autonomy by the Turkish Government had been accompanied by qualifications which pointed in his opinion to an almost indefinite postponement of that autonomy. In the meantime, what were the Cretan people to do? Human patience had its limits, and there would almost certainly be other disturbances as the months were on. The gravity of the outlook would be to a certain extent diminished it the refusal of the Powers to allow the insurgents to have arms for self-defence were withdrawn. The proceedings of the Concert of Europe appeared to him to be quite reactionary. They were fitted to strengthen Turkey and to weaken Greece, in other words, to strengthen what made for tyranny and barbarism, and to weaken what made for liberty and civilisation. What necessity was there for granting to Turkey a strategic rectification of the frontier between her and Greece? He regarded this as an attempt to strengthen Turkey by giving to that evil, that anti-human Power, a stronger grip upon the throat of a prospective victim which, at all events, had right and progress upon its side. Then why was this crushing indemnity imposed upon Greece? Why was any indemnity to be exacted from her? That question depended upon another—namely, who began this strife?
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS, who thought that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was addressing his remarks to him, rose and asked whether it was in order for the hon. Member to direct at him specially these fierce attacks and denunciations. [Laughter.]
  MR. WALLACEsaid he did not know who the hon. Member was—[laughter]—and he should endeavour to exclude him from his visual range.
  370
  [Laughter.] The hon. Member had never been present to his thoughts. Answering the question who began the war, he asserted that Turkey did, for it was the cruel and incurable misgovernment of Crete by Turkey that put Greece in the position of not being able any longer to resist the pressure that was put upon her to interfere. The Austrian Ambassador had said that the blame for the present situation lay entirely with the Turks. Technically, too, the Turks began the war, for they had declared war.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was now going in great detail into the origin of the quarrel between Turkey and Greece. That he was not entitled to do.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he would not pursue that line, and proceeded to contend that if any one ought to pay an indemnity it was the Great Powers themselves because they could have prevented the war. It was an insult to the Powers to say that they could not have done so had they chosen. They had been led to believe from statements made by the Foreign Secretary and others connected officially with him that there was to be a complete retrocession of territory to Greece. Now it seemed there was to be a modification of that. The claims of the German bondholders were to be imported, and Turkey was to retain strategic positions in Thessaly until the indemnity was paid. That simply meant the retention of Thessaly by Turkey. All this seemed to be a rehabilitation of Turkey on the old lines of the Treaty of Paris. That was not so a year ago, when Lord Salisbury with great industry and skill prevailed on the Powers to interfere, if necessary, coercing Turkey into giving reforms throughout the Empire. That was done in defiance of the Treaty of Paris which proceeded on the understanding that the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire should be regarded; but now that policy was to be reversed. The Treaty of Paris was to come into force again and Turkey was going to be put in a very much higher position than she occupied this time last year. Why was that to be so? Simply because Turkey had been successful in her military operations. ["Hear, hear!"] in other words, the wrong horse had

  371
  turned out to be a tiger, and instead of putting more money upon him, he should be turned off the course altogether. Turkey would now be a greater power for mischief and barbarism than ever. Simply because she had been successful in the war Turkey was now regarded by a great many people who took somewhat superficial views of things, as a Power that was to be encouraged, and to be put in a position of power she ought never to have occupied in the history of the civilised world. He was sorry to say that, in his opinion, that view of the matter had had some effect on the Gentlemen he sometimes saw sitting in front of him. If they had taken up a strong position, it would have been very welcome to those sitting behind them, and the fact that they had not done so was a great disappointment to the Liberal Party. ["Hear, hear!"]

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. R. J. PRICEcalled attention to the condition of the Army Medical Service, which he said was now in a very bad condition. It was impossible to get sufficient candidates to compete for the vacancies, and there was a progressive deficiency in the numbers. On the last occasion there were only 16 candidates for 37 vacancies, and this year there were only 18 candidates for 37 vacancies. He hoped the Government would make a great effort to ascertain why it was that the medical profession avoided the military service. The concessions that were made some years ago had not had the effect of attracting more men to the service. It was no use for the Government or the House to think that the terms offered were good enough, if medical men said they were not; therefore the Department and the Government must try to find out in what respect the medical profession generally were discontented with the service, and as far as possible to meet their views. There was one other matter he could not help feeling should be mentioned, and that was the treatment of disease, a subject to which reference had been made during the Session. The proportion of severe secondary cases was far too high. It was worse than in civil society, and his belief was that this arose from the treatment not being the proper treatment
  372
  under the circumstances. The disease was no doubt incurable in the sense that one never absolutely knew that it could not recur, but practically it often was cured if the treatment was sufficiently prolonged. It was necessary that the treatment in the Army should be far more prolonged than it was. In the majority of cases it was naturally the object of the Army Medical Department to get the men back to duty as soon as possible. This was no doubt quite right and proper, but the special treatment could be continued, and ought to be continued, long after the active symptoms of disease had disappeared. You could not trust a soldier to continue taking medicines which had a disagreeable effect upon him, and when he was feeling well. In his opinion the only practicable method of administering the necessary drug was by injection. This could be done regularly and without difficulty, and the medical records of this treatment in the Army were highly satisfactory. There ought to be an absolute order for the continuance of the treatment by these means in every case. He urged that the treatment should be more prolonged, and he hoped the Department and the officers would see to it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,)entirely agreed that the Secretary for War should endeavour to ascertain what it was that was objected to in the present system of Army Medical Service, and endeavour to apply a remedy. The Secretary for War had tried to obtain that information, and he had before him representations which had been made by the British Medical Association on behalf of the Army Medical Officers. Some of these the Secretary for War was able to comply with, but others required careful consideration. The whole matter was before the Secretary for War, and he hoped to find before long the means of removing others of the difficulties complained of in a way that would be acceptable to the service. He thought the complaints related more to the conditions of service than to pay. There was one complaint that had been strongly urged, namely, that the period of service abroad was too long. He could not hold out any promise, as the matter had not been definitely determined, but the Secretary of

  373
  State had the proposals before him which would materially reduce the length of foreign service.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  MR. MACNEILL, referring to the subject of vivisection, said the Act of 1876 had not reduced the horrors of former times. He contended that that Act had been entirely nugatory. The inspections of the vivisection laboratories were absolutely worthless. The Home Secretary had refused to give a return showing the number of times the inspectors visited the laboratories and describing what they saw, and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that even if the inspectors saw the most cruel tortures they could not raise a hand in protest. The number of experiments were said to be about 7,000. One would imagine that only 7,000 animals were experimented upon, but it was well known in scientific circles that in an experiment several animals were experimented upon in order to arrive at a scientific result. Experiments were put down as painless which had been carried on under antiseptics. Undoubtedly at the beginning the experiments were painless, but there came the awakening with all its prolonged agonies. What he wanted the public to know was that the cruelties of vivisection were not prevented under the Act of 1876.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that though he was a determined opponent of vivisection, he must acknowledge that the system initiated by the Home Office had alleviated the sufferings of the animals experimented upon. ["Hear, hear!"] He firmly believed his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was keeping a strict eye on vivisection experiments, but that until they could induce the public to hold the same views the hon. Member for Donegal and he held, it was useless to raise the question on an occasion like this.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid it was not his business to express an opinion upon vivisection; his business was to carry out the Act of 1876 to the best of his ability, and he asserted most positively that, not only during the time he had been at the Home Office, but also during the reign of his predecessors, the greatest possible care had been taken
  374
  that licences should only be given to the proper persons, and that the Act should be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed it was not possible to secure better inspection than was secured at present. Nearly all the visits paid to the laboratories were surprise visits. Many places were visited six and eight times a year, and every one of them more than once. As to the mitigation of the suffering of the animals experimented upon, it must be admitted that what happened formerly was not possible now. The hon. Member for Donegal was opposed to the use of animals under any circumstances, even for the benefit of humanity. The hon. Gentleman was not supported by the majority of the people of the country, who were honestly persuaded that animals might, under proper conditions, be used as a means of discovering the most beneficial modes of alleviating human suffering.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  MR. J. G. WEIRappealed to the Colonial Secretary to stay the advance of the Chartered Company into Central Africa. The system of land-grabbing now prevailing ought to cease. The extension of an Empire might be carried too far. He trusted that the Government would not adopt the recommendation of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, for the policy of force and fraud had been carried on too long. There were two matters to which he wished to call the attention of the Lord Advocate. In the first place, £5,000 had been set aside to procure a cruiser for Scottish waters, and he thought they ought to know what progress was being made with that boat. The vessel was to have been handed over to the Scottish Fishery Board on or before the 1st July. He supposed that the contract had not been signed yet, and that difficulties had arisen. He trusted that the amount to be expended would be increased if necessary. Another matter under the control of the right hon. Gentleman was the question of the 13 mile limit on the west coast of the Hebrides. Although on a former occasion he had been referred by the Lord Advocate to the Foreign Office, the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate had power to extend the

  375
  limit, and they had been given no satisfactory reply on the subject. What was it that blocked the way? It could not be the North Sea Convention. The Scottish Fishery Board could issue a bye-law extending the limit from three miles to 13 miles, and that would be of immense advantage to the fishermen on the coasts of the Western islands. The trawlers now came close in shore, and there was no protection for the line fishermen on the Atlantic side of the Hebrides from the depredations of trawlers. Before Parliament met again he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence with the Admiralty to try and get one or two cruisers for sea police duty round the coast. With regard to the construction of the Brennan torpedo, he thought they ought to know what amount of money was expended on each operation in the workshops, and he hoped that a good, sound system of carrying on the manufacture of torpedoes would be adopted.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that with regard to the question of a cruiser, it would have been disastrous to have gone into the matter without due consideration, and that was the only cause of delay. He assured the hon. Member that a vessel would be provided, and that that vessel would be of proper size, dimensions, and speed. As to the other point raised, the hon. Member, if he had studied the Act of Parliament, would have seen that the 13 mile limit could not be applied on the west coast of Scotland unless the consent of the signatories of the North Sea Powers was obtained. The Scotch Office had no power to make the bye-law the hon. Member desired. It had no common law power to make bye-laws, and its action was governed by the statute referred to.

  FEMALE FACTORY INSPECTOR.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNdrew the attention of the Home Secretary to the necessity of reappointing a head woman inspector of factories. The office was vacant, and the question of filling it was of great interest among the women and children employed in factories and workshops in Lancashire and Yorkshire. He trusted that the lady appointed to the position would have all the powers of
  376
  the late holder of it. That lady was appointed by Mr. Asquith when he was Home Secretary, and her work had been attended with great success. It was therefor most important that her work should be continued by another lady inspector.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the question chiefly engaging the attention of the Home Office was not whether the vacancy should be filled up, but whether the lady appointed should hold it under the same or some other title. Certain technical reasons connected with administration had to be considered. Whether the title was changed or not, there was no desire to diminish the powers which the holder of the office should exercise. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
  Lords Amendment to Commons Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Six o' Clock.