Commons Sitting of 29 March 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Two of the clock.

ROYAL ASSENT.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1898.

2. Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898.

3. Army (Annual) Act, 1898.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  NORWICH CITY WATER BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.

  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  On the order for the Second Reading of this Bill—
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I do not propose to object, to the Second Reading of this Bill, or to make many observations at this stage, because I think it is one which ought to go before a Select Committee, and have its merits discussed there. There is no doubt whatever, with regard to this proposal, that some Measure is required in the interests of all classes of Dublin for the reform of the Port and Docks Board of Dublin City. The Board is an antiquated institution, elected on an antiquated franchise, and, to my certain knowledge, the citizens of Dublin have for many years past anxiously desired some reform in the constitution of that body, and some alteration in the franchise upon which, it is elected. We have over and over again appealed to the Government of the day to make this reform, but no matter what the Government of the day was, whether Liberal or Conservative, we have always been put off by one excuse or another.

  1219
  Recently, the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, or some gentleman connected with that body, took in hand this question of reforming the Port and Docks Board of Dublin, and they have produced the Bill which is now before the House for Second Reading, and I frankly admit that the Bill does constitute an improvement in the direction which I desire, it reduces the franchise, and increases the electorate from 200 to some thousands of votes. That, of course, is a great improvement, and I should hesitate to stop a Bill which would bring about a reform of that kind. My object in rising was to enter my protest against any attempt, any half-hearted attempt, being made to reform the Dublin Port and Docks Board, because, in my opinion, any reform of that body should be a reform root and branch. The franchise proposed by this Bill is a £25 rating franchise, but it is not really a simple £25 rating franchise, because the multiple vote is also allowed, and, therefore, persons of the wealthy class, even under the £25 rating franchise, Would exercise a preponderating influence in the election of this Board. Now, Sir, it has been said that, only persons connected with the business of shipping, and the port and harbour of Dublin, ought really to have a vote for the election of members of the Port and Docks Board, but I contend that every citizen of Dublin has an equal interest, proportionately to his position, in this Board, and in every matter of this kind. Every citizen of Dublin, one way or another, contributes to the revenue of the port and harbour of Dublin. He may not pay rates directly, he may not be a shipper, or a wholesale merchant, but he supports the shipper and the wholesale merchant, and, therefore, he indirectly contributes as much as any of the other classes to the revenues of the port and harbour of Dublin. I say, then, that the reform, which was wanted in the Port and Dock Board of Dublin is one which would place the management of the business of the port and harbour of Dublin in the hands of the whole body of citizens of that city. My own plan would be to take advantage of the present Local Government Bill, and transfer the business of the Port and Dock Board to the Corporation, which might manage it by means of a separate Committee. I
  1220
  do not know whether that idea would find favour with the Government in the Committee stage of the Bill, but, at all events, I myself, if nobody else does, will recommend that course to be taken. Meanwhile, I have only to say that I do not oppose the Bill at the present stage for the reason I have already stated, although I consider that it ought to be fought out upon its merits upstairs, and I therefore content myself with recording my opinion that no such arrangement as proposed by this Bill will be satisfactory, and that in the end, or in a few years hence, a settlement will be arrived at in the interests of the general body of citizens of Dublin of the question of the control of the harbour authority of Dublin. It is a matter which, in my opinion, should be placed in the hands of the whole body of citizens.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (BARNES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  From Elham, for weekly payment; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
  From Batley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  From Ryton, against State Regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From West of Scotland and Glasgow in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  From Rishton, Martholme, Middleton, Broad Oak, Timsbury, Greyfield, Hill of Beath, Lochore, Townhill, Elgin, Balgonie, and Limehurst, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Perth, Ayr, and Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  From Batley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  From Market Harborough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  From Bury, London, Lancaster, Newton Abbot, Penzance, Biggleswade, Redhill, Bowness, Kirkby Stephen, Birkenhead, Tavistock, Southsea, St. Alban's, Holmfirth, Ashton-under-Lyne, Wigton, Bristol, Alnwick, Maryport, Wigan, Grimsby, and Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  From Radford, Portsmouth, Ashdon, Lancaster, Westhoughton, Reigate, St. Ives, Market Harborough, Cheadle, Ilsington, Longbridge, Compton, Walton-le-Dale, Gidlow, Great Grimsby, Rudstone, and Langtoft-with-Cotton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  From Mile End Old Town, Incorporated Society of Medical Officers of Health, Lambeth, and Streatham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways between Flamborough and Bridlington, in the East Riding of the county of York [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway from Congresbury to Blagdon, with branches, in the county of Somerset [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copies presented of Reports by the Board of Trade respecting the following Bills and their objects, namely:—

  Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords];

  London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment) Bill;

  Tenterden Railway Bill [Lords].

  [in pursuance of Standing Order 158A]; to be referred to the respective Committees on the Bills.

  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return presented [ordered 24th February (Mr. Gibson Bowles)]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of Years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]
  NAVY (VICTUALLING YARD MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTS, 1896–7).
  Annual Accounts presented of the Cost of Manufacturing, Provisions, Victualling Stores, etc., at the Home Victualling Yards and Malta Yard for 1896–7, etc., with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copies presented of Treasury Minutes declaring that the undermentioned persons were appointed to the offices set against their names without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Heads of their Departments, namely—

  Mr. Charles Locke Eastlake, Keeper and Secretary, National Gallery, dated 26th February, 1898;

  Mr. Edward Henry Rawson Walker, Vice Consul, Tripoli, Consular Service, dated 17th March, 1898,

  [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 12th March, 1898, declaring that for the office of Chief Inspector of
  1224
  Fisheries under the Board of Trade professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 25th March, 1898, under the Appropriation Act, 1897, authorising the temporary application of Surpluses on certain Navy Votes for the year 1897–8 to meet Excesses on certain other Navy Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented of Forty-fifth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (SALFORD).
  Copy presented of Order of the Council of the County Borough of Salford re-dividing the Seedley Ward into convenient Polling Districts and altering the numbers of the Polling Districts in Weaste and Hope Wards within the said Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of Paper entitled "Naval Manœuvres, 1897" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,042 and 2,043 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon, the Table, and to be printed.
QUESTIONS.

  DEFENCES OF THE RIVER CLYDE.
  COLONEL J. M. DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in reference to the defences of the River Clyde, whether any action has ever been taken based on the Report by Admiral Sir Vesey Hamilton and General Sir Lothian Nicholson in 1888; and, if not, will he state the reason why?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The Report referred to was fully considered, and a scheme for the defence of the Clyde was approved. Up to this time, however, such exorbitant prices have been asked for the sites required, that it has not been possible to make satisfactory progress. The establishment of the necessary minefield, with the supporting batteries has been completed.

  ARMY CORPS.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement that for a large war our two Army Corps will be complete, whether it is intended to make public the names of the commanders, generals, and staffs of those corps, and to afford them opportunities of practising their commands and duties; whether the nine units in each Army Corps, shown in the Regulations for Mobilisation, 1894, as non-existent in peace, will now be organised and exercised to make the corps complete; and whether the Army Corps areas, which in those Regulations most inconveniently overlap one another, will be re-adjusted and made self-contained, to facilitate mobilisation in case of emergency?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not at present intended to make public the names of the Staff officers who would be employed in case of mobilisation. The units referred to would only be assembled when mobilisation might take place; but certain bearer companies, field hospitals, and ammunition columns are, from time to
  1226
  time, mobilised for training. Every endeavour is being made to arrange for drawing the troops forming the several brigades, divisions, and Army Corps from the same or adjoining districts.

  MILITARY STORES FOR EAST AFRICA.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the military stores required by the East African Protectorate are despatched by British or German lines of steamers?
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS): I am not aware. The stores are despatched by the Crown Agents for the Colonies.

  PATENT LITIGATION.
  MR. F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the referee appointed by the Board of Trade has given his decision in the test case, Levinstein v. Earbeverke, Vormals Meister Lucius and Bruning, for a compulsory licence under Section 22 of the Patent Act, 1883; and, if not, whether he can slate when the decision will be given?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I understand that the referee will make his Report to the Board of Trade in the course of a few days.

  FEMALE EMPLOYMENT IN GLASGOW.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) whether his attention has been called to a report of the Christian Social Union on the conditions under which the folding and binding of books is carried on by women and girls in the employment of William Collins and Company, at Glasgow; (2) whether that firm is licensed, in terms of Her Majesty's Letters Patent to Her printers for Scotland and of the Instruction in Council of 1839, to print and publish the Holy Bible, the licence being signed by the Lord Advocate; (3) whether the printer receiving the licence applies to the Bible Board for a form, which leads to his giving caution in the sum of £500 that all will

  1227
  be done in accordance with the terms of the licence granted; and, (4) whether this form of licence and caution brings the matter within the scope of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): My attention has not been called to the Report referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, nor to the conditions under which the folding and binding of books are carried on by Messrs. William Collins, Sons, and Co., Glasgow. The answers to paragraphs two and three are in the affirmative. The matter does not, in my opinion, fall within the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, as the printing of Bibles in Scotland is not done under Government contract—all that falls under the cognizance of Her Majesty's Board of Printers, being the correctness of the text and the seeing that the words "Printed by Authority," the Royal Arms, and the Lord Advocate's licence are printed on each edition.

  ARMY PENSION PAYMENTS.
  MR. G. H. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider a suggestion put forward by many Poor Law Union Boards, namely, that Army pensioners should receive their pensions weekly or monthly instead of quarterly, as at present; and, if he finds some such proposal feasible, whether arrangements might be made to pay the same through the local post offices?
  MR. BRODRICK: Arrangements are in progress for paying pensioners in the Government service more frequently, but apart from the expense involved, which would be heavy, there are difficulties in their own interest in regard to frequent payments of other pensioners, which have been explained in this House. Pensioners have for many years past been paid through local post offices.

  CROWN PROSECUTIONS AT CORK ASSIZES.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to proceedings connected with Grown prosecutions at the late winter assizes at Cork; (2) is he aware that, in the case of The Crown v. Matthew Murray and Matthew Lyons, charged with a moonlighting offence, 14 jurors were ordered to stand by, by the prosecuting counsel; and that, in the case of Daniel Connell and Edward Connell, charged with manslaughter, eight jurors were similarly treated; and (3) was this action taken by direction or with the sanction of Mr. Attorney General; and, if so, on what grounds were those jurors who are compelled to attend under heavy penalties subjected to this treatment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The facts are as stated in the second paragraph. The Crown Solicitor, in setting aside the jurors, acted in conformity with the directions contained in the circular of February, 1894, addressed by the late Government to Crown Solicitors. No special instructions were issued by me in the matter, and I am quite satisfied that in each case the course pursued was essential for the due administration of justice. The jurors were set aside because the Crown Solicitor had reasons to believe that the jurors if sworn would not be likely to give an impartial verdict.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it intended to continue the present system of excluding jurors?
  MR. ATKINSON: Certainly, Sir, whenever the circumstances render it desirable.

  ALLOTMENTS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a parish council has been reprimanded by an auditor of the Local Government Board for charging to the tenants of allotments a rent only covering the outlay on such allotments, and

  1229
  has been advised to add a further sum to cover unforeseen contingencies; and whether the auditor was authorised in such a course, seeing that by letting to an association all risks from voids would be met?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. H. CHAPLIN,): I have no information as to the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I will make inquiry as to the facts if I am informed of the name of the parish council which has given rise to the Question.

  CUSTOM HOUSE BOATMEN.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether appointments to the position of Custom House boatman are for the present suspended; whether Her Majesty's Government are considering the expediency of offering these posts in future to retired soldiers and sailors of good character; and whether, in the meantime, and before any change of system is made, steps will be taken to appoint those men whose names are already on the list of persons nominated?
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir W. H. WALROND,): Owing to a re-arrangement in the staff of Her Majesty's Customs, all appointments to the post of boatman were suspended in September last for an indefinite period, and there is no immediate prospect of a renewal of vacancies. Candidates are only eligible between the ages of 20 and 30, and they must pass an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners. I am always glad to consider the claims of any old soldiers or sailors who are recommended to me subject to these conditions. The names already on the list of candidates are so numerous that under the most favourable circumstances some years must elapse before they all receive nominations. Meanwhile no further applications can be entertained; but I must reserve to myself freedom to deal with such vacancies as may occur in the future upon the merits of individual cases.

  INDIAN COPPER COINAGE.
  MR. A. STRAUSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India the face value of the copper coins coined in India since the closing of the mints to silver, and the quantity of copper used for that purpose?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The face value of the copper coins of the Indian Government coined at the Indian mints during the four years from 1893–94 to 1896–97 inclusive was Rs. 46. 46. 333; the value of the copper coins which were coined for other Governments was Rs. 4. 39. 336. The amount of copper used in the manufacture of coins for the Indian Government during the period was, approximately (allowing for waste), 6,200,000 lbs. It is not possible from the information that is available to show what proportion of the copper coinage for 1893–94 was struck previously to the closing of the mints. No information as to the coinage of the year 1897–98 is yet available.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can say what amount of capital are Indian railway companies expected to raise in London this year under guarantee from the Government and without such guarantees?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The amount of capital which Indian railway companies are expected to raise in London during the financial year 1898–99 under the guarantee of the Secretary of State for India in Council is £2,273,000. I have no information as to the amounts that may be raised by the non-guaranteed companies.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE FOR IRELAND.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury is prepared to act on the Report of the Government

  1231
  Committee recommending, after hearing local evidence, the provision of a new building for the Royal College of Science for Ireland, Dublin; whether, having regard to the sum of £800,000 proposed in the Civil Service Loans Bill for expenditure on the Science and Art Museum, South Kensington, Her Majesty's Treasure is prepared to make provision in this Bill for the building of a new college in Dublin within this financial year; whether the present college building could be utilised, and is required, for the accommodation of the staff of the Board of Works or other Government body; and whether it is intended to transfer the laboratory to a site near Kildare Street?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Committee to which the hon. Member refers, while reporting that a new building is required and suggesting a site for the purpose, did not propose any plan for its construction. They thought it desirable that the settlement of a plan should be left to another Committee of different constitution. Their Report is still under consideration by the Science and Art Department. Whatever plan may ultimately be adopted, it may be presumed that compulsory powers of purchase will have to be acquired as a preliminary to its execution, and consequently it is not intended to make any financial provision in the present Bill. It would be premature also to decide at present as to the use to be made of the existing college building. Its utilisation must depend upon the requirements of the public service at the time when it becomes available.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on 11th December, 1897, the crew of the steamship Queen Margaret were discharged at the port of Bremerhaven, and that those seamen applied to the captain and consul to have their expenses of conveyance from Bremerhaven to London, the port at which they were engaged, defrayed by the captain, in accordance with Section 186 of the
  1232
  Merchant Shipping Act; whether he is aware that Her Majesty's consul refused to sanction the payment of Edward Carlsen's passage and maintenance, on the ground that he was a foreigner; and whether he can state if there is any provision in the Merchant Shipping Act which provides that a seaman who may be a foreigner is not entitled to the same privileges and rights as a British seaman who serves under articles on a British vessel?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My attention was called to the case of the Queen Margaret, also to the cases referred to in the succeeding Questions of the hon. Member, and inquiries are being made. Until I am in possession of full particulars I cannot make any further statement in the matter.
  The following were the other Questions standing in the name of the hon. Member:—
  "Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the charges preferred against E. J. Nicholas, chief officer, and E. J. Tritz, master, of the sailing ship Troope for assaults on several seamen engaged on that vessel on a voyage from Tokoma to Swansea; whether he has read the reports of the proceedings before the stipendiary magistrate at Swansea; whether he is aware that several men who signed on as able seamen before Her Majesty's consul at Tokoma were men who had never served any period at sea in the capacity of seamen; and whether he intends holding an inquiry into the conduct of the captain of this vessel?"
  "Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case tried at Swansea Police Court before the stipendiary magistrate on Thursday, 24th March, when three seamen sued the captain of the sailing ship Troope for wages due; whether he is aware that when the seamen were engaged on this vessel at Tokoma the captain paid over to certain boardinghouse keepers three months' advances of wages; whether he is aware that, after hearing the evidence, the stipendiary

  1233
  magistrate held that Section 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that it is only legal to give one month's wages in advance; and whether, in view of this decision, he will issue instructions to consular officers abroad that in future they must only sanction the payment of one month's advance, of wages to seamen signing on British ships?"
  "Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the assaults committed by the captain and chief officer of the sailing ship Troope upon three of the crew; whether he is aware that the chief officer was fined £5, including costs; and that the captain was fined £2 and costs for kicking one of the seamen; whether he intends to hold any further inquiry into the matter, with a view of dealing with the certificates of officers belonging to this ship; and whether he is aware that the captain of this vessel signed on men as sailors who had not had any previous experience as seamen; and that one of the men was taken on board the ship wit out signing articles?"
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to give notice that I will repeat these Questions.

  RECRUITING FROM THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether service in the Army was offered to the 995 candidates for the Royal Irish Constabularly on the books when recruiting for that force was discontinued in December, 1896; what sort of service in the Army was offered to them; were they to constitute a new regiment; how many of the 995 accepted the offer of the military authorities; and how are they now employed in the Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: Last December, when recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary was still suspended, a proposal was made by the War Office to the Irish Government, that any candidates then on the books who might desire to do so should enlist in the Army, under certain conditions which would enable them to
  1234
  return later on to the Constabulary. The Irish Government did not approve the suggestion, and the matter dropped. If any of these candidates did enlist, it has been as ordinary recruits, and they cannot be identified.

  OLDHAM COUNTY COURT OFFICES.
  MR. R. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether he is aware that local firms were not allowed to tender for the electrical installation recently put in the Oldham County Court offices; (2) whether there is any rule which prohibits fully qualified firms tendering for such work; and (3) whether he will consider the advisability of allowing all such firms in the future the opportunity of tendering for local work undertaken by the Board of Works?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that there is no rule that prohibits qualified firms tendering for the work to which the Question refers That in the present case the work had to be executed in a very short period of time, for departmental reasons, and tenders were obtained from two well-qualified firms, who could be relied upon to do the work in the time required. In reply to the latter portion of the Question I may say that, whenever circumstances permit, local firms are invited to tender for works in charge of the Board.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  MR. HORACE C. PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the action of the Trinity House in adopting oil and not electricity as the illuminant for the two new lighthouses at the important station of Lundy Island is to be taken to mean that they do not now hold the opinion expressed in their Report to the South Foreland experiments as to the superiority of the electric light as a lighthouse illuminant; and whether, in future, gas and oil are to be adopted as illuminants in lighthouses?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House that they adhere to the opinion expressed by their Committee as the result of the experiments made by them at the South Foreland, but they did not consider that the great additional expenditure necessary for installing and maintaining two separate electric light stations would be justified in the case of Lundy Island. The question whether electricity, gas, or oil are to be adopted as illuminants in the future must depend, to a great extent, on the circumstances of the particular lighthouses.

  IRISH GOLD ANTIQUITIES.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the memorial addressed by the Royal Irish Academy to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject of the gold antiquities recently found in Ireland, and subsequently purchased by the British Museum, and the correspondence relating thereto?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The memorial referred to is not a document of such a nature as to be properly laid on the Table of the House. I will be happy, however, to show the memorial as well as the correspondence connected with it to my right hon. Friend if he so desires.

  RACONFIELD ESTATE, COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what has caused the delay in the sale of Raconfield Estate, county Monaghan, to the tenants; is he aware that these tenants, in July, 1897, through their solicitor and the solicitor for the landlady, signed an agreement to buy at sixteen years' purchase; and that the landlady now writes to them demanding a
  1236
  year and a half's rent before completing the purchase, although they paid all arrears up to November, 1896, preparatory for the sale; and is this a case in which the Land Commission can interfere?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There appears to be no estate in the county Monaghan known by the name of Raconfield, though there is a property known as the Rathconnell estate. The agent of this estate states, however, that there are no sales contemplated on it.

  POUNDAGE ON INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could furnish to the House the rates of poundage paid to the local collectors of income Tax (Schedules A and B) for Dublin and Belfast respectively?
  MR. HANBURY: In the Dublin collecting districts the poundage rates vary from sixpence to eightpence. In Belfast the rate is sixpence halfpenny.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the provisions of the Local Government Bill as at present drafted, it is contemplated to hand over two sets of collectors to the county council, whereas the general principle of the Bill is that the work shall be done by one set only; and is it contemplated to compel county councils to superannuate those whose appointments were only from one assize to another?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are at present two sets of collectors, namely, Barony High Constables, who collect the cess, and are employed by the Grand Jury; and Poor Rate Collectors, who are employed by Boards of Guardians. Under the Bill the whole work of collection will be transferred to county councils, and those officers, whether

  1237
  Barony High Constables or Poor Rate Collectors, whose services are dispensed with in consequence, will be entitled, under the Bill, to compensation. As the Bill stands at present, compensation to those officers whose appointments were only from one Assize to another will be by gratuity, and not by pension.

  INDIAN SEDITION ACTS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he will postpone approval of the new Sedition Acts just passed at Calcutta until the House of Commons has an opportunity of considering whether these Acts have the effect of curtailing or interfering with the liberty of the Press in India? (2) I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Sedition Acts recently passed in India allow the district magistrate to try political cases in which he is himself the complainant, and empower him to require from editors security for good behaviour under the chapter relating to vagrants, suspected persons, and habitual offenders; and whether he will disallow these provisions, as infringing his declaration that the law would be practically unaltered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In reply to the two questions of the hon. Baronet, I may remind him, that the Acts to which he refers having been duly passed, and having received the assent of the Viceroy, are already part of the law of India, and will remain so unless I shall advise the Queen to disallow them. As soon as I have received the authentic copies of both these Acts, which the law requires to be sent home, I will cause copies to be presented to Parliament, and, as I have already stated more than once, shall be perfectly ready to be held responsible for any advice which I may think fit to give.

  MACROOM AND BALLINCOLLIG MAILS.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster
  1238
  General, if mail bags are sent from Macroom and Ballincollig, the last station on the Cork and Macroom Railway; and why the 10.30 a.m. train does not take on mails at all stations between Macroom and Cork, giving correspondents the opportunity of catching the 2.15 p.m. Dublin and English mail from Cork?
  MR. HANBURY: Mail bags are sent from Macroom and Ballincollig by the 10.30 a.m. train to Cork, and from Macroom, but not Ballincollig (which has a later evening dispatch by road than it could have by rail) by the 7 p.m. train. The 10.30 a.m. train does not take on mails at all stations, because at the places intermediate between Macroom and Ballincollig the correspondence has not hitherto been found sufficient to warrant the cost involved.

  COACHFORD AND DONOUGHMORE MAILS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the present expenses of transport of mails to Coachford and Donoughmore is £360 per annum; whether, there being now a light railway running for some years to both these points, advantage will be taken of the advantage a railway gives beyond an ordinary mail car; and if, as alleged, the Cork and Muskerry Railway Company are prepared to deliver at both points and for post offices intermediary for the annual sum of £250?
  MR. HANBURY: The present expense of transport of mails to Coachford and Donoughmore cannot be separated from the expense of serving other places, which are upon the same line of post and to which the railway does not extend. Although there is a railway running to Coachford and Donoughmore, the trains are at hours which would afford a less convenient service at both places than is afforded by road. The Postmaster General is not aware that the Cork and Muskerry Railway Company are prepared to convey mails for Coachford, Donoughmore, and other stations for £250 a year, but he could not,

  1239
  in any case, entertain the offer, as the service would not be equally good with that already afforded.

  OYSTERS AND TYPHOID FEVER.
  SIR WILLIAM O. PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the report concerning a fresh outbreak of typhoid fever from eating oysters, he proposes in the near future to take steps which will, as far as possible, prevent oysters being supplied from polluted sources, and, while giving greater security to the public, will assist in rehabilitating the oyster industry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am considering the question of legislation on this subject, but I cannot give any definite undertaking at present.

  KILCREA MAILS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the morning mail train to Macroom, stopping at Kilcrea, might be taken advantage of to deliver mails at that station for Kilcrea, Farren, and Aherla; whether the mails are up to the present sent by road; and what are the hours of postal morning delivery at Kilcrea, Farren, Aherla, Crookstown, and Macroom?
  MR. HANBURY: Inquiry shall be made whether the morning mail train to Macroom stopping at Kilcrea might be taken advantage of to deliver mails at that station for Kilcrea, Farren, and Aherla. At present the mails for those places are carried by road. The hours of delivery of the night mails at the places named are as follows:—Kilcrea, 8.50 a.m.; Farren, 8.15; Aherla, 9.25; Crookstown, 6.45; and Macroom, 7.0.

  COOK ESTATE, COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether proceedings were instituted in the Land Commission Court in Dublin for sale to the tenants of the Cook estate, in the parish of Killashee and electoral division of Moydow, county Longford; and how it came to pass that no steps were taken to complete the sale, although the agreements to purchase were fully signed and sworn to?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no proceedings pending in the Land Commission for the sale of the estate referred to in this Question.

  NORTH CHARTERLAND EXPLORATION COMPANY.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in 1890 and 1891 concessions, which have since been acquired by the North Charterland Exploration Company, under the British South Africa Company, were obtained from the chief Mpeseni and ten subordinate chiefs in Angoniland in return for which they were to receive annual payments amounting to £860 for ninety-nine years; whether it is correctly stated that the payments have not been made, and that the recent disturbances in Angoniland are partly consequent thereon; and Whether he will inquire into these statements and take them into consideration in deciding the treatment to be accorded to Mpeseni and others for their alleged rebellion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): This Question has been addressed to me by mistake. It should be put to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it another day.

  MACROOM PARCEL POST.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether a parcel sent by parcel post from Macroom can only be forwarded by the 7 p.m. train from that town; (2) whether postal facilities from and through Cork afford with a later Macroom service greater possibility of perishable articles passing than is now afforded; and if the 10.30 a.m. train could be utilised in this regard?
  MR. HANBURY: A parcel sent by parcel post from Macroom can only be forwarded by the 7 p.m. train from that town. The second paragraph of the Question is not understood, there being no later train than 7 p.m., by which a later Macroom service could be afforded. A parcel mail from Macroom by the 10.30 a.m. train was established experimentally in 1895, but the parcels averaged only one a day, and the continuance of the despatch was not warranted.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY OFFICERS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can state how many (if any) young gentlemen aspirants to the rank of district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary presented themselves for examination at the depôt in December last; (2) whether he can state how many of them were sons of officers; (3) who has the gift of making these nominations; and (4) whether, in view of the proposed reduction of the force, these appointments will in future be thrown open exclusively to deserving constables and head constables?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Eighteen gentlemen competed at the examination held in December last for four cadetships in the Royal Irish Constabulary. Seven of the candidates were sons of officers. The nominations are in the gift of the Lord Lieutenant. The answer to the fourth paragraph is in the negative.

  IRISH GRANTS-IN-AID.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received copies of Resolutions passed by public bodies in Ireland, regretting that the Imperial grant-in-aid of poor rate and county cess under the Local Government Bill only applies to land; (2) is he aware that heretofore mills, houses in towns, and other buildings got equal relief with land of about 3d. in the pound from the Estate Duty grant; and (3) whether he can state what steps the Government intend taking to compensate urban tenants if the Estate Duty grant is to be withdrawn in future?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statements contained in the first and second paragraphs are correct. As I have already more than once stated the Bill does not interfere with the grant provided for by the Probate Duties Act of 1888, and this grant will continue to be distributed on the same basis as heretofore. Those premises and hereditaments which, by its operation, have obtained relief in taxation, will still obtain the same relief when the Bill becomes law.

  CARRICKMACROSS LAND CASES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Sub-Commissioners, who heard cases recently at Carrickmacross, have yet viewed the farms on the estates of Mr. Shirley and Major Tennison; and whether two Commissioners will view the farms in question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the holdings referred to have not yet been inspected, nor will they be for some weeks. The cases having been heard by a legal Assistant Commissioner sitting with a lay colleague, the holdings should, so I am informed, be visited by only one lay Assistant Commissioner.

  CLOGHROE NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. HEALY), I beg to ask the

  1243
  Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state on what grounds the Commissioners of National Education refused the application made by the manager of the Cloghroe School (county Cork) to postpone the annual results examination this year for a month, so as to allow of a year's interval since last year's examination, which was postponed until the end of April in consequence of an epidemic of mumps amongst the children; and, whether, in view of the fact that the epidemic was certified by the local dispensary doctor and lasted to May last, steps will now be taken to postpone the examination so as to secure a full year's interval since the last?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The decision of the Commissioners in the case of this school has already formed the subject-matter of a correspondence between them and the school manager, who has been informed that the postponement of the examination applied to last year only, and that it was impossible for the Commissioners to accede to the present application. I am informed that the effects of the epidemic upon the school attendance have not been serious, and that the school suffers no hardship by being examined in March. It has had the full period of 12 months for making up the attendances that qualify for examination.

  TREASURE TROVE IN IRELAND.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Celtic ornaments discovered recently in Donegal were treasure trove; if so, was an offence committed in handing them over to the agents of the British Museum; and, will the Executive call for a Report on this matter, or take any steps to prevent ancient remains passing out of Ireland in future?
  Mr. ATKINSON: On the facts, so far as I have been able to ascertain them, these articles were, in my opinion, treasure trove, and belonged to the Crown. The first finder was primâ facie guilty of the offence of unlawfully, wilfully, and
  1244
  knowingly concealing the finding from the Crown. The ornaments were purchased by the trustees of the British Museum in the usual way of business from a private person, who, it is understood, had obtained them from a dealer. The first finder was, I am informed, a man named Thomas Nichol, a farm servant in the employment of a Mr. Gibson, who lives near Limavady. I have not as yet been able to ascertain the number of intermediaries through whose hands the ornaments passed before their acquisition by the British Museum. The police have already all necessary directions as to their duties to prevent treasure trove from being improperly disposed of by persons who may find it.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the statement just made, he cannot make representations to the British Museum authorities with a view to having these ornaments returned to Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think the trustees of the British Museum have power to let them out of their custody unless it were proved that they had acquired them illegally.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will any proceedings be taken against the finder of these articles, so as to make better known the state of the law?
  MR. ATKINSON: On the information in my possession at present I cannot answer that question.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of prosecuting the trustees of the British Museum?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

  JOURNALIST VERSUS DIPLOMATIST.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs whether he can explain how it is that the Times correspondent in Pekin has been able on several occasions recently to publish facts of the utmost public importance several days before the Foreign Office had obtained any information in reference to them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): I am not sure that this question should not rather have been addressed to the editor of the Times than to me. At the same time I think the explanation asked for is not far to seek. It is the business of Her Majesty's representatives abroad to report to us facts of which they have official cognisance, and to obtain confirmation of them before they telegraph. I hesitate to say what the functions of the modern journalist may be; but I imagine that they do not exclude the intelligent anticipation of facts even before they occur, and in this somewhat unequal competition I think the House will see that the journalist whose main duty is speed is likely sometimes to get the advantage over the diplomatist whose main object is accuracy.

  JUBILEE CELEBRATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether serious trouble exists in New Zealand, caused by Mr. Seddon, the Prime Minister, presenting a Bill for £1,700 on account of expenses incurred during his Jubilee tour; if there was any reason for the local understanding that the entire cost of the sojourn of the Colonial Premiers during Jubilee time would be borne by the Imperial Government; and if any report has been received of a crisis in the New Zealand Parliament owing to the alleged Bill being presented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have no official information on the subject.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information was published in yesterday's paper?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I said I had no official information, but I would add that questions affecting the internal policy of one of our self-governing colonies have really no interest for the Home Office or for the British House of Commons.

  MILITARY ATTACHE IN CHINA.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Military Attaché in China lives at Shanghai; whether he has ever visited the northern provinces of China; and whether, if he is required at Shanghai, another Military Attaché can be stationed at Pekin?
  MR. CURZON: We do not know whether Colonel Brown, the British Military Attaché in China, lives at Shanghai. He is at present, or was quite recently, in the northern provinces of China, having been at Kirin in Manchuria. There is no need for two Military Attachés in China, the services of the present officer being at the disposition of Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. W. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have agreed to send a representative to the proposed Conference at Brussels on the sugar bounties; and if he is aware whether all the other European countries interested in the question have also consented to send representatives to the Conference?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have accepted the invitation of the Belgian Government to send representatives to the proposed Conference. It is believed that similar answers have been sent by other foreign Governments, but we have not yet been officially informed as to which those Powers are.

  RUSSTA AND CHINA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign affairs whether he can now state the terms of the Agreement which has just been signed between Russia and China?
  MR. CURZON: The exact terms of the Agreement are not in our possession, but the Russian Ambassador has notified to

  1247
  Her Majesty's Government that by a convention signed on March 27th between Russia and China, the usufruct of Port Arthur and Talienwan, and the adjacent territories, has been granted to Russia by the Chinese Government.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that Russia has obtained Talienwan when England could not?
  [No Reply.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I should like to ask whether it is the fact, or have Her Majesty's Government any confirmation of the report, that the Russian flag has been hoisted at Port Arthur, and also whether Port Arthur will remain a free or open port?
  MR. CURZON: I must ask my hon. Friend to give notice of the question.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understood the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to state, in reply to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, that he had received a communication from the Russian Ambassador stating that the "usufruct" of Port Arthur and Talienwan had been granted to Russia. "Usufruct" appears to be a new word to introduce in this matter. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that when that communication was made there was no communication of the terms attached to the "usufruct"?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir. The communication from the Russian Ambassador from which I was quoting was received this morning at the Foreign Office, and I only saw it half an hour ago. I certainly did not use the term "usufruct" from any personal preference of my own, but because "usufruct" is a direct translation of the term "usufruit" employed by the Russian Ambassador in the communication in question. There was no other mention in the communication received from him as to the exact terms of the agreement beyond that which I have given to the House.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself attach any meaning to the term "usufruct" as applied to a military fortress, and will he lay the communication on the Table of the House?
  MR. CURZON: The question of laying the Note on the Table of the House will be considered, but I have little doubt that it will be included among the Papers already promised.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman also lay on the Table of the House the previous communications of the Russian Government on the same subject?
  MR. CURZON: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. Tester-day I stated that I was about to lay Papers on the Table of the House, containing many previous communications with the Russian and other foreign Governments.

  MARGARINE COLOURING.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether his attention has been called to a recent report of Dr. A. W. Blyth, public analyst for Marylebone, referring to the colouring of margarine with aniline dyes, so as to resemble butter, in which he states that the aniline dyes, even in small doses, interfere with digestion; and (2) do the Government intend to deal with this dangerous form of adulteration in the proposed amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have seen the Report of Dr. Blyth. He states that of the samples of food and drink analysed only two were certified to be adulterated. One was a case of margarine, coloured heavily with an aniline dye, and sold as butter, and the other was a sample of butter heavily coloured with an orange aniline dye. As regards the second Question, adulteration which is injurious to health is already provided for under Section 3 of the Act of 1875, where the penalty for a first offence is £50, and for a second six months' imprisonment with hard labour. As to any amendment of the Acts, I must reserve my statement until the introduction by the Government of a Bill upon the subject.
  MR FLYNN: Has there been any prosecution in connection with the two cases mentioned by the night hon. Gentleman, and were any penalties inflicted?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I cannot answer that without notice.

  CRETE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Austrian troops from Crete, and the greater part of the squadron from Cretan waters, now officially communicated to the House, the guarantee Powers will undertake to adopt coercive measures so as to secure the early appointment of a Christian governor entrusted with full powers in the island?
  MR. CURZON: Such an undertaking has not been proposed by any Government, and is not one which Her Majesty's Government are disposed to enter into.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can my right hon. Friend answer without notice whether it is the fact, as stated, that the Porte has proposed the appointment of Karatheodori Pasha as Governor General of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: I must ask for notice of the Question.

  ARMS IN THE PERSIAN GULF.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the steamship Baluchistan was, on the 24th January last, seized by H.M.S. Lapwing, off Muscat, and certain arms and ammunition on board, shipped at London for Bushire and other ports in the Persian Gulf by the said steamship, were seized and taken out of her by those on board the Lapwing; by whose authority this action was taken; and whether an official report of the occurrence has yet been received?
  MR. CURZON: The incident to which the Question refers formed the subject of a Question asked on the 21st of February by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer then returned, which explained the seizure of certain arms carried by the Buluchistan, and the authority on which such action was taken. The fact of the seizure of the arms was reported by telegram; full details respecting the proceedings have been requested by telegraph, but have not yet been received.

  DUTIES IN SPANISH WEST INDIES.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid any information, confirmatory or otherwise, of a report that the recently appointed Spanish Ambassdor to Washington is charged with instructions to entertain an agreement conferring on American products preferential treatment in the Spanish West Indies; and, in the event of confirmatory information having been received, what steps, if any, he intends to take to protect the interests of British traders having dealings with Cuba or Porto Rico?
  MR. CURZON: Information has been received to the effect that negotiations with regard to the commercial relations between the United States and Cuba have just been commenced at Washington. Until it is known what course these negotiations may take it is impossible to state what, if any, steps it may be necessary to take in the matter.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in case of necessity, take the needful steps to secure most-favoured - nation treatment for British trade?
  MR. CURZON: Occupants of the Front Bench are always cautious in answering hypothetical questions of the type suggested by my hon. Friend.

  IRISH EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have not given him private notice, but which, no doubt, he can answer—namely, whether he can state what is the amount due to Ireland under the equivalent grant for the year 1896, and what the Government intend to do with it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,): The equivalent grant for the year 1896 will be about £150,000 in round figures. I cannot remember the exact amount. It has not been devoted by Parliament to any purpose yet, and, of course, I cannot say what Parliament would do.
  MR. CLANCY: Is this sum for one year only or for two years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: For one year only.
  MR. CLANCY: Then there is another year due now?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact, but a separate fund has been instituted, into which this grant has been paid, and this fund bears interest. There will, I think, be two grants, one for this year and half a year's grant for the year before.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered—
  "Relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1897 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 359, of Session 1897)."—(The President of the Board of Trade.)

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered—
  "Relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities, for the year ended the 25th day of March, 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 360, of Session 1897)."

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (SENTENCES).
  Address for—
  "Return of all sentences of corporal punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic. c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences against Section 43 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales, from the 27th day of August, 1895, to the 31st day of March, 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 456, of Session 2, 1895)."—(Mr. J. Lloyd Morgan.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Fiennes Stanley Wykeham Cornwallis, esquire, for Maidstone Borough.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GREEK LOAN BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  On Clause 1 (power to the Queen to guarantee annuity required for the service of a loan to be raised by the Government of Greece,
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that this Bill does not really adequately set forth the conditions under which we are to be saved from having to pay ourselves the interest on this loan. I think the difficulty may be overcome if you add to sub-section 7 these words—
  "And the proceeds whereof to be employed as provided by Article 7 of the law regarding control set forth in the second schedule of this Act."
  The House will see that what I want to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

  1253
  do is to put this into the section. The first schedule of the Bill is incomplete as information to the House, or to the world at large, as to what the intention of the British Parliament is. The Bill refers to the Convention, and the Convention itself refers to the Act, and, therefore, we have no complete information unless, in addition, we have the Act. The law regarding control we have never seen. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has it, and I also understand that Articles 7 and 10 are the material portions of it; but if he has it, and they are material articles, we, who have never seen them, would be in a better position to accept this Bill if he could consent to add these two articles to the Bill. The Bill will then be complete; it will express its purpose, and the machinery with which it has to be worked, and it will show, indeed, what it professes to do, and how it proposes to do it. I may, perhaps, now ask him to answer the question I raised on other liabilities. I think he should set forth Articles 7 and 10 as a condition of the schedule.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Has the hon. Member moved anything?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will move to add to sub-section 7—
  "And the proceeds whereof to be employed as provided by Article 7 of the law regarding the control set forth in the second schedule of this Act."
  *SIR ELLTS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I think, perhaps, it would be convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer both questions together. Can he inform the House how much money payable under this loan will go to the Russian Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Division said yesterday that £1,000,000 of this money will be paid over to the Russian Government through the Turkish Government. I should like to know whether the sum is as much as a million, or whether this loan provides for that, because it seems a very serious question that this House should guarantee a Greek loan, a portion of which may be paid over to Russia
  1254
  at once and perhaps used for the fortification of Port Arthur.
  MR. J. DILLON: There is one small matter on paragraph 7 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might answer at the same time. He said in his speech yesterday that a portion of the loan was to be applicable to certain refugees in Greece, and I think it would be very desirable that we should know what amount of that money may be applied to the refugees of Crete or Thessaly; and what amount of the loan to which we refer now before us will be in the hands of the Greek Government, or in the hands of the international body who will control the loan for this purpose. It appears to me that this would be a very good opportunity to give some small sum of money to deal with these unfortunate people who are starving now.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): With regard to that point, I stated, to the best of my recollection, that the sum of 12,500,000 drachmae was to be devoted, as part of the proceeds of this loan, to the purpose of repatriating the inhabitants of Thessaly and Crete, and relieving them from distress. That sum will be used by the Greek Government, but how much of it will be applied to each of these purposes I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON: I suppose that will be in the discretion of the Greek Government?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Quite so. What Turkey will do with the money she receives for the war indemnity I really cannot tell. The first use she would make will no doubt be to pay some of her arrears and her just debts; but, of course, Turkey can do what she likes with it. This country has no control over Turkey in the matter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I do not think there is any necessity for what he proposes, which, indeed, if it did anything at all, would create a false impression.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Under these circumstances I will not press my Amendment.
  *SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With regard to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will use their diplomatic influence to see that the money that Turkey receives under this loan is devoted towards the payment of her officials and soldiers, who are in great need of it?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! This does not apply.
  *SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then on which clause would it apply?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: On none of these clauses.
  Committee stage passed, and Bill ordered to be reported without Amendment.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS [EXPENSES] BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM H. K. REDMOND: I wish to move at the end of Clause 1, line 7, to omit "two" and insert the word "one." I do so for the purpose of offering a few words of protest against this expenditure, as I think the sum proposed to be expended is an unnecessarily large sum of money, which, I am quite convinced, may be spent with very much greater and better results in other ways. Mr. Lowther, I do not deny for a moment that it is desirable that public buildings, such as these relating to science and art, should be largo and dignified buildings, but I do protest against the expenditure of this vast sum at the present time, when I am painfully aware of the fact that, for the want of expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money, there is, in the constituency which I represent, a very great deal of genuine distress at the present time. We are frequently asked in this House, why is it that, as Members of this Parliament, we do not take an interest, like other Members, in having magnificent buildings
  1256
  in this city, and keeping up the dignity of the capital of the Empire? I say that our first interest must be to those people that we represent in this House, and if justice were done to them in monetary matters I do not think there would be any objection coming from Irish Members to proper provision being made for public buildings in this city, but it must be borne in mind that while the Irish people will be asked to bear, in the ordinary way, a considerable proportion of the £2,550,000 asked for these buildings, they will get absolutely no return by way of labour, or by any other way, for their share of this expenditure in London. No doubt this money will circulate and give employment, and it will in that respect do the labouring class a certain amount of good, but absolutely not a shilling of this money will be expended for the direct benefit of the Irish people, and under these circumstances I think that English Members cannot be very much surprised if we offer a protest, such as the protest I am making now against the Irish people being called upon to contribute largely for matters which interest them very little. Now, I have repeatedly this Session asked the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as well, to make some small provision for the exceptional state of distress which now prevails in various portions of Ireland, and to some extent in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, and I have never, in answer to my appeals, been able to secure the slightest concession from the Government, or the slightest promise that anything would be done really to alleviate distress or to meet the circumstances which exist at the present time £2,550,000 is an enormous sum of money, and I say that by the expenditure of a mere fraction of that amount a great deal more good could be done by bringing relief to the various portions of Ireland and giving employment to the people. At this moment, while you are spending this vast sum on public buildings in London, it does seem to me, Mr. Lowther, a most unfortunate coincidence that the particular time selected to ask Parliament for £2,550,000, to erect magnificent public buildings in London, that this very time should be the time also when

  1257
  very severe and exceptional distress is felt in many parts of Ireland. I do not know bow hon. Gentlemen feel about the matter, but to me it is a source, I must say, of pain and humiliation to read in the newspapers day after day of public meetings being held throughout the centres of large populations in this country, such as Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere, for the purpose of receiving funds from charitable people in England and Scotland to give employment in Ireland. To read of these meetings, and that money being subscribed, and to come here to the Parliament of the Empire, which is supposed to rule all parts of the Kingdom with justice and equity, and to find that, while private individuals are willing to make some provision for the unhappy state of things in some portions of Ireland, that Parliament will do nothing this year, but, on the contrary, it will spend £2,550,000 to build public buildings in London, at the very time when they refuse to give as much as £50,000 in order to give employment to the people of our country. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen, who do not know more about Ireland than they know about Japan or a place like Talienwan, must be from time to time tired of hearing Irish Members speak, by way of protest, on occasions such as this; but, after all, a moment's reflection would enable them to understand our position. I appeal to any hon. Gentleman opposite who has listened to me to-day if, in the constituency that he might represent, there were a great lack of employment, if there were the appearance of actual starvation and distress amongst the people who elected him; I ask him, under these circumstances, how can he feel in coming to this House and being refused any help in order to give employment to the people, who are actually in a state of starvation, and then, instead of anything of that nature being done, he be asked, as a representative of those people, to vote, in one lump sum, the enormous amount of £2,550,000 not for the purpose of alleviating distress, but for the purpose of making more magnificent public buildings for this great city? I say that if any English Members were in the position which some of us are in from Ireland they would take exactly the same course that we are taking now, and they would protest with all their might
  1258
  and main against this vast expenditure at the present time while distress existed, and particularly amongst the very people that they represented. Mr. Lowther, it appears to me to be simply a disgraceful state of affairs—and I really must call it a disgraceful state of affairs—to say that we in Ireland, who are able to show, beyond all shadow of doubt, that, for the want of a small amount of money from the Government of the day, the people are in danger of suffering from actual starvation, while there are, at the same time, millions of money voted away in beautifying public buildings of this great city—I say that the Irish people have every reason to feel disgusted with the system by which they are governed in this House. I say it is enough to drive the people of Ireland to acts of violence and desperation, when they rind that their appeals for help are listened to with a deaf ear by this House, and that, at the same time, money is lavishly spent on those works which may be desirable, but which cannot for a single moment be described as anything like so necessary or so pressing as those for which we from time to time ask for money in Ireland. It was only the other day that I asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could supply £200 a year in order to open up communication in a portion of my constituency where the people are cut off from the markets, and where there is a great necessity for some means of communication. He refused to do anything of the kind, but said that there were not sufficient funds available. He may have been, and is, probably, quite in sympathy with the request which I put forward, but his reply was that there were no funds available in order to promote relief works in Ireland. Was there no money available to promote lines of communication in Ireland, through districts which everybody admitted ought to have lines of communication in their midst? No funds are available for these things, but with a light heart the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the authorities of the Government come down here and ask us in half an hour to vote two-and-a-half millions, in order to erect public buildings in this city! I, for one, shall refuse to do anything of the kind. I do not know whether there are present at this moment any Irish Members representing these constituencies—and there

  1259
  are a few, amongst them the hon. Member for East Mayo—where the people are actually pale and pinched in their faces from the effects of hunger; these constituencies where the employment that has been given has been so miserably inadequate that we hear of people literally working from morning till night for the bare necessities of life, for the miserable pittance of a few pence a day. There are such, districts in Ireland, and they are represented by Members in this House, and I say each and every one of those Members is bound to offer every protest in his power against the conduct of the Government in spending this vast sum of money in London, and refusing to Ireland the simple means of relief of which she stands in need. I know very well, for I have been 15 years in this House, Mr. Lowther, and I think I can prejudge and accurately gauge how English Members regard appeals coming from Irish Members. They say that we are in the habit of exaggerating the state of affairs in Ireland; they say that if there is the slightest distress we magnify it very largely, and speak in a most extravagant way of small indications of distress in Ireland. I know that that is their opinion, but that is not the opinion, allow me to remind them, of independent English and Scotch gentlemen who have taken the trouble to go to Ireland for themselves, and if the word of Irish Members as to the need of public works in certain districts is doubted, I do not ask hon. Gentlemen to take our word. If they do not believe us, let them apply to those gentlemen, who, from Manchester and other portions of England, have travelled through Ireland, and have reported what they themselves have seen, and, if you apply to these independent English authorities, you will find that it is beyond question or doubt, that there are districts in Ireland at this very moment when I am sneaking where there is the greatest difficulty in keeping the life in the body of men, women, and children. I assert that, and I defy contradiction. I say that it cannot be disputed; and under these circumstances I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been to Ireland years ago himself as the Chief Secretary, and who may have some idea of how the people periodically suffer in certain districts, having regard to the unbiassed
  1260
  testimony as to the distress in Ireland, given by those who have been recently in Ireland—I ask him does he for one moment think that we can feel satisfied when we are asked to vote £2,550,000 for public buildings in London, at the very moment when we know that a few thousand pounds might make all the difference between life and death to hundreds and thousands of our countrymen in Ireland? We are told that we are always begging here in the House of Commons. I do not intend more than briefly to refer to the conditions which exist between Ireland and Great Britain on financial matters, but I say that the Report of the Royal Commission which was held is quite sufficient to defend Irish Members when they ask for money for their country from any charge of being beggars. It is an admitted fact that we pay in Ireland, for such purposes as this Bill to-day deals with, a great deal more than we are justly bound to pay in regard to the circumstances of our country as compared with Great Britain; and from that point of view we are quite justified in coming here and demanding that some of the money which has been wrongly paid by Ireland shall be restored to us, and that our people shall not be allowed to starve at the very same time that it is admitted upon all hands that our country is paying a great deal more than it is bound to pay in equity or in justice. Mr. Lowther, I have made this protest, and I venture to think that if any of the Irish Members who are here, or any other hon. Gentlemen, think there is anything at all in what I have said worthy of their consideration, I shall certainly go to a Division. I have placed on record a protest, while this enormous sum is being voted, against the shameful way in which our country is being treated in these matters. We are told, of course, that we should not hesitate to vote this money, because it is intended to beautify the capital of the British Empire, and that Irishmen are entitled to have the same pride in the magnificent buildings and grandeur of London as Englishmen or Scotchmen. Probably, under fair and just circumstances Irishmen to some extent might entertain that feeling, but I can say that in the present state of affairs;—I speak for myself perfectly candidly, without any attempt to Conceal my true feelings—we take absolutely no

  1261
  pride or interest in matters which tend to improve or amplify the magnificence of this city. I never walk through the streets of this city and see the magnificence of its buildings, and the signs of prosperity and wealth on every hand, without feeling embittered in my mind by reflecting how different the scene is here from the scene in the capital of my own country of Ireland, where there are traces of prosperity and magnificence and grandeur which existed not so many years ago, when we were allowed to enjoy the right of ruling ourselves in our own country. Since you have taken that right from us, I say that the more magnificence is displayed here, and the greater the evidence of your wealth, the more you embitter Irishmen with the thought that, while you are improving and going ahead in these respects, Ireland is practically decaying, and while London is adding to her magnificence Dublin is day by day falling into decay and practically into ruin. I ask you will it not be a fair arrangement, when you propose to spend two millions and a half of hard cash simply in beautifying public buildings in London, that you should at least allot some of that amount to be spent in Ireland? If you proposed some arrangement, of that kind I, for one, and I believe others, would see some sense in the proposal, but every penny and every farthing of this enormous sum will be spent in England. You will not give even £1,000 to be spent in Ireland to be used for the employment of the artisans and workmen of Dublin. We in Ireland have absolutely no share in it, and therefore we cannot be expected to have any great, interest in work such as you propose now, and for which you ask this enormous sum of money. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will understand my meaning in speaking as I do to-day. There is not a class of people. I believe, inside this Empire, or in the world, more anxious than everything relating to the homes of science and art, for instance, should be in dignified keeping with their purpose than Irishmen are. We are proud of our public buildings in Ireland, and we are anxious that in matters of this kind full justice should be done. I do not speak in opposition to this Bill from the narrow-minded view which might prompt some politicians in
  1262
  this House who would grudge every penny that is spent in beautifying public buildings. I have heard in this House some Radical Members from time to time almost weeping in protest against anything at all being spent in maintaining ancient palaces or buildings with historical traditions. I never shared that opinion at all. I am quite in sympathy with everybody who wishes to see public buildings and historical monuments properly regarded and kept in good repair. It is a proper thing to do; it is a legitimate thing to do. I can understand the desire of English Members in this matter thoroughly, and to some extent I sympathise with it, and it is not through any sort of niggardliness, it is not because I think these buildings should not be erected, that I raise these objections, but it is because I believe it is a standing disgrace to any civilised country that the collection at South Kensington should be left neglected so long and so badly housed. In fact, I think it would make any Englishman ashamed, who was showing a stranger round, to bring him to the South Kensington collection, and to see how badly it was housed. No doubt you want these new buildings, and I sympathise with that desire, but, from the Irish point of view, I object, that while this money is being spent here, in Ireland we want a few thousand pounds to meet, in some instances destitution, and in some other instances starvation. I read no later than yesterday in the Dublin newspapers most heart-rending accounts of the misery and distress prevailing in certain districts of Ireland, and yet not a single farthing will be devoted by this House in order to relieve these people. Surely to goodness it is not the desire or the wish of a single Member of this House, no matter how strongly Unionist or Conservative he may be, that there should be real distress in Ireland, and that no attempt should be made by the Government to cope with that distress, or that for the want of a few thousand pounds there should be a great danger of distress prevailing in Ireland. I cannot think that any hon. Gentleman in this House seriously wishes that; and yet, when we warn the House again and again that there is distress in Ireland and that something should be clone, not a penny is given us, while two millions and

  1263
  a half are asked for to erect public buildings here in London. By all means have your public buildings, and, if you wish to do so, spend double the amount upon them; but I say, in God's Name, do not prove that this House is so utterly heartless as to spend this money while there is widespread distress in Ireland, where you refuse to give any relief whatever. Now, there are here some Members from Ireland listening to me who do not at all agree with me in my Home Rule opinions. There is, for instance, the right hon. Member for Dublin University. He knows perfectly well, and so do other Unionist Members from Ireland, that what I say is the fact with regard to the absolutely pressing necessity for a certain amount of money being at once applied to the relief of distress in Ireland. The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin knows very well that large numbers of those in Ireland, who hold his own opinions, and who support him, and who are anti-Home Rulers, are at the present moment out of their private purses subscribing as generously as they can to a public charitable fund, got up for the purpose of relieving distress in Ireland. He knows that that is true, and I challenge any hon. Member from Ireland to say that it is unreasonable for an Irish Member, when two millions and a half are asked for to beautify London, to get up here and remind the House that there is great need for a judicious expenditure of a sum of money in Iceland to give employment to the people. So far as I am concerned, I find that I really am incapable of giving to the House anything like an idea of the seriousness of the state of affairs which prevails in Ireland. Both hon. Members for Mayo represent constituencies in which there is distress, which they have repeatedly described to the House. I cannot say that in my constituency the distress is so acute, but I can say that there are portions of county Clare, and districts in the vicinity of my constituency in county Clare, where there is the most pitiable want in districts which, by a small expenditure of money, might be opened up and improved in a hundred different ways. With that knowledge in my possession, and in the possession of other Irish Members, it is almost heart-
  1264
  breaking to come to this House, and find that our requests for funds are flatly refused, and that, at the same time, before the echoes of that refusal have died away, a proposal is made to spend two millions and a half in beautifying public buildings in this city. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works has any such intimate acquaintance with Irish affairs as will warrant him in giving me a reply on these points. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is not here. Though he probably thinks I have no business to say a word in opposition to this Bill, he knows the perfect truth of what I am saying with regard to the great need that exists for relief in Ireland. Sir, it is a subject upon which I feel most keenly. Here we have the Lord Mayor of Dublin calling a public meeting of Catholics and Protestants, Home Rulers and Unionists, Nationalists of the most extreme sections, and men of every shade of opinion and of every position in life in Ireland, to come together for the purpose of collecting; and he has actually come to England to attend meetings for the same purpose, and from England hundreds of pounds have been sent to relieve the distress. What is the object of a Government if it is not to provide for cases of emergency, and to protect the people from absolute starvation, when it is shown that it is not their fault, and that it arises from circumstances over which they have no control? I say that the proper function of a Government, under these circumstances, is to do something for the people, and not leave the matter to private individuals. But we are in Ireland asked to be satisfied with the system, of rule under which we live, and yet we find that when there is exceptional distress, and when our people ask us as their representatives in Parliament to do something for them, when we come to this House, we are told that the Government have no funds for Ireland, though there are plenty of funds for objects such as those which are promoted by this Bill. Instead of the Government taking the lead, and doing what is necessary in connection with this distress, we find that they leave it to private individuals of charitable

  1265
  disposition, both in Ireland and in England, to subscribe money to provide that employment which is necessary to save the lives of the people, and which the Government refuses to give. I say, Sir, that in my opinion, the whole situation in Ireland to-day is a strong condemnation of the system of government of that country.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! These remarks of the hon. Member are the not relevant to the Bill.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Mr. Lowther, I quite agree with you. I quite admit that perhaps I have travelled too far from the Bill; but I must say that I do not like the Bill, and therefore I am glad to get away from it. But, in all seriousness, I make this Motion to reduce the amount in order to call attention to what I think is the negligent treatment of Ireland in this matter by this House; and I repeat that I make this Motion to reduce the amount, not because I at all disagree with the idea that the public buildings of this city should be proper public buildings and as magnificent as they ought to be. I do not, in the slightest degree, hold the view of some extreme Radicals that you ought not to spend a penny for any of these things at all. I hold the opposite view, and maintain that where you have great collections of art you ought to have them properly housed. Where you have Government offices you ought to have suitable offices, and I think you are right to spend money upon them. But I do object, from the Irish point of view, that this large amount should be thrown away at this time, when you might very well wait for your buildings. I do protest from the Irish point of view. It is, in my opinion, very unfortunate that this vast sum of money should be asked for for these purposes at the very time when there is dire distress in Ireland.
  *MR. W. E. H. LECKY: As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has appealed to me in a personal manner, I hope the House will allow me to say a very few words. I
  1266
  do not rise to oppose this Grant. I have no doubt that most of the public buildings mentioned in the Bill are absolutely necessary, and I hope that the £800,000 which is to be given to the Science and Art Museum will at last remove what has for a long time been a national scandal—that one of the finest museums in the world is housed in one of the most grotesquely hideous of public buildings. At the same time, I must say, speaking as an Irish Member, I am sorry that such a very large sum should be voted this year for purely London purposes at a time when no corresponding grant is made for Ireland, and especially for Dublin. English Members can hardly, I think, be surprised that Irish Members should look upon this question a good deal in the light of the Royal Commission, signed or supported by the first financial authorities in England, which declared that we in Ireland were paying in proportion to our means, a very considerably larger amount of taxation than we ought to pay. A great many of us who do not want cheap whisky, and who do not believe in any fiscal division between the two countries, think that the only way in which this can be met is by a larger and more liberal payment from Imperial sources for purely Irish purposes. There is, for example, our agriculture, which is one of the worst in Europe, and there is an imperative necessity for some assistance being given to agricultural education. There is I he Congested Districts Board, which in spending about £40,000 a year in excellent work, but which, I believe, it is desirable to strengthen. There are a number of other purposes and industries mentioned in the Report of the Recess Committee to which public money might advantageously be given in Ireland. But of all our needs I think that of technical education is the greatest. Technical education is far more wanted in Ireland than in England. Now, we have here the great sum of £800,000 asked for for a Science and Art Museum in London, and a Government Committee have just reported that the College of Science in Dublin is entirely inadequate for the purpose of stimulating technical education. I am not going to divide against this Bill, but I must express my deep regret at finding that, while such

  1267
  very large sums are being given for Science and Art Museums in London, there is no sort of corresponding grant to this College of Science which is so urgently needed in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to support the view so admirably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Clare. I did put my views upon the matter before the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to travel over the same ground. I am exceedingly glad that the hon. Member for the University of Dublin has come to our rescue in this matter, thereby showing that on these questions at least the opinions of all sections of the Irish people are united. I venture to protest against this enormous expenditure of money. I come from a constituency in which a very large section of the population are face to face with actual hunger and want, and even if such a state of things did not exist as it exists in my constituency and other constituencies in the western districts of Ireland I should entirely agree with the hon. Member for the University of Dublin that we should be entitled to put forward a strong claim from Ireland on behalf of the city of Dublin that, when £2,500,000 are asked from the House of Commons for the housing of the art objects in South Kensington, the great buildings in Dublin ought to be taken into consideration. In view of the circumstance that it is a question of saving people from death, from hunger and starvation, I confess that I do not mind hearing the reproach that we raise this subject in season and out of season. It is our duty to do it, because there cannot be the slightest doubt that in the west of Ireland, even where the Government have moved and made some exertion on the authority of Committees representing all sections, and not any particular side in politics, where the supporters of the Government are strongly represented, we have it beyond all question that there are large bodies of people actually at this moment suffering from insufficient food. We are told that there
  1268
  have been no deaths from starvation, but, so long as there are large sections of the population suffering from the pangs of hunger, we do avail ourselves of every opportunity to insist that it is the first duty of the Government, before they lay out these millions upon public buildings in the City of London, to protect people from this dreadful visitation of hunger and starvation, and I therefore support the reduction put forward by the hon. Member for East Clare, and if he requires a teller I shall be glad to act for him.
  *MR. ERNEST GRAY: I think, Sir, that there was no notice on the part of Irish Members that they intended to raise such a discussion as they have raised upon this Bill. This is, I believe, the second or third time upon which, this Session, the subject of the distress in Ireland has come before the House. It is not for me to pronounce any opinion upon the policy of initiating a Debate upon this subject; but I do venture to place before, the Committee the influence upon my own mind of such a proceeding. I, as a new Member, came into this House with every desire not only to listen to all complaints from Ireland, but to make all possible effort to redress every grievance from which Ireland has been or is suffering, and to deal, in fact, more generously with her than she might justly claim, but the constant reiteration of Irish claims upon legitimate and illegitimate occasions does weaken those desires and wishes with which I first came to this House. I do not wish to give offence to anybody, but it does seem to me somewhat peculiar and somewhat unreasonable that Irish Members should raise a Debate of this sort upon a Bill for public buildings in London. [Mr. W. REDMOND: We have to pay the money.] Irish people pay some of the money, and receive part of the benefit. [Mr. W. REDMOND: No. What benefit?] One would imagine that London was peopled entirely by Englishmen. But I believe there are more Irishmen resident in London than in the town of Cork itself, and everything that goes for the improvement of London, for the better housing of our national collections,

  1269
  is to the benefit of Ireland as well as to Great Britain. It does seem to me passing strange that Irish Members who should be interested in the welfare of Irishmen in London should try to delay the passing of a Measure so urgently desired as this. I again say I do not want to discuss the advisability of raising a Debate upon this subject. There is no one more anxious than I am to meet, fairly and generously, every legitimate claim that may be advanced by Ireland, but I must confess to having no knowledge of Irish distress, and that is why I am not going to continue this discussion upon that point; but if it were so exceedingly urgent some one might have taken the trouble to have put a Motion upon the Paper which would have given the Chief Secretary an opportunity of being present to answer the complaint, and, not have allowed the one side of the question to go throughout the whole of the country by means of the Press, and the other—the official side—given no means of giving an answer. [Mr. DILLON: There was an opportunity.] I do not consider that that is any argument in favour of bringing the subject up again to-day. It is manifest that the matter cannot be satisfactorily discussed in the absence of the Chief Secretary, and it simply enforces the argument I have already brought forward that this subject has been discussed within so recent a time as yesterday afternoon. It seems to me strange that on a Public Buildings Bill we should be met with a Debate on Irish distress. I have risen to ask for further information with regard to one or two lines in the first clause of the Bill, and one of the lines of the schedule. I am anxious to obtain more information as to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the buildings and land at South Kensington. There is a clause in this Bill which states that any land which may become available by the erection of new sites may be sold, and the proceeds distributed.
  MR. DILLON: I ask whether the hon. Member is in order? Is he speaking to the Amendment?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The only Amendment now before the Committee is with regard to the sum which it is proposed to spend—whether it is to be £2,500,000 or £1,500,000.
  *MR. GRAY: Yes, and I submit that I am supporting the proposal of the Bill that £2,500,000 shall be spent, and not that we should be deprived of £1,000,000 of that in order that it may go to a sinking fund. I am speaking in favour of £2,500,000 being allotted for the purpose expressed in the Bill, and to that I wish to confine my remarks. There is a proposal here that any income derived from selling land rendered available for sale by the selection of new sites shall be expended in the liquidation of part of the National Debt. I want to know clearly whether it will be incumbent upon the First Commissioner of Works to sell the land which will become available on the transference of the Western Gallery to the eastern side of the Exhibition Road. There are many of us who feel strongly on this subject. If the whole of the science and art collection be transferred to the eastern side, the congestion which will exist there will be as serious as that which exists at the present moment, and consequently at a very early date it will be necessary to erect buildings upon the other side of the road, and if that site should then be sold an opportunity will be lost that the country may eventually very bitterly regret; and I want to have some assurance before this clause is passed that it will not be absolutely necessary for the First Commissioner to sell the land, but that he will hold it over for the purpose of its being used for museum purposes if it be required. I cannot help feeling that the House of Commons ought to have more information as to what the Government propose to do with the new buildings, the sites that they intend to cover, the land which will be available, and whether they are going to use the land upon which the residences now stand; are they going to transfer the official staff of the Museum Department to Whitehall, and use the land upon which their place now stands, and if so what will be the area of the land thus rendered available for museum purpose? Is it not possible to put a plan of the entire area in the Tea Room, so that we can know what we are about to do? It seems to me that having a sum of money available for that purpose, we are about to expend it

  1271
  without any clear idea of the way in which it is going to be expended—without any clear idea of the amount to be spent on land, building, and future organisation of the Science and Art Museum. I have been for many years familiar with the building at South Kensington. It was my privilege as a lad to work there year after year, and I cordially agree with the very apt description which the hon. Member for the University of Dublin just gave of these buildings. I am delighted that the Government are about to spend that money, but my joy at seeing the money spent does not diminish my desire to know that the money is about to be wisely spent, or my desire to know that the state of affairs in 10 or 11 years' time will not be as bad as that which exists at the present time. It will be a calamity if the priceless treasures of South Kensington were to be crowded together, and that they should not be displayed to the best advantage. I cannot help feeling that there is a proposal to part with a large area, and to cramp the existing collections in inadequate buildings on the eastern side of the road; and I do press the First Commissioner to take us a little further into his confidence. Reading between the lines of his statement, I cannot help thinking that he himself is still open to receive representations upon this subject. I am inclined to believe that the Treasury have not yet finally determined what shall be done with the old site. If that be the case, I would press the First Commissioner to tell us more fully what is to be done. The opinion I am expressing is not limited to myself; it is shared by my colleagues, who are members of the Museums Select Committee, and by the public outside who are interested in the proper housing of our national collection. South Kensington has a world-wide reputation. Its treasures are priceless, and cannot be replaced, and the whole artistic world demands that these treasures shall be properly housed, and properly displayed, and now is our opportunity for seeing that these things are done. I do urge the First Commissioner not to enshroud himself in any official secrecy, but to take the Committee into his confidence, and tell us what he is about to do.
  MR. J. DALY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down wonders that Irish Members should protest against this large sum of money that is asked for being spent under this Bill; we protest because £250,000 of Irish money is to be devoted to ornamenting the streets of London and the public buildings of this city. No Irish Member, I am sure, has any objection to the Government spending English money in beautifying and ornamenting the streets of London, but when there is, out of this two and a half millions, a sum of £250,000 of Irish money to be devoted to this purpose, I think that Irish Members have every right to give the matter every possible opposition that lies in their power. The people of Ireland do not care a fig about South Kensington Museum, or the widening of Whitehall. The widening of Whitehall is a County Council business, and it is not the Government that should vote that Irish money should be taken for the purpose of widening a congested street, and, at any rate, so far as we on these Benches are concerned, it shall not be done without protest. It is rather a sharp move on the part of the Government to take this opportunity of widening Whitehall at the expense of the people of Ireland, and if the people of the City of London want to widen Whitehall they have lots of London money to do that work without asking the unfortunate and starving peasants of Ireland to vote money for that purpose. What a benefit this quarter of a million would be if scattered over the congested districts of Ireland where the people are starving! I moved the Second Reading of the Congested Districts Bill, and the Chief Secretary refused that one shilling of money should be voted from the Treasury for the relief of the congested districts, and we are now asked in the very next week to vote a quarter of a million for the purpose of improving the sites and buildings of this country. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has moved a reduction in this Vote, and I have great pleasure in seconding the hon. Member. There is a Committee sitting upstairs with regard to the science and art question, and while the hon. Member opposite has mentioned

  1273
  that he will give this matter his entire support, I wish to say that I have given, and shall give, it my entire opposition. I have voted against any such proposition, and until justice is done to the Dublin Museum, of which Reports have been sent from Dublin to this House, to give an improved area for the art collections of Dublin, I will, as long as I am a member of the Science and Art Committee, oppose it in every way that I possibly can. Should I be in order, Mr. Lowther, in drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the keeper and the officials that are employed in the South Kensington Museum have nearly every one of them houses adjoining the area of the South Kensington Museum? They have free fuel and free light, and in Ireland the officials have nothing of the sort. The point that I have to stick to is with regard to this large sum of money that is going to be devoted to the purpose of buildings in this city, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance—it is with your permission only, Mr. Lowther, that I put the question—that he will consider the advisability of enlarging the premises of the Dublin Museum. Of course it is only with your permission that I put the question.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I am afraid I cannot give that permission.
  MR. DALY: This Amendment has been proposed by my hon. Friend, and I hope that we shall be able to get the right hon. Gentleman to favourably consider that this money that is coming from Ireland shall be struck out of this Bill; if not, I am sure that my hon. Friends around me will give this proposal every opposition.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Members have attacked the Government from a very peculiar point of view. In their opinion there is very great distress in the west of Ireland—distress which ought to be relieved by a vote of this House. [Mr. W. REDMOND: Not only in our opinion, but in everyone's opinion.] And very naturally and properly they have brought the subject before the House
  1274
  on several occasions. The matter has been fully discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has expressed the views of the Government with regard to it, and given the reasons why we are unable to accept the views of hon. Members below the Gangway and deal with the question in the manner they desire. Now, on this ground they oppose this Bill, which is a proposal to spend a certain stun of money, a large one I admit, not in beautifying London, but in providing public buildings which are urgently required for the proper conduct of the public services of the State, especially in departments in which hon. Members have at least as much interest as we have. With regard to the War Office, the Admiralty, and South Kensington Museum, they are of as great consequence to Ireland as they are to us; and there are a very large number of Irish in London, who will certainly be employed in the progress of the works. I take it that this is a matter urgently required for the public service for the proper conduct of the business of the Department to which it relates. Why do hon. Members for Irish constituencies oppose this Vote? They seem to imagine that this proposal to spend £2,500,000 on public buildings in London will interfere with certain grants for Ireland. I can assure them it will do nothing of the kind. We have never refused to deal with the distress in Ireland on the ground that we had no means—never.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me for saying I have repeatedly asked for necessary relief works to be instituted, and I have always been told there were no funds?
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to tell him that when I asked the Secretary of State for Ireland to extend the industrial school system in Ireland he told me he had no funds?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, that is the fact. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not a bottomless purse at his disposal in these matters. He has

  1275
  no purse whatever. But if Her Majesty's Government, upon the advice of my right hon. Friend, consider that a certain policy was essential to the necessities of Ireland, the Government being satisfied that the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was a right one, the expenditure necessary to carry it out would be obtained from this House. Therefore the hon. Members have no right to urge these views against the expenditure proposed by this Bill. If this Bill were not brought forward at all, and if this money was not spent in these building operations, there would be no idea on the part of the Government of spending a single penny more in Ireland than they are doing at the present moment. The hon. Member who last sat down referred to some extension which may be required in the public buildings of Dublin. That matter has not been brought before me, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have some knowledge of the public buildings of Dublin, and the expenditure during the last 20 years in the improvement and extension of the Science and Art buildings, I do not think, gives him any real cause for complaint. It may be that more is required, and if it is I shall be just as ready to meet them in that matter as I am in meeting this matter in London. I think it is quite right that provision should be made for the proper arrangement of science and art museums for Dublin for the education and improvement of the people, but I cannot consider that question until it comes before me. At the present moment we have before us the question of new buildings for the College of Science in Dublin, and the difficulty with regard to that is whether the College shall remain, as it is now, under the control of the Science and Art Department in London, or whether it shall be set up afresh under some independent Department in Ireland. I think that is a question which everybody will allow deserves the very fullest consideration. I hope and trust that hon. Members, having expressed their opinion on this matter, as they have every right to do, will be willing, without much further delay, to allow the Committee to come to a conclusion upon the Amendment.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I merely rise for the purpose of explaining in one word to the hon. Member for West Ham why no notice of Amendment on this Bill appeared in my name. I was not aware that this Bill was to be taken in Committee to-day, and when I became aware of it the time was so short that no notice of Amendment was given by me. The hon. Gentleman will allow me, without the slightest desire to be offensive to him, to say that the speech by which the Amendment was opposed is the characteristic kind of English speech which Irish Members feel to be so offensive in this House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to say the Irish Members had no right to refer to the position of their country when matters of this kind were under discussion. He said, as a new Member, he was tired of the reiteration of the Irish Members in this House. He is a new Member; I have for 15 years in this House represented Irish constituencies, and I can assure him that we cannot get anything for our country except by reiterating again and again and again that which, we consider the country desires. The right hon. Gentleman says this money should be expended because it would be beneficial to the Irish people in London. I say, if he has any concessions to give to the Irishmen they will be only nominal. The Irish people ought not to be called upon to spend a farthing on any such works so long as there is admitted distress, as there is, in their own country. What we object to is that this money is being spent at a time when there is such suffering in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says that even if this money were not spent on public buildings no more would be spent in Ireland, and that may be, but if it were not to be spent the Irish people would not be called upon to pay such an amount of money at a time of enormous distress in their country. The hon. Member says the views of the Irish Members are on this subject somewhat exaggerated, but he knows there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the distress there is now in Ireland, and that adds to the pain which I feel on occasions such as this in asking for something to relieve that distress. When an English

  1277
  Member gets up and says he has not much information about Irish distress, that may be an objection to giving relief, but if he had that information which I possess before him he would, I am sure, be quite in favour of doing something to relieve us, but because he is without information he will do nothing to mitigate the sufferings of the Irish people. I put the question in this way: Suppose he demanded from his constituents, as we have done, or suppose there existed in and near his constituency anything like the absolutely stark distress that exists in Ireland, would he hesitate about coming to this House and taking every opportunity which presented itself of pressing upon the Government of the day the claims of his constituents? Of course he would not, but he finds fault with us for so doing because he represents a well-fed London constituency, whilst we represent constituencies where there is actual and enormous distress. I say, I will press my Amendment to a Division, and I also inform the House that I would not have troubled them with the observations that I have made had it not been for the uncalled for lecture which the hon. Member for West Ham read to the Irish Members for bringing this question up.
  DR. G. B. CLARK: The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is in the interest of the Irish taxpayer, but if that Amendment is carried the only result will be that the money will go in reduction of the National Debt, and the Irish taxpayer will not be benefited in the slightest degree by the carrying of the Motion. So much for the argument used by the hon. Member for the relief of the Irish taxpayer. Now we have had a very amusing discussion, and one can see now what may be called the "plan of campaign" the Irish Members are going to carry out. We have it on this side of the House, and on the other we have it from the right hon. Member from the University of Dublin, whom, I regret, I do not see in his place. I am not going to say anything upon the subject of Irish distress. I think Irish Members are quite right in endeavouring to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something for them; but as regards
  1278
  the plan of campaign, which, so far as it is possible, they are going to carry out, I think it is unjustified by the facts. What I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University is, that he would read the Estimates, and I do not think, if he did, that he would ever make such a speech as he did to-night. Everything Ireland has asked for she has got. The hon. Gentleman says Ireland pays too much, but she does so by drinking too much whisky.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the subject-matter.
  DR. CLARK: I quite agree, Sir. Now, we are asked to reduce this grant for the purpose of giving other grants to Ireland. The first thing the hon. Gentleman wants is technical education, and we are told there is a college of science and art which you are going to further extend. There is another thing they want in. Ireland—a new college building—and you are asked to spend money for that. Now, not a single penny has been granted to Scotland for such a purpose. We have to pay for whatever buildings we put up, and you have no right to ask us to pay the cost of our buildings and also to pay a portion of theirs. If the hon. Gentle man had taken the trouble to read the Estimates he would have discovered that education is more endowed in Ireland than it is in England. We have a dozen Votes for Ireland to one for anywhere else. We vote model farms, and we vote teachers of agriculture £1,200 for 50 agricultural—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to go into particulars, though he is entitled to state his general objections to the grant.
  DR. CLARK: I do not object to this grant. I think it is a very good thing that the money is to be spent now. We have not spent it on the Fleet, and I prefer that the money should be spent in this way than in reducing the National Debt. I was only replying to the

  1279
  arguments brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, that this money should not be spent in erecting public buildings in London but should be spent by another Bill, for certain purposes in Ireland. There are other purposes for which you vote money for Ireland annually, and there are still others for which you vote money for England and Ireland, but never for Scotland. I protest against the plan of campaign which is being adopted by the hon. Members who represent Ireland in this House.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I rise to make a very few observations. I am in perfect accord with my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, and I think the alternative plan which he has pointed out with regard to this Vote, that, instead of this money being spent upon public buildings at a time when there is such great distress in Ireland, the money should be devoted to the alleviation of that distress, is a plan which is worthy of
  the greatest consideration. I could not help rising in support of my hon. Friend in this matter, having regard to the dire distress which prevails among my own constituents. If hon. Members on both sides of the House knew that these unfortunate people are absolutely dying of starvation, they would, I am sure, agree with me, not that money should be taken from this particular Vote, but that money should be provided by some means from somewhere or other for the purpose of relieving the distress and alleviating the sufferings of the Irish people. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and that on every opportunity we will voice the claim of our constituencies, who help to pay the money in taxes, which go to raising those buildings. In doing so I think we are only doing our duty, and endeavouring to relieve and mitigate the sufferings of the people of Ireland.
  The Committee divided—Ayes 294; Noes 31.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Aird, John

  Bethell, Commander

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Bill, Charles

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arnold, Alfred

  Billson, Alfred

  Clark Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell Colonel Henry

  Clarke, Sir Ed. (Plymouth)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Ln.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

  Brassey, Albert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Buchanan Thomas Ryburn

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Burns, John

  Cox, Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Burt, Thomas

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crombie, John William

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Caldwell, James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bris'l)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cavendish R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S. W.)

  Begg, Ferlinand Faithful

  Cawley, Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J'n H.

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenrick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Card'gn)

  Kenyon, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Knowles, Lees

  Rankin, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lambert, George

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Doughty, George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir Edwin (C'rn'wl)

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartl'p'l)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T'ms'n

  Dunn, Sir William

  Legh, Hn. Thomas W. (Lanc.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Rothschild, Baron F. James de

  Evershed, Sydney

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea)

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'n'm)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Finch, George H.

  Logan, John William

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesh'm)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Foster Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Fry, Lewis

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Smith, James Parker (L'n'rks.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (S. Albans)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  M'Arthur, William (Cornw'll)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Tag'rt

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Ewan, William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.

  Gold, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  M'Killop, James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Maddison, Fred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Uni.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herb. E.

  Thorburn, Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greille, Captain

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Warkworth, Lord

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

  Monk, Charles James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Hanson Sir Reginald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  More, Robert Jasper

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of W.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'rth'n)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Heath, James

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Dn.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Mount, William George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Mowbray Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Holland, Hn. Lionel Raleigh

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Williams, John Carv'l (Notts.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm (Bute)

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hozier, Mr. James Henry Cecil

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodall, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Woods, Samuel

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Owen, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wvlie, Alexander

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pender, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swn'sea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Price, Robert John

  Sir William Walrond and

  Kemp, George

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  1282

  1283

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (W'kl'w, W.)

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  O'Kelly, James

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterfd.)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Young, Samuel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr. William Redmond and

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Mr. Dillon.

  Resolution agreed to.

  *MR. J. LOWTHER: An Amendment I desire to propose is to leave out the words "£550,000." I do so to call attention to a point that was briefly touched upon in the previous Debate. I understood from the First Commissioner of Works that the Westminster site was to include only one side of Delahay Street. I desire to point out that that arrangement is likely in the long run to be not only most inconvenient but most costly to the country. I should like for a moment to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this matter from the purely financial point of view. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works went so far as to say that it would involve the outlay of an additional million of money if the alternative scheme were carried out. Of course, I conclude that when the First Commissioner spoke of a million he included the cost of the buildings covering a larger ground than now contemplated. On the ground of economy alone I should like to suggest the plan of the Government acquiring the site—not necessarily pulling the houses down and commencing building, but at any rate obtaining control of the site rather than to carry out the idea sketched out by them in the discussion the other day, namely—to acquire only the smaller area at first and to so lay out the new buildings as to admit of their eventual extension up to St. James's Park. Now, Sir, I do earnestly hope my right hon. Friend, instead of dealing with the question in a piecemeal fashion, will face the whole matter at the present time. The buildings on that site are of a very inferior character.
  1284
  As a matter of fact, I had occasion to be there recently, and I noticed that several houses had been removed, and that there are vacant spaces at the present time. It stands to reason that if that site could be acquired now it could be procured to the country at a very much less cost than must inevitably be involved if the matter is delayed a considerable time, and a scheme is formed for acquiring the site, perhaps by speculators, who may force it on the country on terms more acceptable to themselves than advantageous to the country. I have another suggestion to make, which likewise tends in the direction of true economy, and that is that the Government should seriously consider the question of the Post Office buildings in St. Martin's-le-Grand. I think it stands to reason that as the existing site has proved itself unsuitable to the purpose of extension, and the Government have given up the idea of extending the Post Office buildings in the neighbourhood of the existing site, and have had to seek refuge in another part of London for the extensions they require, it is high time to consider the whole question of the Government buildings in the City, with a view to their being sold at the very high values which prevail in that locality, by which means a large profit might accrue to the State. I, therefore, move as an Amendment to omit the words £550,000.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can hardly understand why my right hon. Friend has moved his Amendment. He does not want to reduce the proposed expenditure; on the contrary, he desires very largely to increase it. My right hon. Friend

  1285
  suggests that in addition to the large site which we now own up to Delahay Street, including this side, we should obtain the houses between Delahay Street and St. James's Park. It would be a very expensive matter, but the Government will give it their fullest consideration.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Under these circumstances I withdraw the Amendment. I am quite ready to accept my right hon. Friend's assurance.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGHsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have an opportunity of explaining why the new method of finance which had been adopted in this case had been fixed upon. The Government, as he understood it—and he hoped he understood it rightly—proposed to take £2,550,000, or a larger sum, out of the surplus of this year, and place it at the disposal of the First Commissioner of Works. At first this seemed a convenient proceeding, and a friend of his who was discussing it with him said this would save the purchase of Consols with the surplus as soon as the Auditor General had ascertained what the surplus was. But he found, on looking at subsection 2 of this clause, that the Commissioner of Works himself would have to invest this money until he required it for the purpose set out in the schedule of the Bill. Now, this was an entirely new method of finance. He thought, himself, that the principle adopted in the Naval Works Bill and other Loan Bills should have been adopted. That principle was that, when the rough amount was sanctioned by the House, the moneys necessary to carry out the work from time to time—every three months, six months, or 12 months, as the case might be—should be drawn out of the Consolidated Fund. That seemed to be convenient, because it avoided opening another account. But they were now adopting a new principle. Under this Bill an account was to be opened for the very large sum of £2,550,000 by the First Commissioner of Works, and not only was the interest to accumulate for an indefinite period, but
  1286
  he was authorised to sell sites and buildings, and thus a great deal more money might come into his hands. The interest alone would amount to something like £80,000 a year, and this would be stretched over a good many years, so that a very large account would be opened. It seemed to him to be an entirely new principle, and while he did not like at once to say that he was against the adoption of the principle, he certainly thought before such an important step was taken in the finances of the country that they ought to have some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why that principle had been adopted before the Committee sanctioned it. It opened another account, rendering it hard to see how the accounts stood, and he therefore thought, if it were possible, they should avoid opening two accounts.
  MR. T. C. T. WARNER: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering that question, what objection there is to the money being left to the management of the Treasury to keep it until it is required, or to invest it in paying off temporary loans or something of the kind, as it would when large sums of money are invested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Taken in the ordinary way, I do not think it is a separate account. It does seem to me, therefore, that this separate account complicates the whole matter, and it is not only complicated, but it is also a new process which mystifies the public and makes the expenditure of next year appear very different from what it really is. It would be better if it is shown at once how much is wanted this year and how much is wanted next. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to retain the money in his own hands, and give it out year by year, so that the statement would show what money was going to be drawn out each year, it would be very much easier to understand the accounts.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I would point out that the money has to be invested under the direction of the Treasury. Under the Naval Works Act and the Military Works Act the sums devoted to the purpose of naval

  1287
  and military works are left in the balances at the Exchequer. It is impossible to tell beforehand how long it will take to expend those sums. It depends on the progress of the works. The result has been largely to increase the balances of the Exchequer—on which the Treasury receive no interest—to a point far beyond the ordinary amount, which is neither economical to the country nor satisfactory from a financial point of view. Therefore, having to deal with this additional sum of £2,250,000, I think it better to open a separate account in which it can be placed, so that, pending the expenditure of the money, the country may be richer by the interest accruing, and the balances of the Exchequer will not be augmented. So far as the control of the Treasury is concerned, it is entire. In either case, no money can be taken out of the fund for expenditure by the First Commissioner of Works except by permission of the Treasury. Further, the second clause of the Bill provides that the money shall be devoted to the purpose stated in the schedule, and the account audited in the usual manner by the Auditor General, and presented from time to time, so that Parliament will be as completely acquainted with what is done as if the money remains in the Exchequer.
  MR. H. BROADHUEST: I will not enter into any of the questions just mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I am anxious to have some assurances from the First Commissioner of Works as to whether adequate means will be taken to see that we get our money's worth after the works are let out in the contracts. Now, that has not always been so with Governments, any more than it has been with private individuals, but in the case of Governments, I think I have seen more evasion of specifications and conditions than I have in any case of private undertaking. Now, the first question I want to address to the First Commissioner of Works is, whether good care will be taken in the selection of the stone of which this building is to be made up; and, whether it will be a grit stone, or whether it will be a lime stone. I should like to have an assurance, before any preliminary
  1288
  contracts are made, that the material shall be produced within the United Kingdom, and that the execution of the work itself—the stone work—shall be done within the London boundaries. There are good reasons for these questions. At the present moment thousands of pounds of British taxpayers' money have been expended in a foreign country to dress the granite for British docks—namely, at Devonport. I do not believe that the First Commissioner will be guilty of any such blunder as that of consenting to allow contracts to be carried out in foreign countries while British workmen are standing idly by watching foreign work brought in here, and when, moreover, they could do it much better and cheaper, and obtain better material at home. Now, if the Portland quarry should be selected as the place from which the material shall come, I hope that not only will it be closely scrutinised on its arrival in London, but that the Government will for once make a new departure—and I think it would be a very wise and economical departure—in the shape of seeing that no blocks are despatched from those quarries for use in the Government work until the inspector has put the broad arrow, or some other mark, on that material to show that it is of the right quality. Now I can assure the First Commissioner of Works that I am speaking of a matter with which I am perfectly well acquainted, and where I have seen the money of the British taxpayers most improperly misapplied for the want of more supervision and inspection. If you allow the contractor—I was thinking that you had a contractor there—to import whatever material he thinks proper, and once he gets that material on the wharf and near the building, it is exceedingly difficult to find a clerk of the works with sufficient backbone in him to refuse such material, because such refusal would mean bankruptcy to the contractor. I sincerely trust that the First Commissioner will make a new departure in that respect. May I make a further suggestion?—this is a technical matter, and it is important that we should have correct information upon it. If I remember aright, when the Foreign, the Colonial, and the India Offices were in course of

  1289
  erection there, was only one, or two at the most, clerk of the works engaged in the interests of the Government to watch the construction of those great buildings. Now I worked on those buildings for nearly two years, and I know exactly what took place in an enormous number of instances. Now I am not going to entertain the Committee by the exposure of trade secrets, although it is to the best interests of trades unionism that they should be exposed, but it is sufficient for me to say that if the Government had had six clerks of works on that enormous block of buildings when they were being erected, concurrently, there would not have been one too many to keep an eye on the depredations of the contractors, the sub-contractors, and the men engaged in piecework under the subcontractors. On buildings of that kind it is impossible for any one man to exercise any approximate and effective supervision or control over the quality of the work, or of the material used for the execution of the detailed parts of the work. Now, may I go for a moment to the Law Courts? The right hon. Gentleman, who was First Commissioner of Works in the Parliament of 1886, admitted in this House that there were grave defects in the structural arrangements, and safety of some parts of the roofing of the new Law Courts, in which so many valuable Members associated with the work of this House are often confined. I have trembled for the safety of my right hon. Friend below me, and many other learned Members in this House, when I imagine that one day or other the world may be robbed of some of its brightest ornaments because of the incapable and negligent manner in which the Government supervised the construction of that great building. With regard to that I have this to say, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that there were thousands of tons of materials used in the construction of that building which never ought to have been used, which at the time had been condemned, and which were shovelled, and ultimately got into position. The consequence was that very grave defects were found in that building. The First Commissioner of Works will remember this, for he was a Member of this House, and was engaged as a Member of the Government at that
  1290
  time, and he will remember how careless was the Government of that day in this instance. This is not a fault of a Tory or Liberal Government in particular, but it is a question of the ignorance of Governments generally as to the best means of letting public contracts. On that occasion the contract was let to a man, and for a price for which it could not possibly be executed according to the specification and in a workmanlike manner. The consequence was the erection of a building with condemned material, and the utter bankruptcy of the contractor before he had concluded his work in connection with, that building. Now, I want that to be avoided in the future. I want the Government to give an assurance that they will be most careful in the future in the selection of the contractor who is to execute the work, and, above all, let there be some reality and seriousness in the conditions inserted in all invitations to contract that you do not bind yourselves to accept the lowest, or any tender. Well, now I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance on these points. Now with regard to the clerk of works. May I suggest that he should consult on all the points I have raised—and I am perfectly willing to abide by the advice given by this gentleman upon the suggestions I have made—Sir John Taylor, one of the distinguished gentlemen who serve in the office over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, and a more trusty, capable, faithful, and more valuable public servant there is not in the Civil Service of this country; for he possesses such wonderful knowledge and such fairness of mind, that I am perfectly willing to accept any advice or decision that he may come to in these matters. And now, Sir, may I ask one other assurance in connection with these clerks of works? First let there be sufficient of them. I do not mean each one having complete authority to reject or to condemn structural defects, but let there be one chief, and let there be two or three subordinates; let each of these be instructed to call the attention of the chief presiding over the whole building, who has the official authority to approve or condemn either the material or the quality of the workmanship being executed. There is still another point with regard to

  1291
  clerks of works. Now, my next point is rather a personal matter, and I make no reflection upon any clerk of works with whom I am acquainted; but, in their own interests, in order that they may be above suspicion of collusion or connivance in the execution of the works, I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the agreement a clause that under no circumstances shall a clerk of works accept the man service of any person in the employ of the contractor. I have known as many as two men constantly in attendance personally upon a clerk of works, men who are in the employment of the contractor, and whose wages are regularly paid by the contractor. Now if there is one man to clean his boots, and another to brush his clothes, how is it possible for that clerk of works to exercise an independent judgment as to the quality of the material and the workmanship? If clerks of works need personal attendance of this kind, let us pay them a sufficient, wage to enable them to provide it for themselves. At any rate I do hope that he will insist upon there being no connection whatever of any kind between the clerk of works and those in the employ of the contractors in these great new Government buildings. Now I am entirely in favour of this Bill, and I am not going to move any reductions. I would agree to even a larger sum, so long as we can have some assurance that we shall not in the past as in the future—[laughter]—I was striving to think of the name of the stone of which this House is built for a special reason, hence this slip. I mean that in the future we should have better value for our money than we have had in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee that he was going to have these buildings done in grit stone or if he was going to have them in Church Auston stone, of which this House is built, which does not require one-tenth of the supervision, because you cannot what is commonly called "thick it up," like you can limestone. Here everything is on the face and no man can cheat you. In limestone you can be cheated, unless you are an expert, and cheated while you are looking at it perfectly easily. Now, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not receive these criticisms, or look upon them in any
  1292
  unfriendly spirit whatever, because it is in the best interests of himself and his department, in the interests of the public, and in the interests of the taxpayers, that they shall have their work done with the material bargained for, and in the best workmanlike manner.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire to draw the attention of this Committee to a matter raised by the third subsection of this clause. I know it is a difficult point to rule upon, and I am well aware that our financial system, which has been established by successive Acts of Parliament, has been too often widely departed from. This sub-section proposes a departure from our system, and affords a remarkable instance of what I may call financial profligacy. The financial system of this country is established by Acts of Parliament. Everybody knows what it is when there is a surplus; it only means a miscalculation; that either more has been received than was expected through the taxes having been levied too high, or the expenditure has not been so high as was anticipated. It is a miscalculation, and provision in the financial system of this country has been made for dealing with such miscalculations. That provision is this: that in case a surplus in the receipts over expenditure should arise, that surplus should be used for the redemption of the National Debt. Well, now, Sir, £2,000,000 and over has been taken away from the Surplus in the way of Supplementary Estimates, and it is now proposed to take a further £2,550,000 from its proper destination, making altogether £4,550,000. Now this £4,550,000, if the Acts of Parliament now in force had been adhered to, would have gone to the diminution of the National Debt, but it is proposed by this sub-section that instead of being so applied, in conformity with the Acts of Parliament, it should be dealt with differently, and it is to be taken away and held up by the Treasury in a sort of suspense account, to be invested as provided by the sub-section. The outcome of it is to be this, that instead of being applied to the diminution of the National Debt, as it should be, it is to be held up and partly applied for these buildings, and the balance not required is to be

  1293
  spent as the Treasury may think fit. Well, now, Sir, I am afraid it is a hopeless task to protest, against these proceedings, but I cannot allow this subsection to pass without once more raisins; my voice on behalf of the financial system as laid down and embodied in Acts of Parliament. I have received a little encouragement to do it because I observe that the system of interception which I have too often denounced has, in this year for the first time been abandoned, in the case of the Irish Local Government Bill, and I flatter myself that the arguments I have used, and the protests I have made, have had some effect upon the stony mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, whether or not this protest of mine is to have any effect, I do feel bound to make it. Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indeed, I think in the Committee on this Bill, tried to justify the course of diverting his £4,550,000 from the redemption of the National Debt, by this argument, which is the only one used. He says:—
  "Were I to take this £4,550,000 and buy Consols, the price is so high, being something between £111 and £112, that I should make a bad bargain for the country."
  Now, first of all let me remark that if that is to be a conclusive argument, it may be an argument for ever against carrying out the financial system of the country. There is every probability, I think, of Consols remaining high, because artificial methods are in existence whereby the Savings Bank enters into the market with a limited supply of Consols which positively raises the fire against itself. It is unwise to buy enormous quantities of this limited stock, but we cannot escape from the liability to buy them. Well, I believe they will continue to be artificially high, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument is good and is accepted by this House, we are committed to this for ever until Consols fall below par; and year after year, when you have a surplus, you will be reduced to this device of disobeying Acts of Parliament and asking Parliament pro tanto to repeal it, and not apply the money to the purposes laid down by the Acts. Sir, I must say that I think this method of dealing with the surplus, so large as it is—a surplus itself being a miscalculation—really means to add
  1294
  misapplication to miscalculation. It would be much better that there should be no surplus at all, and then the accounts of the year would speak for themselves, but on this method of dealing with the surplus there is, I submit, a very serious departure of the financial system, and even from the Acts of Parliament of the country, and I would call the attention of the Committee to this fact, that this very Sinking Fund Act of 1875, which is still left in existence, is not dealt with as it should be dealt with. I submit that this sub-section 3 does not treat this Act of Parliament with that respect which it should receive. It does not repeal that Act, it only partially repeals it for this particular purpose in respect of these particular surpluses, and that, I think, is an extremely objectionable method of dealing with Acts of Parliament. When it suits you, you are to let the Act work, and when it does not suit you, you are to repeal it as far as it suits your purpose. That policy is very much open to question and to severe criticism. The infraction of our financial system, and the infraction of Acts of Paliament which have constituted that system, are made obvious by this sub-section. I do trust that the House will realise what is in this sub-section, because it is proposing to make a very serious and important infraction upon the financial system of this country. I have no hope of producing much impression upon the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I hope that these few simple words at some future date will prevent him from misapplying some future surplus.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: Mr. Lowther, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester has referred to a number of interesting matters, but he seems to have forgotten that we have survived the stone age and reverted to that of bricks. One of the items of expenditure is for the completion of the new Admiralty buildings. I would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the plans for that completion are already prepared, and, if so, whether they are of the same style, elevation, and material as the building recently erected near the Mall. If they are to be in harmony with that building, then they cannot be in

  1295
  harmony with the other buildings about to be erected. It is assumed, and I suppose correctly, that they are to be of stone, but if the frontage of the Admiralty building in Whitehall is to be of brick and stone, then it will be utterly out of keeping with the rest of the buildings on the west side of Parliament Street, and when we come down Whitehall from Trafalgar Square we shall have buildings which for some years will be ruddy red, but which in the course of time will collect soot, and will be dark and dim, and utterly unworthy of the position in which they are to be placed. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that we were not to judge the building to be erected in Whitehall from that already built. I hope that is so. I hope that the frontage in Whitehall will have more dignity, and will not be so mean and so insignificant as that facing in the other direction. I hold, Sir, that State buildings ought to have some stateliness. That has not been kept in view in recent years, and, notwithstanding the criticisms in which some artists recently indulged in connection with remarks made in this House, I do hold that four-fifths or five-sixths of all who pass by these buildings would condemn the modern style of New Scotland Yard and the new Admiralty extension. I think there is no use in disputing on matters of taste. That certainly is the opinion which I have formed, and which men who have spoken to me on the subject also expressed. But I think, after the mixture of brick and stone and the particular style which has been indulged in, there will be common agreement that the large sum of money now about to be spent should be spent in a manner that will give some evidence of the purposes for which the buildings are to be used, and that the buildings themselves should be in dignity and proportion equal to the buildings in the neighbourhood in which they are to be placed. For myself I have great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and would rather support him in the line which I believe he is inclined to take than otherwise. That is the reason why I have made these observations.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Mr. Lowther, I will not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes, but I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works a few questions. With reference to item 25 he says that that is the estimated cost. I should like to know if these estimates have been made up, and if tenders have been supplied for the various buildings it is proposed to erect. I should also prefer seeing the amount payable for the site and the amount payable for the buildings divided instead of being lumped together. I just merely wish to refer to another point. I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee. Coming across the Horse Guards Parade I have condemned that building ever since it was erected. The new Admiralty is the most unsightly building in London, and I hope the First Commissioner will not employ the architect of that building for the new buildings. Why, he could not have the brain of an oyster, or he would not have erected for the Government of this country, on such a splendid site, such a hideous and unsightly building as this combination of stone and brick. I sincerely hope that the First Commissioner of Works will not allow such a hideous building to be put up in London again.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The hon. Member for Leicester has made an appeal that we should be careful in the selection of the stone to be employed in the new building. It is the intention of the Government to employ Portland stone, as we believe that is the most suitable for our purpose. We shall take the greatest possible care that this stone is properly selected, and we shall, also take care to carry out the suggestion made, in the most friendly spirit, by the hon. Member for Leicester, that a sufficient number of clerks of works shall be employed. As I was able to tell the House last night, we have concluded an arrangement with Sir John Taylor, who has already

  1297
  rendered great services to the State, to remain for a further period and supervise the carrying out of these buildings. That he will be in charge of them will satisfy the hon. Member for Leicester that the work will be properly carried out. The hon. Member for Dundee asked me whether the now plans for the Admiralty extension had been prepared. No plans have yet been adopted. He alluded to the new Admiralty building facing Whitehall. It is the old Admiralty building which is in Whitehall. The new building faces the Horse Guards Parade. With regard to the question of architecture, I agree that the style adopted in New Scotland Yard would not be suitable for the new buildings, which will be erected in Whitehall. Severe strictures have been passed on the architects of the Admiralty extension, but I must say that the House ought to remember the circumstances under which those plans were adopted. Plans for the joint Admiralty and War Office of 1884 were adopted after public competition. The architects who won the competition were employed; but their designs were eventually rejected by a Committee of the House of Commons, and they were instructed in lieu thereof to prepare plans for a building to match the then existing Admiralty. Under these circumstances I think it ought to be said that they had a very difficult task to perform, and we ought not to blame them entirely for the very unfortunate production which has been the result. I have now answered the questions which have been asked, and, as we are most anxious to get the Pill to-night, perhaps the Committee will allow the clause to pass.
  MR. ALLAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question regarding the estimated cost.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: No estimates have yet been got out, as we were not in a position to do so until we had the sanction of the House for the employment of this sum of money. The estimate is a rough estimate based on the building area, and, of course, not a careful estimate such as we would employ if we were asking for tenders. The estimate is, however, I am quite certain, an
  1298
  outside estimate, and has been carefully prepared so far as a rough estimate can be prepared.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the money which is taken is taken contrary to law is correct?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: No, Sir; certainly not. Anyone who heard the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now will not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been listening to the Debate the whole of the afternoon, but was called out of the House while the hon. Member for King's Lynn was speaking, or he would at once have replied.
  MR. WARNER: It is just on this point that we have a strong objection on this, side of the House. We object to sub-section 3 because of the very serious innovation it proposes. What the hon. Member for King's Lynn has said is perfectly true. It is introducing a new system, which enables the Government to carry out something contrary to law. This is the provision we object to, and, as we cannot move to leave out this sub-section now, I propose to vote against the whole clause, as a protest against this innovation. Instead of putting the money into the Consolidated Fund, and paying it out year by year as required, they keep it in a general account.
  On the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. LOUGH: Mr. Lowther, I am very sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. The matter I wish to mention is important. I handed in a rather formidable Amendment, which I do not wish to press if the right hon. Gentleman accepts its spirit. It is with regard to

  1299
  the contracts to be given under the Bill. We have never had a money Bill without requiring that a most careful account should be presented to this House, and without requiring that that account should show the total amount of money to be spent and the amount of money voted to each head in the schedule. An excellent model of the account we ought to have is given in the Naval Works Bill, passed in 1896. The form used in this Bill is just the same as in the Naval Works Bill, except that the three heads of account in the latter Bill are omitted. Now I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these three heads of account should be given in this Bill. They provide (1) that the aggregate amount of money expended for any purpose under the Act should be shown, and the purpose for which the money has been expended, distinguishing the expenditure under each of the heads mentioned in the schedule; (2) the aggregate amount of money borrowed, and the sums, on occasions I would say, standing at interest, in order to provide for the peculiarities of the Act: we are about to hand over about three millions to the First Commissioner of Works, and the accounts should show how much money is standing at interest; (3) the balance, if any, unexpended. They are taken from the Naval Works Bill, and they are exactly in the same form in the Military Works Bill. We have never had money granted before in the way proposed in this Bill, and I certainly think the old form to which we are accustomed should be included in this Bill also, as otherwise it is impossible to see what money has been expended and what balance remains. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the spirit of these remarks, perhaps I need not move the Amendment.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I cannot make any promise in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no intention of keeping Parliament in the dark as to what we are doing, and I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares the view that the fullest account should be given. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept my assurance that the fullest information shall be given to Parliament of the way in which
  1300
  the money will be spent, and of the amounts standing under the various heads mentioned by the hon. Member.
  [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having re-entered the House—]
  MR. LOUGH: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would kindly consider the point. As I understand it, there is really no difference in principle between us. The right hon. Gentleman says he will give every information practically in the same form as it is given in the Naval Works Bill. That is information showing the total amount of money expended and the amount under each of the heads in the schedule, the amount standing, at interest, and the amount of money unexpended. Those are the three heads mentioned in the Naval Works Bill and the Military Works Bill, and if I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those particulars will be given it will not be necessary for me to press the matter.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is my intention.
  Clause 2 was agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  On the Schedule,
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: In moving the reduction of the amount allocated for the purposes of the building at South Kensington from £800,000 to £700,000, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not grudge South Kensington a single penny. I fully endorse everything that has been said this afternoon with regard to the necessity for this expenditure at South Kensington. The present condition of the buildings and the collection there is a disgrace to the nation, and I am glad that this disgrace is soon to be removed. My object in formally moving this reduction is to draw attention to the method in which these grants for buildings for educational purposes are distributed, and especially to draw the attention of the

  1301
  Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom I am glad to see in his place—to the fact that in Wales we have no provision similar to that which exists in Scotland and Ireland for museum purposes. The question has been raised in the House before, and Members of the Government have approached the matter, I am bound to say, in a very sympathetic spirit; but so far nothing has been done in the direction I have indicated. I might quote an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself during the Debate on my Amendment to the Queen's Speech—an expression in which he fully recognised the exceptional position we in Wales occupy in some respects, and stated that the Government were considering to what extent they would meet our requirements. The request we make is a very small one and a very modest one. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have now a system of education which is our own—intermediate and University education. We require as a corollary to that system the erection of museums and art galleries. A few years ago, when Ireland attained a system of intermediate education, buildings were erected for these purposes almost without asking. A splendid building was erected in Ireland for that purpose. I say we do not begrudge any expenditure for that purpose in Ireland, and that whatever further expenditure may be necessary for the purpose of education in Ireland, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated this afternoon in an accommodating spirit, will be met. What we ask is that, in Wales we should have a, storehouse for our national art treasures, and that our system of intermediate and university education should receive its necessary complement by the erection of a museum. We have been doing our best to help ourselves in regard to this mutter—I do not mean to say help ourselves out of the British Treasury, but to help ourselves in regard to the completion of our educational system. Great efforts and great sacrifices have been made in Wales, and I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has expressed his sympathy with us on more than one occasion, to do us justice in this regard. I do not propose to take up any more of the time of this House on
  1302
  this question. The only difficulty that has been raised so far has been, as I understand, the want of a capital in Wales. We only ask the Government to deal with us as the Government of 1880 dealt with us when a similar question was raised with regard to our University colleges. If the right hon. Gentleman will take into serious consideration the question of making the grant, we, on our part, will undertake to provide him with all that he requires in regard to the conditions I have referred to. A grant was made first in 1882, the site of the colleges was selected afterwards, and through making it in that way a great stimulus was given to public liberality. As I stated at the commencement, I do not really attack this Vote in any shape or form, but anyone who takes an interest in education must rejoice that at last provision is being made in South Kensington for the educational needs of the country, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in making this large provision at South Kensington, and in making great provisions for public buildings elsewhere in London, will not forget that there is a small country which receives absolutely nothing from the British Treasury, whose system of education requires for its completion an expenditure of what to the Treasury would be a very small amount, but what would be to us a very great benefit.
  *SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: We are only anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give a little more money for Wales. Hon. Members may be aware of the fact that when I had the honour of passing the Secondary Education Bill for Wales through this House we were all delighted to see the zeal shewn for education in the Principality. We now in England are pining for an educational system as good as they have in Wales, to fill up the gap between our schools and the Universities. We do not begrudge Wales her schools. Sir, I rise to say one or two words in regard to this Vote at South Kensington of £800,000. For a long period of years this space has been a standing disgrace in the midst of London. South Kensington has been called the Brompton Boilers, and it is marvellous that for the last

  1303
  fifty years Englishmen could have stood such a disgraceful state of affairs. This huge collection has been valued over and over again at two millions of money, and I think the time has at last arrived when Parliament should grant the educational demand of South Kensington. We should have a clear indication from the Government that some scheme is on foot for the proper housing of the collection. As hon. Members are aware, this collection is scattered on the east side and the west side of Exhibition Road, and what I am anxious to know is whether the First Commissioner and his colleagues have fairly thought out a design whereby they will secure the proper housing, not only of the Art Section, but of all these educational exhibits at South Kensington. I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend if any scheme has been considered, which shall secure that this shall be an educational success. There is one word I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend. We shall require a handsome building, at a high price, no doubt, in which to house this splendid collection of works of art—a collection which is constantly extending for the good of the education in our midst, and which is of enormous value—and, considering the miserable climate of this smoky city, it is very essential that we should have a good top light for the exhibits. It is of immense importance, too, that the collection should not be crowded, and those who go to look at them, for instance, on a dark November afternoon, should be able to see them. This, I venture to say, is a practical suggestion. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that, if this has not been done, he will see to it in the future, either by some Departmental Committee, or by a consultation with the vice-presidents. I hope that he will look into the matter, and see that the building is not only worthy of the Metropolis, but one which will be of substantial use and educational benefit to the great masses of our working classes.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: We are all anxious that these buildings should be enlarged, and I would make a suggestion, whereby the collec-
  1304
  tions would be well housed, and whereby this Vote would also be reduced. There is a building in the neighbourhood called the Imperial Institute. Now, Sir, I should imagine that that Imperial Institute could be very cheaply acquired, for it seems to me to be a "white elephant." I observe that the Colonies have entirely declined to subscribe towards the building, which is now probably used as a species of music hall. Nobody has yet understood what the object of the Imperial Institute was. I hesitated, I confess, to subscribe to it at the commencement, and I am bound to say that I did not subscribe, and I do not contemplate subscribing, any sum of money for the building; but I feel for those who have subscribed, and it seems to me we would benefit ourselves, and at the same time give them a little trifle in return for what they have laid out. I suggest the propriety of the right hon. Gentleman entering into some sort of communication with the leading members of the Imperial Institute—I do not know who they are—and asking whether they might not be almost inclined to give it as a gift. In any case we ought to get it for about £20,000. I believe it has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. It would cease to make the Colonies ridiculous if this plan were adopted—I am talking of the Imperial Institute as a music hall—and we should ourselves obtain a fine building where we could house a great many of those objects of art with sufficient dignity and sufficient space to meet all that the hon. Gentleman opposite requires.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I have great sympathy with what has been urged by the hon. Member for Flint with regard to a further sum for purposes of science and art in Wales, and I am glad to find, that though he spoke very strongly in favour of such a grant, he did not really oppose the Vote of £800,000. Though we strongly sympathise with his views, the Government cannot do as he wishes. In regard to South Kensington, it is the intention of the Government to deal only with the eastern side of Exhibition Road. It was last year decided to remove the

  1305
  official residences, which were a source of danger from fire, and those residences have been removed; the temporary buildings have also been removed, and thus we have more space at our disposal. It has also been decided to erect the new buildings on the eastern side of Exhibition Road, which, in the opinion of the Government, will be sufficient to house not only the art collections, but such of the science divisions as are now found in the existing buildings on the west side of the road. The hon. Member for West Ham asked me with regard to the plans. Well, Sir, the particular allocation must, in our opinion, be largely in the hands of the Science and Art Department. It is proposed that a Departmental Committee should be appointed to deal with the allocation. We are assured that there is ample accommodation for both the art and science collections on the eastern side of the road, using, of course, the galleries of the Imperial Institute, which are leased. An hon. Gentleman has asked me whether the vacant space is to be sold. No, Sir, it is not the intention to sell it; or at present come to any decision with regard to its future. The buildings will first be erected, and it will be for the Government at some future date to decide whether the land is to be sold or not. I do not think any other question has arisen on the Schedule, and I trust the House will allow the Schedule to be passed and the Bill to be proceeded with.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question with regard to the Imperial Institute?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I quite forgot his question. I understand the owners of the Imperial Institute are not willing to dispose of that building; but even if they were, I am not at all certain that we are in a position to purchase the building. At all events, they are not willing sellers, and it is not the intention of the Government to ask Parliament to give them powers of compulsory purchase.
  MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. Gentleman has given me such a sympathetic reply, it is quite unnecessary for me to press the matter further. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill passed through Committee without Amendments.

  CUSTOMS OFFICES.
  Resolution authorising the payment of expenses incurred in acquiring land for Customs and other offices at Barry Dock agreed to, and reported to the House.
  House resumed.

  PRISONS BILL.
  Order for the resumption of the adjourned Debate on the Prisons Bill deferred till Thursday.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I should like the future conduct of the Debate on this Bill to be more satisfactory than the past. This is a Measure in which public feeling is very much interested, and I think we are entitled to have some assurance that when the Debate is resumed it shall be at a convenient hour.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY: No one is more anxious than I am to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Owing to financial necessities this Bill has been brought on at an inconvenient time. I can only say that I will do my best to secure that the Debate, which will not, I think, take more than an hour, shall be resumed at a more convenient hour. I think it hardly probable that the Debate will be resumed on Thursday.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill resumed,
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Mr. Speaker, I will not

  1307
  detain the House for more than a moment, but I think we ought to point out on the Second Reading of this Bill, what a serious condition of our land forces it reveals. The term of seven years' enlistment was adopted against the wish of the Government of India, and has always been held to be unsuitable to that country. It was extended to eight years as regards men serving in India, to meet the protests of the Indian Government. Now, Sir, the Home Army, which, under the system of our present Reserve, is supplemented in time of war by five contingents of men who have served seven or eight years, instead of being supplemented, as some of us think it ought to be, by 10 or 12 contingents of men who have served three years in the Home Army, is short in its Reserve and declining in numbers; and while there are some who believe that the Government are supporting Lord Cardwell's system of short service, this Bill is really a Bill for increasing the present long service, which, in the opinion of many of us, is too long for our home needs, and gives us far too small a Reserve. I think the Bill will be detrimental to our system of Reserves, as it will practically increase the term of service in the ranks by permitting the drawing from the Reserves for one year of a certain number of men for small wars. Even those of us who dislike the provisions contained in the first part of this Bill admit that the other clauses of the Bill are important to the country, and none of us are, therefore, disposed to take a Division against its Second Reading.
  Question put.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of the Greenwich Hospital Bill,
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I think some information ought to be given to the House as to the aim and object of this Bill. We ought not to be asked to pass it without a word being
  1308
  said. It is a curious condition of things that there is no one here to give us any information.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend the law in two or three small points in regard to Greenwich Hospital. The first point is to enable the Admiralty to avail themselves of certain charitable bequests which have been left for the purpose of educating children of officers of Marines. The second point is to give the Admiralty greater powers in regard to the leasing of property. At the present time there are certain restrictions, and they have not the same powers that are possessed by other authorities, and, as some of their property consists of licensed premises, it is considered advisable that they should be enabled to take premiums in respect of that property just as all other owners can do. The third point with which the Bill deals is the raising of the amount to be paid for those who are desirous of being placed in hospitals other than Greenwich. At present the amount paid is £36 10s. That is not sufficient, and it is proposed to raise it to £45, which is about the average cost. The last point is a purely conveyancing point, and I do not think the House will object to it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Speaker, so far as I can gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this is a Bill to enable the Greenwich Hospital trustees to augment their income by taking premiums on public-houses. I think there is a good deal to be said on that matter. It seems to me to be hardly the thing that the trustees of a great national hospital like this should obtain licences for public-houses, and then sell them at a premium. I should like to know how many public-houses there are connected with this Hospital, where they are situated, and what the distance is between them? I do not say I shall take a Division, but this seems to me an objectionable condition of things.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who is interested in this question, and knows more about

  1309
  it than anybody else, whether this is not a fitting opportunity of extending the augmentation pensions, so that they can be awarded to the 2,500 men who, for their services, become entitled to them on arriving at 55 years of age, but who, because of the lack of funds, are still deprived of them, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which considered this question about five years ago. From time to time, as the outcome of Parliamentary pressure, increases have been made in the funds. For many years the Admiralty occupied one of the most important wings of the Greenwich Hospital as a Naval School, and paid the most inadequate rent of £100 a year. That was afterwards increased to £5,000 a year. The Admiralty is using Greenwich Hospital at the present time to such an extent that I think we are entitled to ask that they should pay a larger rental than £5,000. They ought to pay £10,000, which would enable these men who are entitled to it to receive the augmentation pension. I shall take this opportunity of dividing against this Bill as a protest, unless some undertaking is given that this matter shall receive consideration.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, I may say that the licensed property owned by the trustees of the Greenwich Hospital is situated in Greenwich. What is proposed by the Bill is to put the trustees in the same position as an ordinary landlord, so that they can secure from the licensed houses on their property the highest sum, whether in rents or fines, that can be obtained from the lessees or occupiers of them. As regards the question of age pensions, I think it would be altogether outside the scope of the Bill to attempt to deal with such a subject. This question, as the hon. Member knows, has been under consideration for many years, and in consequence of a Report of a Committee of the House largely increased sums have been allotted for the purposes of these pensions. I cannot admit that the men of whom the hon. Member for Devonport has spoken, are entitled to such pensions on reaching the
  1310
  age of 55. They become eligible and qualified to receive them, and a selection is made of those who have the greatest claims, either from the nature of the services they have rendered the country, or from the distressed condition in which they are placed. Not only has the amount available for this purpose been increased by raising the rent charged for the building used by the Naval College on two occasions since the Committee met, but there has also been a large grant in aid of the expenses—I believe I am right in saying the grant was £16,000 a year—to enable extra pensions to be given. The Admiralty has thus gone a very long way already towards meeting the case urged by the hon. Member for an extension of these pensions, and I hope the matter will not be pressed further on a Bill which has really nothing whatever to do with the subject, but which is designed to enable the Lords of the Admiralty, as trustees of Greenwich Hospital, to make the best use of the property they have in trust for the benefit of those for whom it was intended, and to use to the best advantage any fresh gifts they may receive. I hope a Bill of this kind will be allowed to go through unopposed.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand that this Bill does not deal with the subject of pensions, but I do not see why it should not deal with it. This is a matter of which I have had some experience. I am continually receiving letters and appeals from men who feel that they have a right to these pensions. I think the time has arrived when the question of these augmentation pensions should be placed on a satisfactory basis, and I am of opinion that this object might be effected by means of the present Bill.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMERLAIN: There are really no funds. The income of Greenwich Hospital is not sufficiently large to allow of this being done.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I would point out that these men have a very strong objection to the selection that is made of those who shall receive these pensions. I think it would be more satisfactory if it could be made clear to them that they

  1311
  would receive a certain pension, even if it were not so large. They say they have a right to this pension, and ought to get it.
  CAPTAIN G. R. BETHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would urge hon. Members not to interfere with the Second Reading of this Bill, which, though it may not do all they require, is a step in the direction of enabling the Admiralty to increase the income of the Hospital and the amount available for the benefit of seamen. Although it has been stated to the contrary, I think I am correct in saying that these men have a right to these pensions, providing there is sufficient money to pay them.
  *MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Admiralty are already paying a larger sum than they undertook to pay.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Is it not, nevertheless, a fact that so long as there is money enough, the men over 55 years of age are entitled to pensions, and that they do not all get them because there is not sufficient money in the charity? Be that as it may, I would urge hon. Members opposite not to interfere with this Bill, as to a certain extent it does improve the position of the Greenwich Hospital funds.
  SIR J. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Devonport has over-estimated the number of men who are entitled to this pension, but who do not receive it. The number of men who are entitled to it, and who are left out, is only about 500, and I contend that the Admiralty, having gone so far as to give £16,000 a year in one instance and to raise the rentals in another, should have made a clean sheet of the whole case, and not have left 500 or 600 men, who entered the service thinking they would receive at the age of 55 this pension, out in the cold. All that is required is that the Admiralty should make arrangements that this paltry £3,500 a year should be given to these worthy old sailors. If the property cannot be made to pay a little more than it does, there are other means of getting this £3,500 a year. Why, the School itself could get a grant from the Education Department equal to this amount. It is a cruel thing
  1312
  that men who entered the Service believing that at the age of 55 they would be entitled to this additional pension, should be told that it cannot be granted to them, because the funds of the Greenwich Hospital cannot afford it. I strongly urge the Admiralty to give attention to this matter.
  MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, a number of important questions have been raised on this Bill, but there is another question which is just as important; it is the question of principle. I think it is high time that the House of Commons should raise some objection to the system of legislation by reference.
  [The HON. MEMBER was speaking at Ten minutes to Seven o'clock, when, under the Rules of the House, the Debate was adjourned.]

  IRISH SURNAMES BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; Considered, and agreed to.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir John Mowbray reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Poor Law Unions Association Bill—Lord Balcarres, Commander Bethell, Sir John Brunner, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Victor Cavendish, Lord Edmund Fitmaurice, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Lough, Mr. Edward Morton, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Harry Samuel, Mr. Samuel Smith, and Mr. Talbot.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1. "That, in the case of the Filey Water and Gas Bill [Lords], re-committed Resolution of the 8th day of March, referred to the said Select Committee, who were instructed that they have power to inquire whether there are any special circumstances which render it just and expedient that the conditions upon which the Standing Orders were dispensed with in the said Resolution should be further modified in respect of the said Bill, so far as regards the townships of Gristhorpe and Lebberston, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that they strike out of the limits of the Bill all parts of the parishes of Hunmanby, Muston, and Filey which were not defined in the Notices for the Bill; and that they strike out the charge in Clause 22 on houses of which the rateable value amounts to five pounds but does not exceed ten pounds:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Orders have been complied with."

  2. "That, in the case of the East Ham Improvement Bill, Petition of 'George Henry Burges' for dispensing with Standing Order CXXIX. in the case of his Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  3. "That, in the case of the Middlesex County Council Bill, Petition of the 'Vestry of Marylebone,' for dispensing with Standing Order CXXIX. in the case of their Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  4. "That, in the case of the London Building Act (1894) Amendment Bill, Petition of the 'Corporation of London' for dispensing with Standing Order CXXIX. in the case of their Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  5. "That, in the case of the Gainsborough Gas, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  6. "That, in the case of the Crystal Palace Company, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

  PATRIOTIC INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Lords, That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to enlarge and extend the powers and objects of the Patriotic Assurance Company, and for other purposes."
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAM-ROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Lords, That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act for incorporating the Great Orme Tramways Company and for authorising the Company to make and maintain a tramway and tramroad from Llandudno to or near the summit of the Great Orme's Head, in the County of Carnarvon."
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  EVENING SITTING.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Nine of the clock.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  *MR. VICARY GIBBS, rose to call attention to the present unsatisfactory condition of monetary affairs in India, and to move—
  "That a Select Committee or Royal Commission be appointed to consider the monetary condition of India and the effects of closing the Indian mints to silver on the different classes and interests affected thereby, to report on the suggested establishment of a gold standard in that country, and to make such recommendations as they may think fit."
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Government have thought it right to restrict the discussion of this matter to three hours, as that will not indicate that a sufficient interest it taken in this country in this great

  1315
  question. I have put upon the Paper a perfectly colourless Resolution, but I hope before I sit down, to show the House that the closing of the Indian mints was a criminal blunder, and that the attempt to put India upon a gold standard will produce greater dangers and evils than any it was intended to remedy. Before I go further I feel bound to call attention to what was the position of affairs in India before the mints were closed to silver. India was flourishing; her manufactures were increasing; she was enjoying an automatic currency, and getting an enormous stimulus to her productions from the low rate of exchange. But, as this low rate of exchange made it difficult for the Indian Government to pay its gold debt in England, the Indian Government made a volte face, became reckless, and closed the mints. I am not prepared to say what was exactly in the mind of the Government of India, in doing so, but, whatever their object may have been, it is clear that they had thought out no settled plan. If any measure in this world demanded for its justification the fact that it was part of a well-considered, well-matured, well thought-out, and feasible plan for putting India upon a stable basis with regard to her currency, it was this one. Five years after that mad experiment was made, the Indian Government, in their dispatch of September last, wrote—
  "The measures to be taken when the transition period has passed have not been laid down."
  Is it not appalling to realise the levity with which that step was taken? No plan, no consideration, nothing except the one idea that they must be able to pay their gold debt in England, no matter who suffered for it. What was the effect upon the commerce of India? I have had innumerable letters from Bombay, Calcutta, Burmah, and Ceylon, showing the effect upon the commercial and financial position of India of these experiments of the Indian Government. They all tell one story: a 12 per cent. rate of discount, and as much as 24 per cent. per annum paid on the security of gold bars in the bazaars by the Natives. The position is appalling. Nobody can engage in commerce successfully in a state of chronic panic, yet that is the position to which India has
  1316
  been reduced. It is not merely a question of a momentary 12 per cent. rate, but it is one of an average rate of discount steadily rising as the Indian Government approach what they are pleased to call their "eve of success." It needs no great financial expert to tell us that if we reduce the amount of coinage indefinitely, we shall produce a scarcity value. The effect had been to cause a commercial paralysis. As I have said, I have had letters showing that there is a money famine in India caused by the action of the Government. They have failed in one of their primary objects, which was to secure a stable exchange. I think the House will be surprised to hear that the fluctuations in the exchange from 1894, when this experiment was first enforced, to 1897 have been precisely the same as they were from 1884 to 1889. They have been at the rate of 11½ per cent. Everyone is apt to think that people who have committed a blunder will go on to commit further blunders, and a fear on the part of the people as to what the Government might do has had a damaging effect upon trade. It has been feared that an import duty would be placed upon silver, but I have every confidence that the Secretary of State for India will not sanction such a policy. It is of the greatest importance that in all matters of this kind the people should have complete confidence in the Government. Ever since this experiment began the "forward" rate of exchange has always been materially lower than the spot rate; that is, a good measure of the confidence of commerce in the power of the Government to bring to a successful issue this fantastic experiment. The Government have dealt a heavy blow at the producing power of the community. If a low rate of exchange tends to stimulate production, then the artificial raising of the rate must tend to check production and drive it into other countries. I will not weary the House with a number of instances, but I will give one. Take the case of opium before and after this experiment. For the nine months ending in December last year, which is the last nine months that anyone can get, there were 43,000 chests of opium valued at four millions of tens of rupees, whilst the nine months which ended on the 31st December, 1893, show 53,000 chests of

  1317
  opium valued at six millions of tens of rupees. That will show anyone who thinks for a moment one of the economical aspects of the case. This is not the whole of the trouble. What has been the effect of forcing up the rate of exchange upon the bankers and the merchants? The idea was—and the recent currency law of the Indian Government shows what their prescience was worth in this matter—that they would force commerce by putting the rupee up to an extravagant rate, giving gold for the sake of obtaining rupees. What has been the result? The result has been that the Indian bankers, the moment the rupee reached 1s. 3d., or thereabouts, have hurried to get their money out of the country, and by so doing have increased the monetary stringency and have aggravated the mischief which the Indian Government has caused. It was very strange that anyone should have supposed that they would do anything different, and a relative of mine in the National Review put this matter in a way which certainly will come home to many people. He said, in effect, why should merchants, men of business, and men of common-sense enter on a game in which, if they were very lucky, they would get their stakes back, and if they were not they would lose? That is exactly the position which anyone would be in who sent money into India when the Indian Government had so arranged that the rupee might fall indefinitely in value, and that under no circumstances could it rise above 1s. 4d. That is the exact position in which the Indian Government assumed that men of business would put themselves. I will not labour the commercial question any further. I know very well that the doctrines of Robin Hood, that it is a meritorious action to plunder the rich, are so well established in this country, that it is hardly worth while to dispute them today, and I am not going to do so, but I am going to call the attention of this House to the question of the very poor in India—poor in a sense which Englishmen can hardly realise—I mean the poor Indian ryot; and I am going to ask this House to consider how this action has affected them, and whether they can say that it is honourable, justifiable, and worthy of this great country. Now, Sir, the hoards of silver in India have been variously calculated—and never mind
  1318
  how clever a man may be, and how much he may know upon the subject, his calculation must be in the nature of guesswork—but I do not think that anyone will dispute that the hoards of silver in India, uncoined and coined, are enormous, or that the hoards of uncoined silver, at any rate, as far as the poor of India are concerned, vastly exceed the coined hoards. I think I may consider that position accepted before I go any further. Then, Sir, I would ask you to consider, and this House to consider, what has been the effect upon the individual. Let us get it into the concrete. Let us take a single illustration. Let us remember that in the last great famine before this—about the year 1877—there were 30 millions of uncoined silver and ornaments tendered for rupees. Let us imagine the position of the man who tenders this silver in 1893, and who tenders it now in 1898. In 1893, with an open mint, for every 180 grains of silver in bangles or other things that he tendered he got one rupee, or 16 annas. With a closed mint, and with the present price of silver, for that same number of grains of silver he gets 10 annas; that is to say, you have taken away, or the Indian Government has taken away, without warning, without notice, from, the very poorest class of her subjects, about 37½ per cent. of their hoards—the hoards of men who live on the barest pittance which will keep them alive—of the man who, with infinite industry, with infinite patience, and with infinite self-denial, scrapes together some small amount of money, which he feels that he will have as a refuge in the inevitable day of trouble, and which he believes he has an inalienable right to turn into rupees, to protect him and his wife and starving children against the day of famine which he knows must come, and which has come, and it is from these that this great and rich Empire is not ashamed to have taken 37½ per cent; and when Englishmen, during an Indian famine, are asked to subscribe, and they give £100 or £1,000, they think they are doing very finely in so far helping the poor Indian, and all the time they have sat by and let their Government take out of the poor man's pocket vastly more than all their charitable subscriptions can possibly put into it. I ask you if that can be established—and it is established, and cannot

  1319
  be disputed—is there not a cause for inquiry? There is such a cause. It is a great charge, a grave allegation to bring, and I bring it most fearlessly because I know that that fact cannot be disputed. But Sir, what will be the line of defence which my right hon. Friend will take when he makes his official defence on this occasion? Will he say that it is out of one pocket and into the other? Will he say that for every penny which the Indian has lost in his silver he has gained in his rupee? I do not know whether he will dare to say that. I do not think anyone will venture to say that their hoards are as large in rupees as they are in uncoined silver; but if they are—admitted that they are—what profit is it to him that the rupee should have increased in its gold value? Would a Scotch or an English farmer say "Thank you" if you came to him and told him that his sovereign would buy more rupees than it did last year? Therefore, by the same analogy, why should the Indian care whether his rupee will buy more gold? What he wants is that it should buy more commodities, more bread for his belly, more clothes for his back. That is what he wants, and nothing else will satisfy him. There has been an argument advanced outside this House—a defence of the Government—which I do not think will be advanced inside. It is that the Indian Government has not yet been found out; that the Indian has not realised the wrong done to him because it has been smudged up in a question of currency. Well, Sir, the conveyance—I will not use a stronger word—of other people's property does not cease to be a conveyance because the man has not found it out. Whether the Indian population finds it out or not we shall have cause—we have cause—for shame, and if, and when, they do find it out we may have cause for fear. But there is another argument, another line of defence, which the right hon. Gentleman has himself indicated in an answer to an hon. Member of this House. The line of defence indicated in that answer is, I suppose, the line he will adopt to-night. He has not said it in so many words, but he has implied that if silver has fallen as expressed in rupees, if the divergence between the value of uncoined silver and the value of rupees has increased, it does not follow that silver will not buy as large
  1320
  a number of commodities now as it did before. But let us look and see where that argument will take us. Silver has fallen 37½ per cent., or thereabouts, in rupees. If silver has fallen in commodities, then it follows, as the night the day, not that the rupee has appreciated 37½ per cent. in commodities, but that it has appreciated 60 per cent. Well, Sir, this is not a matter of rhetoric—and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this—but it is a matter of mathematical calculation. If the rupee has risen 60 per cent. in commodities, then what is the picture that he presents to us of the action of the Indian Government since 1893? Why, it is this: that she has increased the taxation of the people of India 60 per cent.; that she, fearing the weight of her gold debt in 1893, has added to it faster than it has ever been added to in the history of India—22 millions since 1893. The Government has increased the taxation, has added to the gold debt, and is face to face on its last Budget with a deficit of nine millions. Are any more words needed to justify an inquiry? or, if that be true—and I do not believe it is—is anything more needed to condemn British rule in India as a miserable and ghastly failure? That is what it would be if that were true; but I suppose it will be said that the end justifies the means, that it is perfectly true that India has been subjected to a period of financial agony, that her commerce has been throttled, that her production has been destroyed, that the greatest anxiety, bordering on panic, has been raised among all our commercial class; but that all this is worth doing for the sake of giving her a gold standard. Now, let us examine this matter, let me ask two or three questions. Can India get a gold standard? Can she keep a gold standard? Can India afford a gold standard? What will be the cost of the standard to her and to us? Now, Sir, those are pertinent questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. I entertain the gravest doubts as to whether she can get a gold standard, and those doubts have been shared, and may be shared now, by no less an authority on these matters than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it may be said that what was impossible a few years ago may, through the enormous progress

  1321
  made in the production of gold, be rendered possible to-day. It indicates a curious mental attitude of the Indian Government that they should have abandoned the metal, in which the wealth of her subjects consisted, as a standard of value because the output of that metal was increasing, and that they should urge as a ground of the possibility of obtaining a gold standard that that metal was now in its turn increasing in output. I should like to point out that when I speak of the possibility of India getting a gold standard owing to the increased production at the moment history shows, and has done so repeatedly, that this increased production of a metal is not consistent. In the Fifties everybody would have told you that gold was going to be enormously reduced for a very long period, but it was not so. In the Seventies everybody would have said the same thing with regard to silver, but it was not so. It is a curious comment upon the suggestion of this increased production of gold that the amount of gold at the bank to-day is materially less than it was a year ago, and I am very doubtful whether the increased production will do more than meet the increased demand of foreign Powers for gold. Now, let us assume that India gets a gold standard. Could she keep it? I would answer that by another question. Has Japan kept it? We have an excellent object lesson in Japan. She went in for a gold standard. She gave her silver currency a value in much closer conformity with the actual facts than India proposes to do. Let me give you the ratio. The Japanese ratio of silver to gold is 32½, the Indian ratio 23. The market value is 36½, yet in spite of the fact that Japan has not got the immense drain that India has got, in the habit of hoarding ingrained in its people, Japan has lost already £2,000,000 sterling in gold yen—£2,000,000 has gone out of the country owing to the competition of other nations, such as China. I have received letters from persons resident in Japan, showing the serious condition of Japan, and the unfortunate position in which her commerce has been placed by her attempt to adopt a gold standard, and I will ask this House before they allow India to follow Japan in this respect to look at the example of that country, and to read the lesson.
  1322
  Now, there is another matter which, before I conclude, I should like to bring before, and press upon, the attention of this House, and that is the duty, interest, and competence of Parliament to deal with this question. Now, as to the duty. As the right hon. Gentleman who, I regret to see, is not now in his place, said, "we are all Members for India." That was a fine phrase, and I hope the House will remember it to-day. The people there are dumb millions, who cannot utter their thoughts or express their own opinions in this House. And this House has a duty towards them which it cannot throw upon others. It cannot shirk its responsibility to these dumb millions without loss of credit and character. I say that it has a duty to perform towards the people of India, to protect them, and to see that they are justly treated, that if a wrong has been done to them to see that the wrong shall be remedied. We have an interest in this matter also, because, what ever may be officially said, it is perfectly well known that we are behind India in this respect, that India's debts are our debts, her obligations are ours, that she is so tied and bound to us that we cannot cast her adrift financially any more than we can politically. Without the help and support of England, and without the knowledge in the market that England is behind India, do you suppose a country in that position, with its exports declining, a country which has found the greatest difficulty in paying the interest on its debts, could borrow more? It would be useless for her to come to this market were it not well known that we were behind her. But that is not our only interest in this matter. We have the interest that we are the only free market for gold in the world. That it is from us that the gold must come. We have a deep concern in seeing that our gold reserve is not drawn upon to an extent which this country cannot afford. Anyone who takes the trouble to look and see what the gold reserve in the bank now is, and compares it with the reserve of Russia or France or other Foreign Powers will see that it is dangerously weak. It is essential—and our bankers will bear me out in this—that we should not have this gold reserve heavily drawn upon by India. There is another matter more

  1323
  debatable than either our interest or our duty in this matter, and that is our competence. There is nothing cheaper or more easy than to run down the House of Commons in this matter. Many say the less we have to do with India the better; well, "it is an ill bird that fouls its own nest," and I am not going to talk against the House to which I have the honour to belong, but is it so certain that this House could not form a Committee that could hold its own financially, economically, in every respect with Sir James Westland? What are the names that rise to one's lips in a moment—"Fowler," Lubbock, Courtney, and Beach. Are not those to be placed against Sir James Westland?
  "Why should his name be sounded more than yours?
  Write them together, 'tis as fair a name;
  Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;
  Weigh them, it is as heavy."
  Why, Sir, it is preposterous, it is nonsense, to represent that this House is not competent to deal with the question! Why, it is common knowledge that we have men here in the first positions with regard to the shipping, commerce, and the banks of India! Have not these men a right to be heard in this matter which directly concerns England? It is not merely an Indian question. It cannot be put aside on that ground. It is a question which deeply concerns us as well, Sir. It concerns us all, and that brings me to a point which I urge, and which I think I have a right to urge upon this House, and that is that this House should appoint its own Committee to consider this Question. I know that my right hon. Friend will endeavour to meet me as far as he can, and he will be as kind and considerate and just as it is possible for one man to be to another. This is a question of principle. I am not saying for a moment that if the appointment of a Committee is left to the right hon. Gentleman he will not appoint a good Committee, but I ask the House to consider whether they should allow their duty to devolve upon other shoulders, whether they should not do it themselves? I have brought grave charges and indictments against the Government of India. I charge them with levity, I charge them with incapacity,
  1324
  and I charge them with injustice. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but those who have done me the honour to listen to what I have said cannot say those charges have been unsupported by proof, by the teaching of history, by the things which have taken place between 1897 and 1898, and, further than that, they cannot say that they are not supported by a great body of opinion in the City of London, and in India, and in Glasgow and Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well the expressions of opinion that he has received, and he knows very well who are with me in this matter. I ask this House to consider whether, if these were baseless charges, this application for a Select Committee would have received the outside support which I can show to have been the case. Just listen to the names of the men who have signed the petition to the right hon. Gentleman that a Select Committee be appointed—they are all men engaged in commerce. First of all, there are all the Indian banks, then nearly every mercantile firm in the City of London trading with India—Ralli Brothers, Wallace Brothers, David Sassoon and Co., and many others with whose names I will not trouble the House. It is sufficient for my point that I should show that there is a body of opinion behind me desiring an independent committee of inquiry. This is a charge against the Indian Government for doing this, and against the India Office for supporting this thing, and is it equitable that they should be the judges in their own cause? It is not. Under no circumstances in private life, or between man and man, would such a proposal be adopted, or accepted. I think I have taken up more time of the House than I ought, but before I conclude let me urge upon this House in the strongest way I can the social and humanitarian aspect of this question. Because the Indian native is poor, because he is ignorant, because he puts his trust in your sense of justice, that is no reason for taking away 37 per cent. of his hoard. I know that this House will not approve of such action; I know they will say that if such action was necessary, it is in itself a condemnation of England's rule. I ask this House!—I implore it—to deal as

  1325
  tenderly with the interests of the people of India as if they were their own. Unless we do so we have no right or title to remain there. I ask this House in regard the people of India, to remember, and to act upon, the noble words of the Royal Proclamation when we took over the government of India from the East India Company—
  "In her prosperity shall be our strength, in her contentment our security, and in her gratitude our great reward."
  I beg to move the Resolution.
  *MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I am afraid I shall fail to reach the high level of moral earnestness which has made the able speech of my hon. Friend so attractive to the House. I think that the plan of the Government of India that was adopted in 1893 has failed, but I do not believe that it has wrought such widespread mischief in India as my hon. Friend imagines. I do not think that the value of silver hoards has been so greatly depreciated as my hon. Friend says. A complete answer to a statement of that kind is that India goes on cheerfully importing millions' worth of silver every year, just as if this regulation bad never existed. I do not approach this subject from the same point of view as my hon. Friend. I differ from him on many questions of currency; and I only second the Resolution because I look upon it as a practical matter which ought to be inquired into and to be examined upon its merits. When the plan of artificially raising the rate of exchange to 1s. 4d. the rupee was brought forward in 1893, I spoke against it at the Society of Arts, and I objected to it on the ground that it was nothing better than a bastard bimetallism, which has been adopted by the Government of India in default of getting the legitimate article, and I believe experience has shown that the scheme has not accomplished the results looked forward to. I do not think the people of India have shown any great feeling upon the subject as a body, but the mercantile and banking interests have felt the working of the scheme very severely. Sir Forbes Adams, a very distinguished merchant engaged in the Indian trade, a man who is well known
  1326
  as a confirmed monometallist, wrote to me to say he was glad I was seconding the Resolution, and his conclusion on the whole matter was this: that the position of India now is intolerable and impossible, and that a fair inquiry by a competent body of men is urgently wanted before the Government of India are tempted into fresh experiments. I think that represents the opinion of the great body of men engaged in business in India. But not only is that the feeling in that direction, but the Government of India are dissatisfied with the present position of affairs. I do not join in Mr. Vicary Gibbs's attack on the Government of India for trying this experiment, for I have the greatest admiration for the wisdom and the courage displayed by the Government and the Secretary of State last September in rejecting proposals which, had they been accepted, would, in my opinion, have been a great disaster for the British Empire. I should not have come forward now to attack what they have done if they themselves had stood by the position that they then occupied. In their dispatch of last September they said in regard to the position of exchange—
  "India has since 1893 passed through a period of serious tension and embarrassment alike to trade and to the Government. We are satisfied that, great as have been the troubles that have attended this period of transition, the attainment in the end of the paramount object of stability in the exchange is really worth more than all the sacrifice made. We believe that our difficulties are now nearly over, and that we shall, in the future, succeed in establishing a stable exchange at 16d. the rupee by continuing the policy initiated in 1893."
  If the Indian Government had stood by the terms of that dispatch I should have thought it only fair to have granted them some further time, to see if their experiment could be carried to a successful conclusion. But since that dispatch was published they have passed an Act, stillborn from the very commencement, to get gold paid into the Bank of England against rupees to be issued in India. Again, they have submitted proposals to the Secretary of State—fresh proposals which he has said he intends to inquire into. Therefore they have departed altogether from the terms of the statement they made only a few months ago. They have taken a new departure, and,

  1327
  therefore, it is admitted on all hands that we cannot go on with the legislation of 1893. That is admitted by the Government of India itself. What were the proposals made by Lord Herschell's Committee in 1893? They tried to secure two objects—to establish the stability of exchange between India and England, and to prevent the competition of silver with Council Bills. Neither of those objects has been attained. The exchange has not been stable, and the competition of silver with Council Bills has gone on as freely as before. I always thought that Lord Herschell's Committee was constituted too exclusively of men who were students and thinkers, and not enough versed in practical business. We respect and admire the names of many who were members of that Committee. I have read again and again the majority and minority Reports of the Committee, and the memoranda which accompanied them. I have read the memorandum by the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who was on that occasion—I believe it is unusual—in a minority, and the result of reading his memorandum was that I feel as though I have passed through a strict mathematical examination, and, no doubt, the memorandum did credit to the great ability we know Mr. Courtney possesses. With the exception of Mr. Currie, I do not think there was a single member of the Committee who had any knowledge of mercantile and banking business, and I do not think Mr. Currie even had much to do with the Indian trade himself. What was the result of the Committee? I came, in reading the Report, upon this remarkable statement—
  "Hitherto the expansion of the revenue has largely provided for the additional calls which the fall in exchange has made on the Government of India."
  There, I think, the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee might have stopped. This is an exact description of what took place under the old system, when the Mints were free for the coinage of silver, without any ratio being attempted between silver and gold. The country prospered immensely, and in a few years the increase of trade would have more than compensated for the loss on exchange which accompanied the
  1328
  Government's remittances to this country. But that was not allowed to continue. It is said in some quarters that the old system encouraged the exporter to the loss of the importer. But it seems to me there is an absolute fallacy in a statement of that kind. How can we encourage the prosperity of a country and give the people wealth when at the same time we are discouraging the import trade? The more prosperous India grows, the greater becomes her ability to buy our goods. After making a statement of that kind the Herschell Committee fell under the influence of Sir David Barbour, a gentleman who has a remarkably facile pen, and who knows exactly what the Indian exchange ought to be. The Indian Government had always thought far too exclusively of its remittances to this country, and of the loss to the revenue thereby incurred. India has to pay away about one-third of her revenue in expenditure in this country every year, and that expenditure is necessarily measured in gold currency; and it is necessary, therefore, that the Finance Minister should look very carefully to the means by which he can provide that money. What I complain of is that the Indian, Government has looked exclusively to that, and has not considered the effect upon the general trade and prosperity of the country of the changes in the rupee, and so lessened what the Indian Government has to pay for sending its remittances. That has been the great mistake throughout. The Government of India has not been sufficiently informed by what I may call the commercial instinct. It has devoted itself exclusively to the point of remittances to England, and the result is seen now in the miserable conclusion we have come to after these years—that the rate in England can only be supported at 1s. 4d. by borrowing money in England. From an answer of the noble Lord's I take it that the real deficit on the year now coming to a conclusion is between 11 and 12 millions tens of rupees, including the four millions sterling which have been borrowed in this country towards meeting the home charges. The noble Lord has been obliged to stop the drawing of Council Bills on India in order to maintain the rate at 1s. 4d.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): No, it is quite the other way, The expenses of the famine made the cash balance so low that we could not call upon it. It was not for the purpose of the exchange at all.
  *MR. MACLEAN: I quite admit that there are exceptional circumstances this year. The noble Lord knows that the Finance Minister has estimated that he is going to remit 16 millions sterling from India during the next year—the year which is about to commence—which means perhaps Rx. 35,000,000. Does the noble Lord imagine that he will be able, even if the country revives, to draw 16 millions sterling in Council Bills during the coming year at the rate of exchange which is now maintained? [The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA: Certainly.] Then the noble Lord is more sanguine than I am. The rate has only been bolstered up by the sterling Loans which have been raised in this country. Well, I admit that what the noble Lord has promised to do has robbed this Resolution of a great deal of important. He has promised that an inquiry shall take place, that all the documents shall be published and made the property of the community, and that he will, if he possibly can, lay them before Parliament before any new proposals are carried into execution. Well, we can only suppose that those proposals which will come before the noble Lord have reference to the established of a gold standard in India. It seems to me I may be allowed to say so—and I say it with all due respect—that the noble Lord labours under a strange delusion if he imagines that the establishment of a gold currency in India will get, him out of all his financial difficulties. So long as the revenue of India is paid in silver—and it must always necessarily be paid in silver—the Treasury in India must be tilled with silver exclusively, and when they come to turn that silver into gold, in order to remit it to England, it is obvious that the man who has to part with his gold in order to buy rupees, will not take them at the rate which the Government choose to put upon them, but at the market rate, and you will have to buy the gold at a considerable
  1330
  sacrifice, so that the state of the Indian Treasury will be no further advanced by the establishment of a gold standard than it is at the present moment. It is not a question upon which a man would like to dogmatise, so extensive are its ramifications, but the result of my own experience and study is that the old system of keeping the mints open, without fixing any ratio whatever, and of leaving the market to find its own level, is the best system you can adopt in India; and I hope whatever Commission is appointed will take that question, into consideration. I will only say one word, in conclusion, on the difference between the proposal of the noble Lord and that mentioned in the Resolution—the Resolution asking for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee or Commission. Well, I think the very best tribunal that can possibly be appointed is a Parliamentary Committee. The House mainly consists of men who have had a very large experience in different ways and in various parts of the world. We have had recent experience which shows that a House of Commons Committee is not altogether a Satisfactory tribunal for finding out the truth when political feeling is excited, but where political feeling does not exist I think that there is no better tribunal to be found in the world than that of the British House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not bind us down absolutely to a Departmental Committee, but if he does appoint a Departmental Committee I hope that the fault will be avoided which one detects in the Hersehell Committee, namely, that no men were appointed representing the commercial interests of the country. I also hope that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to allow of all questions connected with the Indian currency being fairly discussed. I know there are some people who wish to limit the inquiries of the Committee, and to shut out one thing and another thing. They are afraid of our friends the bimetallists. I am not afraid of the bimetallists. I believe that the more bimetallism is examined the more it will be treated as an economic heresy. I am therefore in favour of a full and free discussion of this matter. In that way alone shall we promote the best interests

  1331
  of India; and in advancing the best interests of India we advance those of the British Empire.
  *SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: My long experience of over half-a-century in dealing with all currencies induced me to take part in this Debate. I shall approach it solely from a commercial point of view. I think that a strong case has been made out for granting a Select Committee to inquire promptly into this important question. Although a bimetallist, I do not blame the Indian Government for having closed their mints to the public for the free coinage of silver. I do not see what other course they could have adopted in order to prevent all the world's discarded silver from being shunted on India. They are bound, however, to supply a sound currency of some kind in India. At present they have a forced currency of token money without any metallic standard: whatever. India resembles Spain and Portugal in having over-rated silver and paper as currency, neither of which is available for international payments. Surely India, with her splendid credit, need not be classified with those countries; yet the system is identical, and has already lasted long enough—perhaps too long. Austria, contrary to what, as has been stated by the mover of this Resolution, has no gold reserves. She has also an over - rated silver currency, but she has already accumulated a sufficiently large amount of gold to establish a gold circulation. The Indian Government have fixed a maximum value to the rupee. It cannot rise above 1s. 4d.—the maximum which has been fixed by the Indian Government—but it can descend to unknown, depths. Traders who, naturally, base their operations on the currency of the country with which they deal desire stability, and care far more about the limit of depreciation than the limit of appreciation. Apparently no one can depend upon the action of the Indian Government, which is fitful and vacillating. If they cannot promote international bimetallism, which, I think, is the best possible solution—because France blocks the way—let them adopt the only alternative and introduce a gold currency. They have
  1332
  undertaken to control the circulation in India, yet they allow discount to fluctuate in a most violent manner. When the mint was closed in June, 1893, the discount on bills for January 1894 was 6 per cent.; in February, 10 per cent.; in March, 9 per cent.; May, 7 per cent.; June, 5 per cent.; July, 4 per cent.; and September, 3 per cent. The average for 1894, therefore, was 5½ per cent. In 1895 it varied again. In February it was 7 per cent., and it went gradually down to 3 per cent. in July, while in November it was 5 per cent., giving an average of 4½ per cent. for the year. In 1896 it was still worse. In January it was 5 per cent.; in February, 7 per cent.; and in May, 4 per cent. Then it went up to 5, 7, and 8 per cent. in September, October, and November respectively, and in December it was 10 per cent., the average being 5 2–3. In 1897 the fluctuations are again very remarkable. In January the rate was 10 per cent.; in June, 8 per cent.; July, 5 per cent.; September, 6 per cent.; October, 7 per cent.; November, 5 per cent.; and December, 9, or an average of nearly 8 per cent. This year the average is between 10 and 12 per cent.; this high rate of discount is an intolerable burden upon the people of India, leading to the constant oppression of usury. If the minimum charge by the Presidency banks is 12 per cent., what excessive rates must have been encouraged outside commercial circles! We condemn usury in this country—and I think very rightly—and we will, I hope, legislate against it; but you act differently in India, where you allow these high rates of discount, and encourage the very practice which you condemn in this country. Rupee stocks were depreciated no less than by 7 or 8 per cent. in the last year, yet investors were not attracted, because the rupee was an unstable investment. Gold is not attracted to the Indian Treasury by these excessive rates, which are known to be unreliable. Now, what are the remedies? The Select Committee might advise the Government as to the best remedy. They might recommend international bimetallism, they might advise the Indian Government to regulate the discount in India to a 1 or 5 per cent. rate, and might accumulate gold quietly and steadily in the Indian Treasury. This

  1333
  may be effected in two ways—by intercepting the gold coming from Australia and Africa, which would otherwise go to foreign countries, and by making a part of the taxes or duties payable in gold; perhaps a portion of the rates on imports and exports might also be made payable in gold. The great landowners, by differentiating between the present owners and those who had the land tax fixed over a hundred years ago, in 1793, when the rupee was worth two shillings in Bengal, and later on in other Presidencies, might fairly be required to pay the land revenue in gold at the rate of 1s. 4d. per rupee. They would not lose, because the object of raising the revenue in gold from them would be to maintain the rupee at 1s. 4d. There is an enormous quantity of gold in India, which has been estimated at over £300,000,000, and I feel sure, from my knowledge of what has been sent to India, during the last 50 years, that £300,000,000 is even below the mark. I do not think they were quite wise in fixing the rupee at 1s. 4d. Indian experts have thought that 1s. 3d. would be a fair rate. I advocated 16 rupees to the £1 in 1892, and had that been done those who had bought gold at 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. the rupee would have been inclined to have parted with it; but when you fix the rupee at 1s. 4d. you inflict a loss upon those who took their gold when the rupee was much lower; if you can attract even a fractional part of these large stores of gold that do exist in India you can certainly establish a gold currency, and when a reasonable quantity of gold has accumulated, the Indian Government might fix the rupee at 1s. 4d., within one-eighth below or one-eighth above, and could certainly maintain that rate. They have got 2d crores, or about £16,000,000 sterling, in bank notes, in circulation, and if they accumulate gold they could begin by making those bank notes payable and issuable in gold. They might familiarise the well-to-do Native with the sight of gold in circulation, and by persisting in that course for some time steadily, and with the fixity of purpose not generally displayed by the Indian Government they would attract from Europe millions and millions sterling of money which is seeking investment. They could, if they had a revenue in gold, make an issue of a gold loan in
  1334
  rupees that should be made transferable only in India, so as to prevent its being brought, over here to compete with the sterling loans in England. This might be considered by a Select Committee, and I think that the only satisfactory course that this House can take, and that the Government can take, would be to have a Select Committee to consider these proposals. I trust, therefore, that they will not shirk the question by having a Departmental Committee which would not satisfy those who trade with India and the public generally, but accede to the request put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: In rising to offer a few remarks on this Motion I must join in the expression of regret that an occasion so inadequate, and time so short, should have been allotted to a subject of such great imporance. Sir, we have heard a great deal about external dangers during the past few weeks; but not all the dangers to which a great commercial Empire like this is subject are concerned with wars and rumours of wars. The safety and protection, and, I may add, the extension of our commerce is a legitimate cause of anxiety; but the financial stability upon which that commerce depends, the public confidence with which all nations turn to the method and system by which that financial stability is maintained, are matters of still greater importance. And it seems to me there is implied in this Motion an indirect, but none the less certain, danger to the financial stability and the commercial prosperity of our great Indian Empire. Sir, that country has entered, with the full sanction of Her Majesty's Government, on a certain course with regard to its currency. After pursuing that course for five years the Government of that country has recently had an opportunity of expressing their opinion that it is the only wise course for them to follow, and of avowing their unanimous determination to maintain it. What, then, can be the object of this Motion? It is not to strengthen and facilitate that policy, but to thwart and change it. The object of this Motion is not to help to effectuate a gold standard in India; and any other subject is simply a disturbance and grave danger to the financial and commercial welfare of that country. I have not the slightest intention

  1335
  of making a speech on the merits or demerits of what is called bimetallism. But it is necessary to my argument to state that I believe I speak the mind of gigantic interests in this country, and of hundreds of thousands of people who are engaged in and who depend on those interests, when I claim that the financial stability and public confidence to which I have referred have, in this country, been built up on the integrity of a gold standard, and that in India the same stability and prosperity can alone be attained by effectually securing and pursuing the same monetary system. I hold with the declaration of the Indian Government—
  "We believe that whatever inducements are held out to us by other nations, our best policy in monetary matters is to link our system with that of Great Britain."
  Therefore, Sir, before we can accept this Motion, before we can know with any certainty where we are in this matter, we must clearly understand and define the scope and object of this Committee. The position is simple. Nearly five years ago, in 1893, India closed her mints to silver, and declared for a gold standard. There was nothing really very remarkable in such conduct. During the last quarter of a century, or since 1870, Germany, France, Austria, Russia, the United States, and Japan have done the same. The whole credit of the Indian Empire, and, to some extent, the credit of Great Britain, which has countenanced the action in question, is pledged to this policy. It cannot be within the scope of a Committee to inquire into and recommend a return to a silver standard, especially as at the close of last year, as I have said, India again declared for a gold standard. Sir, it is worth while to recall the very remarkable circumstances under which that declaration was made. Possibly not every Member of the House has followed the course of events. I will briefly state them. In July of last year Senator Wolcot, of Colorado, and the French Ambassador, as representing M. Méline, the French Premier, had an interview with a Committee of the Cabinet. In this interview they made certain definite proposals constituting a complete scheme of bimetallism—the first we have ever seen in practical form—and urged its adoption by the British Government. This scheme included a proposition for re-opening the Indian mints, and for the
  1336
  unlimited coinage of silver at a ratio of 15½ to 1, the actual value of silver being more nearly represented by a ratio of 30 to 1. The House will observe that the envoys represented two countries—the United States, which is a great silver-producing country, and which has an active and determined silver political party; and France, whose national pockets are bulging with 5-franc pieces, the unhappy legacy of their former bimetallic system, which they would only be too glad to sell at double their actual value. These two countries, thus interested in silver, were dealing with the country which has maintained and prospered to a marvellous extent upon a gold standard; and specifically, with a great dependency of our Empire, whose policy, adopted in 1893, had lowered the market value of silver, a commodity in which France and the United States were specially interested, from 3s. 2d. per oz. down to 2s. 3d. This was the consequence of the stopping of the Indian absorption of silver, the import of that metal into India falling on the closing of the mints from 54,000,000 ounces down to 27,000,000. It was a position not unnaturally causing some anxiety to a great silver-producing country like the United States, and a country whose currency was choked with silver like France. What was the action of the Indian Government? They rejected the proposals. In a most powerful and closely-reasoned dispatch they pointed out that such a Measure would result in—
  "a paralysis of their trade and industry, prolonged and accompanied by acute and individual suffering;"
  that—
  "none of the advantages expected would be attained;"
  and that—
  "the country would pass through a critical period which would retard its progress for years."
  They stated that they were—
  "quite clearly of opinion that the interests of India demand her mints shall not be opened as part of an arrangement to which two or three countries only are parties and which does not include Great Britain."
  They concluded by a—
  "strong recommendation that Her Majesty's Ministers should decline to give the undertaking desired by France and the United States."

  1337
  This rejection on the part of the Indian Government was absolutely decided and unanimous. And the Indian Government thus early saved the situation. Her Majesty's Ministers immediately proceeded to come to a conclusion wholly adverse to the scheme; and they supported the Indian Government, and in that action they were supported by a widespread expression of public opinion. Is it too much to say that, after what has occurred, after the Indian Government, on the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee, have closed their mints, after they have pursued that policy for five years, and now, at the end of that period, re-affirm it, and have been supported by Her Majesty's Government in doing so, it would stultify the Indian Government and Her Majesty's Government, to go back on that policy, and it would be impossible to accept a Committee which, directly or indirectly, had that object in view? Sir, the only basis on which a Committee ought to be accepted is to investigate, with a view to supporting, the policy of a gold standard For India. I know that in connection with that policy there are a multitude of powerful conflicting interests in India. Some persons, such as officials, may want a rupee as high as possible, not merely at about 1s. 3d., which it was when the mints were closed, or even at about 1s. 1d., which it is now, but 1s. 6d. or higher. And why? Because these persons naturally want as much gold for their rupee as possible. Again, others, such as the tea-planters of Southern India, may want an exactly opposite state of things, a falling rupee. Why? Because, selling their tea in Europe for gold, they get, with a falling rupee, more rupees per sovereign, while at the same time, they do not pay their labourer any more of these depreciated rupees. And there is even a third class, not only in India, but also here, who want a rupee which fluctuates in price, now up and now down. And why? Because it is their business to ensure traders against these fluctuations, and thus a fluctuating rupee brings grist to their mill. But amid this vast conflict of contending interests there is one that is paramount—one that is identical to India and to Britain. That interest is a rupee that neither rises nor fluctuates nor declines, but is stable to gold. And to secure that, although I know that it will take
  1338
  time and trouble, the only sure means is to link the monetary policy of India to that of England. That, in so many words, is the wise and consistent policy of the Indian Government, and after pursuing that policy for five years they are able to say—
  "We are satisfied that, great as have been the troubles which have attended this period of transition, the attainment in the end of the paramount object of stability in exchange is worth, more than all the sacrifices made. We believe that our difficulties are now nearly over, and that we shall, in the near future, succeed in establishing a stable exchange at 16d. the rupee by continuing the policy initiated in 1893."
  Sir, there are two overwhelming reasons for aiming at this stability of the rupee. Firstly, at this moment, capital is being withdrawn from India because people have no confidence in the maintenance of the rupee, and are alarmed at the insistence with which some persons clamour for the re-opening of the mints. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion attributed the depression in India to various causes. I attribute it to one cause. India wants capital: that splendid territory is an honour to British rule, and, I venture to say, a disgrace to British enterprise. To develop the resources of India is a duty which our capitalists neglect. Why so? They will not entrust their capital to a country whose currency may fall 20 per cent. in respect of their own. To attract them, and thus to remedy so large an evil, you must assimilate the standard of Britain and of India. Secondly, the Indian Government pays us annually £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. With a rupee fluctuating up and down, that Government is always in the dark as to how many rupees it must raise from its subjects in order to discharge that annual debt. Hence confusion and chaos in the Budgets, and this re-acts upon the taxpayer, in itself a dangerous element of possible discontent and dissatisfaction. Thus, on broad and general lines, I am convinced that the Indian Government have adopted a right policy. The question for a Committee should be solely—how to carry this general policy to a successful issue. In my judgment, the Indian Government does require guidance in this matter. In detail, and during the five years that have elapsed since 1893,

  1339
  it has pursued its own end with feebleness. Why has it collected no gold? We are living, and shall live, in an age of gold. There is plenty of gold for a gold standard in India. Its finances, though depressed to-day, are on a sound basis; in ordinary time I think, it could afford, slowly and steadily, to collect gold. Again, no one will deposit gold with it, because it has made no arrangements for anyone to get back the gold thus deposited. How best to do these things is matter for investigation. Errors have been committed, but the path has been difficult. Yet, to consider these difficulties as insuperable is, in my opinion, a weakness unworthy of British statesmanship. The thing has been done by many other nations—Germany did it in 1870. Russia is doing it now—it went on a gold standard last year and is now collecting gold, and has already 130 millions sterling. India, with our help, should be able to do it too. Sir, if this Motion is a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the currency of India, with the specific object of sustaining the now fixed policy of the Indian Government, and of facilitating and securing a gold standard in that country, it deserves the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But if it is a Motion made to reverse the present policy, if, in short, it is a Motion made in the interests of bimetallism, then the Committee will be appointed to a hopeless and post-mortem examination. For bimetallism is dead; it has been killed by every country; and to grant a Committee with the hope of fanning a breath of life into it would simply be to waste the time of the House of Commons.
  *MR. A. WYLIE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Motion which has been so eloquently proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans, has the support and concurrence of many gentlemen who are supporters of bimetallism in this House. I am a supporter of bimetallism under certain conditions, and have spoken in its favour on the floor of this House; but I do not think this Motion is in the real interests of bimetallism, and I am almost certain
  1340
  it is not in the interests of India, because it will tend to weaken that confidence in the stability of Indian money which lies at the very root of the prosperity of the country, and which the Indian Government has been doing so much to establish during the last five years. I have accordingly put down an Amendment to the Motion to the effect that—
  "This House being satisfied that the Indian Government has been and is giving due consideration to the monetary condition of India, awaits further communications from the Indian Government before taking any steps in connection with this subject."
  Before speaking to this Amendment, I wish to join hon. Members who have spoken before me in expressing regret at the short time which has been allotted to the discussion of this important subject. I feel, therefore, bound to omit many facts, figures, and communications on which I have based my convictions, and which otherwise I would have been very pleased to have laid before this House. No Government in recent times has had to face such a severe monetary problem as the Indian Government. From 1873, when silver was very largely demonetized, with the result that the currency of India was subjected to the enormous disadvantage of sometimes violent fluctuation, but at all times of steady decline, to 1893, the Indian Government repeatedly recommended the Home Government to join with other countries in establishing the old bimetallic standard of value, and, in my opinion, this would have been the wiser and the more successful course to pursue; but, in 1893, abandoning the hope of any immediate relief in this direction, they recommended that they should be allowed to close the Indian mints; and the India Office of the day, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton at its head, and with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the then Leader of the House of Commons, whom I am glad to see in his place to-night, concurred in this recommendation and gave every facility for its being carried into effect. In making their arrangements the Indian Government had to consult the apparently

  1341
  divergent interests and the absolutely divergent opinions of two different sections of the community under their rule. On the one hand, the exporters from India, the planters, and the British manufacturers in India, who had been making enormous profits by the fall in the exchange, wished it to be allowed to decline still further. On the other hand, the importers in India, and the British manufacturers who supplied them with material, having experienced enormous disadvantage by the violent fluctuations and steady decline of the rupee, wished it to be maintained at a fair, but at all events a stable, ratio; and in this desire they were supported by the merchants and manufacturers and others in India, who had made money there, and who wished to be able to realise it in this country, and also by the ablest financial advisors of the Indian Government, who had had experience for many years of enormous deficits owing to the disadvantage of a falling currency. While the extreme men on the one side wished the rupee to fall to its bullion value of about 10d. or 11d., and the extreme men on the other side would have liked it to have been restored to its old standard of about 2s., or 2s. 2d the Indian Government chose the happy medium of 1s. 4d., and held the balance very fairly between the two parties. This policy has now been in existence for about five years, and, having sanctioned it, I think we are bound to see that, it has a fair opportunity of being tested. Five years is, in my opinion, far too short a period for testing and giving fair play to such a drastic financial experiment. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that it has been attended with a very great measure of success, notwithstanding the great fall in silver. The Government has been able to maintain the rupee at the fairly stable value of about 1s. 4d., and this during a period when India was subjected to a terrible famine for three consecutive years, to a most disastrous pestilence which has paralysed industry and trade in many of her principal centres, and to the cost of a very expensive war. We can best measure the success of this experiment by looking, not at the positive disadvantages which it has secured, but at the evils which it has averted. If the Indian Government had yielded to the representations of the United States
  1342
  and France in 1893, and had advanced the value of the rupee to 1s. 11d., then,, judging from the experience which we have had of the rapid rise of the rupee to 1s. 9d. in 1890, we may safely assert that disaster and ruin would have fallen on thousands of the Indian merchants and planters. On the other hand, if the Indian Government had allowed the rupee to drop to its bullion value of 9d. or 10d., the Financial Secretary for India would have had to meet an enormous deficit, and the amount of extra taxation that would require to have been imposed under these circumstances on the people of India would have amounted to ten or twelve million crores of rupees, and this, in the opinion of the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Bengal, might probably have caused another Mutiny. It would have almost annihilated the importer in India, it would have very seriously handicapped the exporter from this country (the British manufacturer), and it would have thrown out of employment thousands and tens of thousands, of British workmen. But with the rupee maintained at a steady value of about 1s. 4d., the Indian Financial Secretary, instead of having to face a large deficit, is able to forecast a handsome surplus in next year's Budget; the steam-power industries established in India by British capital have increased by leaps and bounds; the ordinary manufacturers and planters have been doing fairly well; whilst the British manufacturers and exporters for India, have been enabled to hold their own against the cheaper labour of the East, and to give the enormous staff of workmen employed by them a fair amount of work and wages. These are some of the disadvantages which it has averted, and some of the advantages which it has secured, and I think, Mr. Speaker, judging the Government of India by the evils which it has averted, and the advantages which it has secured, we should congratulate them upon the success of their financial policy. It has been stated that there is very great stringency in the Indian money market, that interest has been advanced—I think it was the hon. Member for Whitechapel who made this statement—to the almost impractical limit of 12 per cent. Now, 12 per cent. Bank rate in this country would indicate a very severe commercial

  1343
  crisis, but in India it is not very much, above the normal rate. That country is the happy hunting-ground of the moneylender, and 12 per cent. is a common rate of interest at the bazaar even between Europeans. I would venture to say to the hon. Member for Whitechapel that, whilst he has given us the Bank rates for the periods since the closing of the mints, he has omitted to tell us that in the five years previous money was also at 12 per cent., and that the fluctuation in the Bank rate then was even greater than it has been since, because it fluctuated from a minimum of 2 per cent. to 12 per cent., whereas, since the closing of the mints, it has fluctuated to the extent of only from 3 to 12 per cent. In fact, this 12 per cent. corresponds to what would have been a rise in this country of from 3 to 4½ or 5 per cent.—a rise that would not cause very great alarm, and certainly would not call for the investigation of a Select Committee. It has been alleged that the closing of the mints has been the cause of this stringency, whatever stringency there may exist in the money market of India; but I maintain that the main cause of this stringency has not been the closing of the mints, but the want of confidence in the stability of the policy of the Indian Government, arising from the fact that it might be interfered with or overruled by the action of the House of Commons, and which has caused the withdrawal, as has been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, of an enormous amount of capital from India. Several banks, within the last two or three years, have withdrawn all their capital from India, but if they had known that the rupee was going to have been maintained at 1s. 4d. during the last five years, they would have allowed it to have remained in India, where it would have been gaining an interest three times as much as in this country. Were confidence restored British capital would again rush into India. But if this Motion is adopted by the House, will it help to restore that confidence? I think not. If a Special Committee or a Royal Commission were appointed I do not believe that there is a bank in this country that would send its capital to India, and I question very much whether any
  1344
  private individual would do so. But, given the confidence that the value of the rupee will be maintained at 1s. 4d., British capital, which is eagerly seeking investment in every part of the world, even outside our own possessions, at rates of interest considerably below—in fact, a half, and sometimes a third below—what is offered in India, would soon fill to overflowing the coffers of our Eastern dependency. This House could give the requisite confidence, not by a Resolution for a Special Committee or a Royal Commission, which would criticise and possibly thwart the policy of the Indian Government, but by a Resolution strengthening their hands—a Resolution of confidence in, and of approval of that policy of the Indian Government which has done so much for the country and the people in time of storm and stress—and by a Resolution making it certain that the policy of the Indian Government would not be weak, vacillating, and temporary, but that it would be strong, stable, and continuous, for of all things a weak and vacillating financial policy is most disastrous to the welfare of any country. I hope that before very long such a Resolution will be affirmed by this House. And, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to hope that my right hon. and noble Friend, the able Secretary of State for India, will state, in no uncertain terms, that the Government are determined to support the financial policy of India, for, if confidence in its stability were given by the declared assurance of the Government, and by the approval of this House, and if the next five years be years of peace and plenty in India, as we hope they will be, then that policy which has done so much for the people of India during the last five years of war, and pestilence, and famine, will confer upon them still greater benefits, and will make India a still more valuable possession of the British Empire. I beg, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I regret that the exigencies of public business have permitted of only a very short discussion upon this important subject. I think, however, there is still sufficient time to enable me to state very clearly what my

  1345
  views are and what are the intentions of the Indian Government. Let me, in the first place, congratulate my hon. Friend who has just sat down upon his admirable speech—a speech which showed real knowledge and grip of the subject, and which was all the more valuable because my hon. Friend is largely engaged in trade with India and speaks as a bimetallist, although not as a prejudiced one. The hon. Member for White-chapel and the hon. Member for Cardiff have made speeches with which I find but little fault. As far as their demands are concerned, I believe I can satisfy them, for I feel that before any alteration is made in the monetary system of India there should be a thorough and impartial inquiry. I should be sorry to attempt to decide without inquiry upon so controversial and intricate a subject as a material alteration in the monetary system of India. I cannot, however, approve the tone or substance of the speech of my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution. In one respect I must congratulate him. We are discussing the dullest of all subjects—an abstract currency question—and my hon. Friend managed to pack into his speech more exciting language than I ever heard before, even in an Irish Debate, or in any Debate upon a controversial subject in this House. If my hon. Friend succeeds in getting a Select Committee appointed, and if those who differ from him were to give evidence in similar language, whatever other solution is arrived at I do not think it will be a pacific one. I was not responsible for the closing of the mints, and my hon. Friend wishes to bring those who were responsible before a Committee. I have looked most carefully into the history of the matter, and it is my belief that, placed in the circumstances in which they then were—circumstances of very great difficulty—those who were responsible adopted the right course, and I shall not hesitate to say so. It is an abstract question whether if is right of wrong to close the mints, but we must take into consideration the circumstances with which they had to deal. I believe I am the oldest bimetallist in the House, as I became a convert 25 years ago, and I had a great deal to do at that time with starting the organisation, which has since developed itself. The object of bimetallism is to establish a stable rate
  1346
  of exchange between gold and silver money, and the object of anybody who takes an interest in Indian finance is to try and bring about that stability of exchange. It is my belief that if that ever can be established so as to induce capitalists to send their money to India for investment with the knowledge that they will be able to get it back at very much the same rate, I know no bounds to the productive prosperity of India. How is it possible to establish that stability of exchange between England and India? It might be done by an international agreement, and theoretically that would be the best plan, but the world unfortunately does not agree. We have not to deal with individual opinion, but with the opinions of the world. Twenty-five years ago, when the fall in the price of silver took place, largely through the action of Germany in closing her mints, after a period of seven years, from 1870 to 1877, a certain number of nations demonetised silver and adopted a gold standard, and foremost was Germany. For 13 years there was a cessation of the movement; but in 1890 it began again, and since then Roumelia, Austro-Hungary, Chili, Bulgaria, Russia, and Japan all adopted a gold standard. Now, we must look facts in the face. I believe at this moment there are only two countries in the world which have a silver standard—namely, Mexico and China—and, therefore, believing though I do in bimetallism and not having abandoned the theory, I yet think it is obvious that it is no use prosecuting that theory for the purpose of establishing a stable exchange between England and India. There has been no blame of the Government for rejecting the proposal made in the autumn for reopening the Indian mints. A year ago I think it was obvious to anyone who looked into the matter that the proposal would not obtain the stability it was its object to secure. The Government can do one of two things; it can, if it chooses, give an artificial value to silver in circulation, but only on one condition, that is, that it keeps a restriction over the coinage of silver, so that it derives its value from its scarcity—a monopoly value. Or a nation can open its mints to free coinage, but the value of the coins will be that of the intrinsic value of the metal they contain. The proposition made to us was

  1347
  that the ratio of silver to gold should be 15½ to 1. But the market ratio was 35 to 1, and if the wishes of Governments come into contact with the universal law of supply and demand that law will prevail, and the ratio of 15½ could not be sustained. If we ever enter into an international arrangement that does not achieve its object we shall be in a worse position than before, for we shall have all the inconveniences of instability of exchange while having tied our hands and fettered our liberty of action. Therefore, I will go so far as to say—and I speak my own opinion, and I think of everyone connected with the Indian Government—we do not believe that circumstances now exist for entering into an international bimetallic arrangement, because no such arrangement would be worthy of being called international that did not include France, and France would only accept a 15½ ratio. The population of France is 11 per cent. of the total population of Europe, but its currency is 23 per cent. of the total currency of Europe. When that is subdivided, the note circulation is 6½ per cent. of the total circulation of Europe, the gold circulation is 25 per cent., but the silver circulation is 40 per cent. In fact, I believe there is a larger amount of silver in circulation in France than there is in the whole of British India. I go by the statement of the Herschell Committee. At any rate, there is this enormous amount of silver in circulation at the ratio of 15½ to 1, and I do not believe that France can accept any other ratio. So long as she adheres to that ratio she cannot enter into an international arrangement, and without her there can be no real international arrangement. That in a nutshell is the position of the Indian Government; and let the House remember that they did not close their mints until after they saw there was no chance of an international bimetallic arrangement. Another fact which my investigation has brought to my mind very strongly is that I do not believe it is possible for any one nation by its own exertions to rehabilitate silver. America made a tremendous effort in 1890 by the Sherman Act. By that Act the United States Government were compelled annually to buy 54,000,000 ounces of silver whether the currency of the United States wanted it or not. That 54,000,000
  1348
  ounces of silver is about 30 or 40 per cent. of the total silver production of the whole world. America continued that operation for three years, and at the end of those three years silver was 6d. lower than it was before. That shows clearly that no one country can by its own unaided exertions rehabilitate the price of silver. Under these conditions what was to be done? What was the position which the late Government had to face? I do not want to use language too strong; but India was unquestionably on the verge of bankruptcy. She could not pay her way, and one of two things was inevitable—either that she would be unable to meet her obligations, or that this country would have had to come to her aid. Now, what is the plea upon which bimetallists have appealed to the working classes of this country? Is it not that the constant fall in the price of silver raises prices in those countries where silver is the standard, and that in consequence an impetus and bounty is given to the export trade? But if you open your mints you at once re-establish the bounty system on behalf of the exporter which the closing of the mints has taken away from him, and therefore anybody who has made an appeal as a bimetallist to the working classes of this country to get rid of the bounty which the fall in silver gives to the exporter, must vote against the re-opening of the mints in India, because, if those mints were opened, that bounty which they have denounced would once more be established. The exporter wants a cheap rupee. Everyone who exports produce from India likes a falling rupee, for the reason that it raises prices. But there is always an interval between the rise in the price of the commodity and the rise in the wages of those engaged in producing the commodity, and the exporter gets the benefit for the time being. It does seem to me absolutely inconsistent with the whole theory and principle of bimetallism that those gentlemen who have been holding up the iniquity of this bounty system should now ask us to reopen the mints and re-establish it in full vitality. My hon. Friend expressed in very strong language the terrible commercial, monetary, and economic condition of India as it exists at the present time; and he stated that this had been entirely produced by the closing of the

  1349
  mints. He gave only one set of figures in support of that statement, and those were in connection with the export of opium to China. No doubt there has been a great falling off in the export of opium to China. That has always been foreseen. The area of opium cultivation in China has, decade after decade, been extending; and I was glad to think that my hon. Friend, with all his research, was only able to refer to opium as proving the argument that India has become impoverished under this system of closed mints. I have taken a great deal of trouble to see how far the predictions of those who are opposed to the closing of the mints have been verified. It was stated that the result of the closing of the mints would be to reduce the area of cultivation. The area of cultivation has not diminished in India. The price of staple commodities remains very much the same: the value of exports has not fallen; the prices of exported produce have not fallen; and the prices of imported produce have increased. It was predicted that the trade of India with silver-using countries would fall off. So far from that being the case, according in the latest returns, the volume of trade with silver-using countries was 26 per cent. for the whole of India, whereas previously it was only 24. If I wanted any proof that India was not ruined by the present monetary system it is shown by the extraordinary recuperative power she is now exhibiting in recovering from one of the greatest disasters that have ever visited any country. Sir, attention has been drawn to the dearness of money, and there can be no question that money is dear in India. I do not wish to dogmatise on this point, but it seems to me that dearness of money is not identical with scarcity of currency. I think the dearness of money is caused by want of capital, and the cause of want of capital in India is, no doubt, attributable to that country having passed through one of the greatest economic convulsions of this century—drought, famine, plague, and war. There is another influence at work. I think one mistake in closing the mints was in trying to fix the rate at which the rupee should be converted into gold. The rupee could not rise appreciably above 16d., but could fall to any point below. The result, therefore, is that people who have got capital invested in the banks have
  1350
  preferred to have their money remitted to them whenever the rupee approached 16d., with the consequence that there has been a great depletion of capital. What would be the result if the mints were opened? I have had a calculation made as to what the difference would be beween the number of rupees remitted at the present rate of exchange and the number which would have to be remitted at the market rate of silver at the present moment. That difference amounts to about 15 crores, or, say, £6,000,000 sterling. The Indian Government must pay its way; and it could not pay its way in that state of things except by increased taxation. It cannot increase its taxation, and therefore it could not pay its way unless it received help from this country. If additional taxation were put on here, it would be put on those who are already subjected to unfair competition in India, and so the mercantile community here would get hit right and left. But that is not the only objection. If there were any idea of the mints being opened there would be at once a general disturbance of prices and a continuous fall in the gold value of the rupee; and a general spirit of apprehension and mistrust would be set up which would be absolutely fatal to the investment of capital and to the development of commerce or trade, or any sustained enterprise anywhere. I cannot conceive what reason anyone can give for arguing that the mints in India should be opened without an international arrangement, except that if the mints in India were opened it is just possible that it might be a stepping-stone to securing an international bimetallic arrangement. But it such a thing were done the economic condition of the country would suffer. I am not prepared myself to make the experiment, and I venture to think that no responsible Minister would incur the risk of adopting such a visionary idea. I want it to be distinctly understood that so far as the Indian Government are concerned, both here and in India, we believe that an attempt to open the mints without some international arrangement being come to would be an act of lunacy. Therefore, I should be very sorry to be a party to inquiry into the Indian monetary system if it were believed that I in any way associated myself with the idea that that inquiry would lead to a reversal

  1351
  of the policy established in 1893. Now, Sir, I quite agree that there should be an impartial inquiry into any proposals the Indian Government send home, and that any such inquiry must be to some extent retrospective. The inquiry must not either be limited to the scope of the Indian monetary system, but those who conduct it must have the power to investigate the monetary system of England. The body intrusted with the inquiry should not be composed mainly of officials. I think it is most desirable that gentlemen of experience in connection with India whose names carry weight should be asked to participate in such an inquiry, and I think they ought certainly to be more in number than the officials. I am prepared to undertake, on behalf of the Government, that such shall be the composition and scope of the inquiry into the proposals the Indian Government have sent home, and I am anxious for my own sake that the inquiry should be made as soon as possible. There are many systems of currency in force in different parts of the world, but if we analyse the secrets of success we shall find that those which succeed are successful by virtue of the fact that the people have confidence in them, and I feel that no alteration in the system of India could be accepted with general trust and confidence by the community unless the recommendation were associated with the names of men thoroughly conversant with the subject, whose opinions would carry weight with the community at large. It is rather difficult to select gentlemen to take part in such an inquiry. I think we do not want to have extreme controversialists, we do not want to have faddists, because I think nothing is more inconvenient in a case of this kind—where the demand everywhere is that a decision one way or the other should be arrived at—nothing is more undesirable than that such an inquiry as this should be an opportunity for gentlemen of extreme views to fight one another. At the same time, it is desirable that, while we get gentlemen associated with banking and commercial interests, we should try and not put on the Committee gentlemen with too direct a personal interest in the question one way or the other. Such being the views of Her Majesty's Government, I cannot accept the Motion
  1352
  of my hon. Friend for the reasons I have given. It would be quite impossible for me to do so, but I am prepared to move this in substitution for it—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a further inquiry be made into the monetary system of India, and into the proposals of the Government of India for the establishment of a gold standard in that country."
  Of course, such a Committee would have power to make recommendations. I do not propose to have recourse to a Select Committee, because it is obvious that you have a much wider selection of experts if you do not confine the inquiry to Members of this House, and I do not propose to have recourse to a Royal Commission, because a Royal Commission is a somewhat cumbrous form of investigation. But what I would propose is a Committee, not being a Departmental Committee in the sense of being composed mainly of officials in the India Office, but one having all the powers and all the attributes of a Royal Commission, and which is simply put in the shape of a Committee, because this is a handier—and, I think, a more effective—instrument of inquiry. I have stated to the House what the views of the Indian Government are. Wo cannot assent to the proposal of my hon. Friend, and I cannot hold out on behalf of the Government any hope that we shall reverse the policy established in 1893. My hon. Friend thinks that the currency system in India can be put on a better footing by a reversal of that policy; but I, on the other hand, look forward and hope to be able to consummate the policy which was commenced in 1893.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: The noble Lord was good enough to say that he would leave me some time in which to address the House. That was unnecessary, because he has made a better speech than I could have made in defence of the policy of 1893. There is no doubt what that policy was; it was an experiment, and a necessary experiment, in the condition in which India was placed. The Government of India approached that experiment with prepossessions in favour of a different course; but they have recorded in this dispatch their conviction that that policy was right, and that it was better than

  1353
  a partial international bimetallic policy. Well, that is satisfactory for the Government of India, but still more satisfactory is the voice of Balaam that we have heard to-night, who confesses that he always has been, and still is, a bimetallist by conviction. I can only express my regret that that speech was not made somewhere about the month of July, 1895; it would have been extremely useful in Lancashire and in the agricultural constituencies. But better late than never; and I can only hope that it has carried conviction to the colleague who sits by his side (Mr. Chaplin) and to the First Lord of the Treasury, the Leader of the House. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: In what respect?] I am quite sure that all the arguments which he has used are the arguments we have been using—we who belong to the majority of the world—against the professors of bimetallism, for I do not know how many years. But, in spite of all the professors, the world is against the faith that the noble Lord still holds. I am delighted to hear that he has vindicated the Government of India, as it was his office and his duty to do, against the language, in my opinion absolutely unfounded and unjustifiable, employed by the mover of this Resolution. In his concluding words the hon. Member charged the Government of India with levity and incapacity, for adopting a policy which, I venture to say, has been proved by experience to be absolutely necessary to rescue India from impending insolvency, and in that I am supported by the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am not concerned with the vindication of the policy of the Government of India in this matter, and I am not going to trouble the House with arguments about the currency. The sort of speeches we want to hear are not speeches on currency by the professors, but speeches such as we heard from the hon. Member for Dumbarton, who spoke with practical knowledge of the questions which have to be decided. The hon. Member is the sort of man we want to assist us in inquiries of this kind. I do not agree with him, however, that an inquiry such as is proposed would shake confidence in the Indian Government. I believe the inquiry would establish
  1354
  the soundness of the policy which has been adopted, and which I hope will be continued in the future. We have listened to appeals on behalf of the poor people of India, who are said to have been injured by the closing of the mints. That is a most mischievous argument, and it is an untrue one. It has been said that these poor people in the time of famine had to sell their silver ornaments, and that they could only get half their value. If anyone is disposed to give in to that mischievous delusion I would ask him to read the most important report, written by Mr. O'Connor, on the trade of British India. He shows on pages 73 and 74 of that Report that it is absolutely untrue that these silver ornaments have been sold at reduced prices, to the injury and discontent of the poor people of India. No such thing has taken place, and that is proved by the fact that silver is being imported into India. Of course, if those ornaments were sold, there would be a plethora of silver in India, and there would be no necessity to import silver into the country.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the date of that Report?
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: It is dated 1897, the year of the famine. It was issued as a Parliamentary Paper in, I think, November last. I read it with great satisfaction as absolutely refuting the fallacies which have been so frequently put forward. Then, Sir, the noble Lord said that no one would condemn the Government for having rejected the proposals which were made to them by the Governments of the United States and France. The noble Lord said truly that no international agreement could be arrived at except, upon the basis of a ratio of 15½ to 1. We have always asserted that when the bimetallists were brought to book and compelled to state a ratio the whole thing would collapse, and that is what has happened. We have the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which I entirely agree, that a proposal of that kind was incompatible with public honesty. He said—
  "In view of the present market price of silver, it seems to me that to fix any such ratio would be an act of absolute dishonesty to creditors."
  In the dispatch of the Indian Government it was pointed out that such a ratio would

  1355
  be absolutely ruinous to India; that the opening of the mints at such a ratio would mean the disorganisation and ruin of the whole trade of India. I have heard strong language of condemnation of such a proposal having come from the Governments of the United States and France. Yes, but they were not the authors of the proposal; they were invited to make such a proposal, and very much surprised they were when they found that it was summarily rejected by the Government of India and by the British Government. And why were they surprised? Because in 1896, three years after this Measure was adopted which the noble Lord says was necessary to save India from bankruptcy, the First Lord of the Treasury, without any consultation with the Government of India, pledged himself that the Indian Mints should be opened without any reservation whatever in regard to the ratio at which it was to be done. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We will re-open the Indian mints; we will engage that they shall be kept open; and thereby we shall provide for the free coinage of silver within the limits of the British Empire for a population greater than that of France, Germany, and Belgium together."
  This declaration was undoubtedly greatly to the satisfaction of the people of Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman gave the pledge without consulting the Indian Government, and when it was consulted the proposal was summarily rejected. The United States naturally thought that, after the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, the proposal would be accepted. When it was rejected, and very properly rejected, they were extremely astonished at, and they rather resented the violence of, the language used here to describe their proposal, and I am bound to say that they had some reason to complain. I think the proposal of the noble Lord to-night is perfectly satisfactory. In such a difficult question as the establishment of a gold currency in India there ought to be investigation by experts and practical men. If it could be obtained it would be of great use to this country and to India. I think the substituted Motion proposed by the noble Lord is a very proper one for the House to adopt, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall give it my support.
  *MR. WYLIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I propose in line 1 to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words—
  "In the opinion of this House it is desirable that a further inquiry be made into the monetary system of India, and into the proposals of the Government of India for the establishment of a gold standard in that country."

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  To amend the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Dane, and Mr. James Roche; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
  POST OFFICE (CARRIAGE OF GAME) BILL.
  To prohibit the Carrying of Game during the close season by the Post Office Authorities; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Captain Sinclair, Mr. Parnell, Sir Thomas Esmonde, and Mr. Grant Lawson; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 29th April, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
  SCHOOL BOARD CONFERENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  To provide for Expenses incurred by School Boards in Scotland in relation to School Board Conferences; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Renshaw, Sir William Dunn, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. Cochrane; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th April, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  To amend the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Acts; Ordered to be brought in by Captain Sinclair, Mr. Asher, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Haldane, and Sir William Wedderburn; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  House adjourned at 12.