Commons Sitting of 10 April 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GLASGOW DISTRICT SUBWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  RUSHDEN AND HIGHAM FERRERS DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  (By Order), read a second time and committed.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  (By Order), read a second time and committed.
PETITIONS.
  BOILERS INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour,—from Wimborne and Cranborne; and, Exeter; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Kirkton; North Queensferry; Gourock; Edinburgh (two); Edzell; Monifieth; Wishaw; Inverness; Burghead; Newtown; Leith (two); Musselburgh; St. Andrews; and, Pittenweem; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Leeds, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Edinburgh; Roxburgh; and, Selkirk; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Halifax; and HanLey; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY
  Petition of the Travelling Tax Abolition Committee, for abolition; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILLS.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment;— From Basingstoke; and Peterborough; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Stroud, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour;—From Masbro'; and Falmouth; to lie upon the Table.

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
  The following Papers presented by Command of Her Majesty during the Easter Recess were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August 1896—

  1. Trade Reports (Annual Series),— Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Nos. 2,214 to 2,221.

  2. Africa (No. 3, 1899),—Copy of Report by Sir A. Hardinge on the British East Africa Protectorate for the year 1897–8.

  3. Africa (No. 4, 1899),—Copy of Papers relating to events in the Uganda Protectorate and Major Macdonald's Expedition (in continuation of Africa, No. 1, 1899).

  4. Egypt (No. 3, 1899),—Copy of Report of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1898.

  5. Historical Manuscripts (Royal Commission),—Copy of Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleueh, K.G., preserved at Montague House, Whitehall, Vol. I.; Copy of Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at the Castle Kilkenny, Vol. II.; Copy of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, Part VII.

  6. Pacific Cable Committee,—Copy of Report, Minutes of Proceedings, etc.

  7. Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation Rules,—Copy of Rules made under the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1898.

  Ordered, that the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return, presented,—relative thereto (ordered 23rd February; Sir John Lubbock); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 136.)
  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885
  Account presented,—up to 31st March 1899 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
  Account presented,—up to 31st March 1899 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Accounts presented,—of all Moneys received and of the disposal thereof, and of all Contracts for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities and for the payments on Death made, during the year 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 137.)
  POST OFFICE (PROMOTION IN TELEGRAPH AND POSTAL BRANCHES.)
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered 17th June 1898; M r. Jacoby); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES ACT, 1891.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 29th March, under the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, directing that as from the 1st April 1899 the receipts under section 1 (1) (A) of the Merchant Slopping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, shall be applied as appropriations in aid of the moneys to be granted by Parliament for Mercantile Marine Services; the fees under section 3 of the same Act as an appropriation in aid of the moneys to be granted by Parliament for the service of Customs; and the receipts under section 1 (4) of the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, as an appropriation in aid of the moneys to be granted by Parliament for County Court Officers, etc., Ireland (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 22nd March 1899, granting a re-tired allowance to Mr. Maurice Thomas Gloster, Principal Coast Officer at Cromarty in the service of the Board of Customs (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREW'S.
  Copy presented,—of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's for the year 1897–8 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 138.)
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COLOUR TESTS)
  Copy presented,—of Report on the Sight Tests used in the Mercantile Marine for the year ended 31st December 1898 (in continuation of (C 8865) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS IRELAND.
  Copy presented,—of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1897, Part II. Civil Statistics (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented,—of Return for the month of July 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA FAMINE.
  Copy presented,—of Appendices to the Report of the East India Famine Commission, 1898, being Minutes of Evidence, etc., Vol. I. (Bengal), Vol. II. (Madras Presidency), Vol. III. (Bombay Presidency), Vol. IV. (Central Provinces and Berar), Vol. V. (North-Western Provinces and Oudh), Vol. VI. (Punjab). Vol. VII. (Miscellaneous) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered 24th March; Mr. Price); to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March 1899, etc. (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 139.)
  ALIENS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 139, of Session 1898) (Address 14th February; Mr. Jesse Callings); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 140.)
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Accounts presented,—for the year 1898, with an Account of extraordinary Works executed other than the general Repairs for the same period (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the County Council of Northumberland altering the Longbenton No. 1 (or Killingworth) Polling District (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PROCEEDINGS IN COUNTY COURTS).
  Copy presented,—of Statistics in County Courts (England and Wales), under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (NOTIFICATION OF DISEASE) (MERCURIAL POISONING).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the Secretary of State, dated 27th March 1899, applying the provisions of Section 29 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, to cases of Mercurial Poisoning in Factories and Workshops (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL BOUNTIES ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  Return presented,—relative thereto (Address 8th August 1898; Mr. O'Kelly); to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2223 and 2223 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Carnarvon), — Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th February 1898; Mr. Grant. Lawson); to be printed. (No. 141.)

  2. Prison Act, 1898,—Copy of Rule made by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, under the Prison Act, 1898.

QUESTIONS.

  ALDERSHOT POST OFFICE.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.): I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the business of the post office at Aldershot is now-conducted in a carriage factory, which causes considerable inconvenience; and whether, as a. site for a new post office was bought six months ago by the Government, he could state when the new post office building is to be commenced?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The business of the post office at. Aldershot is now conducted, as a temporary arrangement, in premises part of which was formerly used as a carriage factory. The accommodation for the public is somewhat small at times of pressure, but nothing better could be found. Plans for the new building have been prepared, and, as soon as the cost involved has been sanctioned, steps will be taken to commence the work.

  POTTERY INDUSTRY.
  MR. MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conclusions, arrived at by Professors Thorpe and Oliver in their Report on Lead Compounds in Pottery; and whether, in view of those conclusions, the Factory and Workshop Bill which he has stated his intention to introduce this Session will contain provisions for prohibiting the use of lead for glazing earthenware in those particular kinds of ware in which it has been proved to be unnecessary; for prescribing the use of lead in the form of a fritted double silicate; for prohibiting the use of raw lead; and for prohibiting the employment of young persons and women as dippers, dippers assistants, ware cleaners after dippers, and glost placers in factories where lead-glaze is used.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. J. COLLINGS,): The Secretary of State is fully cognisant of the conclusions embodied in the Report referred to, which was made to him and presented by him to Parliament. The Bill to amend the law relating to Factories and Workshops, which he has prepared, will propose to give power to the Secretary of State to deal, under certain conditions, with all the points mentioned by the honourable Member.

  TAXATION OF CLERICAL INCOMES.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the introduction of the Budget, he will state the course the Government intend to take in order to give relief from the existing burden of local taxation to clerical incomes derived from tithe?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS -BEACH, Bristol, W.): No, Sir. It would neither be usual nor practicable to make a statement on such a matter on the introduction of the Budget.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when the Government hope to make a statement on the subject in consequence of the pledge given earlier in the Session by the First Lord of the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That does not rest with me.

  BARRACKS LOAN BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the new Barracks Loan Bill will be introduced?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): It is not yet possible to fix a date for the introduction of the Bill.

  PARLIAMENTARY MINISTERS.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with Government proposals to increase the number of Parliamentary Ministers, the Foreign Office may be directed to obtain from Her Majesty's representatives in the principal European countries a Return showing the number of paid Parliamentary Ministers having seats in their respective elective assemblies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am quite ready to confer with the right honourable Baronet as to the value of the information he desires. I confess that I should have thought that the Parliamentary circumstances of the various countries were so different from those of this country that hardly any instructive lesson could be drawn from a statement of the number of secretaries and under-secretaries required to carry on the work in connection with their departments.

  POSTMAN LANGSTON, OF RICHMOND.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will explain on what grounds Postman Langston, of Richmond, who entered the service as a telegraph messenger, has had withheld from him an established appointment, several ex-Army men having been appointed over his head?
  MR. HANBURY: The delay which has occurred in appointing C. E. Langston has been due to the fact that he was in the first instance pronounced unfit for the service, owing to the weak state of his heart, by the medical officer who examined him. The Civil Service Commissioners ultimately decided to issue a, certificate in his case, but in the meantime several appointments as postmen at Richmond had fallen vacant, and been filled by other candidates.

  BOURNEMOUTH POSTMEN'S OVERTIME CLAIM.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, why the parcel postmen of Bournemouth have been refused pay for overtime worked last Christmas week, the periods so worked ranging from 11½ hours to 10½ hours per man?
  MR. HANBURY: The parcel postmen at, Bournemouth were paid overtime for prolonged deliveries on the 23rd and

  689
  24th December, in accordance with the general rule, as it is recognised that their work is largely increased on those days. The period for which they were refused overtime payment was previous to December 23rd, as it would be contrary to the general practice to allow extra pay for prolonged deliveries before that date. The Surveyor has, however, been instructed to make special inquiry as to whether the circumstances at Bournemouth last Christmas were such as to warrant exceptional treatment in this case.

  POSTMAN COULSON, OF MALTON.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that Postman Coulson, of Malton has been reprimanded and fined one day's pay (4s.) for having solicited a Christmas box from the Honourable G. Dawnay; whether he is aware that the postman declares that he only called on Mr. Dawnay to ascertain if any other postman had called on him for the customary Christmas box; that he utterly denies having stated that the Department expected men to solicit Christmas boxes in order to make up their wages, and explains that all he did say was that the Department, in fixing the amount of wages, took the Christmas boxes into consideration; and whether that point has any bearing on the amount of wages?
  MR. HANBURY: Walter Coulson, postman at Malton, was suspended from pay for one day and cautioned for having made a remark while soliciting a Christmas box from Mr. Dawnay to the effect that the Department expected postmen to ask for Christmas boxes in order to make up their wages, and that Christmas boxes were taken into account in fixing the men's wages. The inquiry left no doubt that Coulson did make the remark, which he must have known to be without foundation in fact. The Department does not take Christmas boxes into consideration in fixing postmen's wages.

  UNITED KINGDOM POSTAL CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the existence of any rule or order prohibiting Post Office employees from exhibiting in their retiring rooms the rules of their various associations; and, if so, whether he will take such steps as will cause the restrictions complained of to be removed; and, should no such restrictions exist, can he state on whose authority the chief postal superintendent at Glasgow refused to initial the local rules of the United Kingdom Postal Clerks' Association for exhibition on the retiring room notice board on 23rd March?
  MR. HANBURY: The authorised practice is to allow the exhibition in the retiring rooms of notices of meetings, etc., of the various clubs and associations to which the men belong, but no notices intended to remain permanently or for an indefinite period on the board, or notices containing controversial matter or electioneering notices are allowed to be exhibited in post offices. Each notice has to be submitted to the postmaster for authority before it is put up in the retiring rooms, and, if approved, it is initialled by him or the officer deputed by him. The rules which are not allowed to be exhibited at Glasgow were apparently intended to be permanently exhibited, and were dealt with in accordance with the authorised practice.

  GOLD COAST.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether troubles have arisen among the natives in the northern territories of the Gold Coast owing to the enforcement of compulsory labour in connection with the telegraph extension works, and a detachment of Hausas has been sent up from the Coast in consequence; and whether he will state the conditions and method by which labour is compulsorily obtained for these and similar works, and lay upon the Table

  691
  a copy of the Compulsory Labour Ordinance of the Colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): No troubles have arisen in the northern territories of the Gold Coast, but a detachment of Hausas has been sent up to Coomassie in consequence of disturbances in Warn, where the king has been deposed in a revolt of his subjects. The Compulsory Labour Ordinance expired on the 14th of December 1896, and there is now no system of compulsory labour in the Colony.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONasked what Estimates would be taken on Friday next.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not had time to consult the Under Secretary of the Admiralty, but my recollection is that we shall begin with Vote 10 of the Naval Estimates and then take them in their order.

  THE RECENT GALE.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval authorities are rendering and will continue to render all necessary assistance to the Lowest of fishermen to recover upwards of £12,000 worth of nets lost during the recent gales off the coasts of Cornwall and Devon?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.): In reply I have to say that orders will be given to any of Her Majesty's ships to report immediately if they come across any of these nets, and other steps which may be considered possible will be taken.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (King's Lynn): Would it not be practicable to
  692
  send out a vessel or two to recover these nets?
  MR MACARTNEY: I am not aware whether any vessels are available at the present moment. We are communicating with the ports, but I cannot pledge the Admiralty straight off to send a ship. It will be considered if any are available.
  SIR J. COLOMB: May I take it that the Admiralty are communicating with the naval authorities at Plymouth with a view to do everything that can be done to recover these nets?
  MR. MACARTNEY: That is so.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date the London Government Bill will be taken in Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I cannot give any specific answer to the honourable Gentleman. It will depend on what work is done first, but in any case the Bill will not be taken this week. The sooner it reaches the Committee stage the better I shall be satisfied.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): Can the right honourable Gentleman state what day the Local Government Vote will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; not at present.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Irwin Edward Bainbridge Cox, esquire, for the County of Middlesex (Harrow Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  On the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

  EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATE AND UGANDA.
  MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.): On Saturday a very interesting Report by Sir Arthur Hardinge on British East Africa was put into our hands. It is a matter for congratulation that the Administrator in East Africa seems to take a very hopeful view in regard to the position of affairs there. It appears that civilisation is spreading, and that courts of justice are taking the place of devastating and retaliatory raids But there is one aspect of that Report which is not quite so favourable, and that is that so far from there being any increase in the export trade of British East Africa there is a distinct decline, amounting to 10 per cent, There has been, it is true, a considerable increase in the imports from this country, but when it is remembered that these imports are largely due to the money expended by the East African Government, I do not think that it can be said these are of much value from the point of view of trade. A comparative statement of the figures for 1896–97 and 1897–98 shows that the exports from the East African Protectorate had fallen from 11 lakhs of rupees to 10 lakhs, or nearly a drop of 10 per cent. There is one other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that is that there is no direct line of steamers between Great Britain and Zanzibar. In his Report last year, Sir Arthur Hardinge made this observation—
  "It has been suggested that Her Majesty's Government should give the British India Company, in lieu of an increased subsidy, the carriage of all material for the Uganda Railway, on the understanding that the company should run a direct line from London via Marseilles to Zanzibar and Mombasa. The guarantee of the carriage, even of a certain portion of the material, in all probability, would enable the British India Company to run a local line of steamers from Zanzibar to Kismayo, calling at the various intermediate ports. Such a line is absolutely imperative if the coast trade is to be developed."
  694
  On that recommendation of Sir Arthur Hardinge it might have been expected that something would have been done to make use of the immense amount of traffic which we are necessarily creating by the exports of materials for the Uganda Railway, in order, not to subsidise a British line of steamers, but to give exclusive contracts to a British line to Mombasa. The facts, however, are otherwise than what we should have expected. There is a German line with a subsidy of £45,000 which makes a fortnightly communication between Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Antwerp, and Zanzibar. The steamers of that line now call regularly once a month at Mombasa. British shipping-is solely represented by small British India steamers with a 7-knots contract running from Calcutta, via Aden, and from Bombay, via Seychelles, to Mombasa, Sir Arthur Hardinge again refers in his Report this year to the inconveniences which have occurred to British traders on account of this want of direct British communication. Referring to what he had stated in his previous year's Report, he says—
  "At the beginning of 1898 the mail steamers of the German East Africa Line commenced calling one a month at Mombasa, both outwards and homewards, and it has so far proved a great advantage for mails and passengers to have additional direct steamers between Mombasa and Europe. Complaints are, however, made of pilfering which takes place on board or at the transhipment ports of Hamburg, Amsterdam, or Antwerp, while goods are awaiting shipment. An importer recently informed me that he was surprised to find a case of English provisions one-third short of the invoiced quantity, and the empty space fitted up by a German broom. Another recently received a bicycle case, which, on being opened directly it was landed from the German mail steamer, was found empty, although there were evidences that a bicycle had been previously stowed there from the wedges of wood placed inside to keep it in position. This cannot have happened in the Custom House, as the owner cleared it directly it was discharged. The British Indian steamers have suffered considerably in this respect owing to their transhipment cargo having to wait for some time at Aden, which is notorious for possessing thieves second to none."
  Thus we find the position with regard to British traders is this, that their goods have to be sent from Great Britain either to Hamburg or Antwerp for transhipment to German steamers, where serious losses are incurred from pilfering; or, if the British

  695
  manufacturers do not wish to employ German steamers they have to send their goods for transhipment to Aden, where, as at Hamburg, they are liable to very serious losses from pilfering. Great delay is also caused at Aden, and the total cost of freight is more by that route than it is for German shippers who send their goods direct from Hamburg. When we remember that the taxpayers of this country are spending at least three millions on the Uganda Railway, it does seem somewhat hard that the recommendation made by Sir Arthur Hardinge should not have been adopted in order to make use of the great expenditure on railway materials, not to subsidise, but directly to assist a line of British steamers between Great Britain and Zanzibar. Now, when I turn from British East Africa to Uganda, I regret very much that the latest reports do not show any such hopeful signs. We have had during the last year a very serious loss of life, and a most remarkable increase in the expenditure for Uganda. The figures for the current year, although they are nominally less than those for last year, do not hold out, on balance, any prospect of reduction in the estimates of the present year. The estimates for 1899–1900 amount to £250,000, but the original estimates for Uganda in 1898–99 were only £142,000; the Supplementary Estimates came to £197,000, making a total of £339,000. Although the £250,000 in this year's Estimates is a decrease on the total of £339,000 spent last year, we have got to look forward to possible Supplementary Estimates which may as much increase the Estimates this year as last. Now, when we go back to the time when we first undertook the administration of Uganda, we find that the total amount expended only amounted to £49,000. That figure of £49,000 has now increased to the nominal estimate of £250,000, and an actual expenditure of £339,000 last year. That is a very remarkable and alarming increase, and there does not appear, on the face of the papers before us, any sign of a reduction, but rather of an increase in the future. I admit it is impossible to suggest any amendment in the form of government for Uganda without in some way or other proposing an expenditure of money; but I submit that between the original estimate of £49,000 and
  696
  the current estimate of £250,000 there is a wide enough margin to have allowed for all proper expenditure. I maintain that this extraordinary expenditure has been due to the mismanagement that has taken place in Uganda, and not to any fault or defect on the part of the men employed there. It is solely due to the policy which has been pursued—a policy directed from headquarters in London, and in the main due to a hopeless and ridiculous desire for economy, which in the long run has added largely and unnecessarily to our expenditure. Upon the second point I have named—the loss of life— I find the figures show that in 1897 down to May 1898 there were no fewer than 281 killed, including seven Europeans, and 555 wounded, including five Europeans. I believe that the whole of these troubles in Uganda can be directly ascribed to two causes: In the first place, to the exclusive use of Soudanese troops; and, in the second place, to our utilising our forces in Uganda for the purpose of endeavouring to expand our Empire northwards. To these two causes I trace the origin of all our troubles. The employment of Soudanese mercenaries appears to have originated somewhat by an accident. When the honourable Member for North Lambeth went to the relief of Emin Pasha he found the ex-Governor of Equatorial Africa surrounded by a number of Soudanese mercenaries, who were partly under the command of Dr. Emin, and who partly kept him a prisoner. Stanley gave these Soudanese mercenaries the slip on the shores of the Albert Nyanza, and from there they spread partly into Unyoro and partly into the Congo State. The description given of the Soudanese mercenaries by Stanley is that they were "permeated and saturated with mutiny, rebellion, and treason." Certainly, for two years after these troops were left at Kavallis, they lived by ravaging and raiding neighbouring territories. In 1891 Captain Lugard, who was then administering at Uganda on behalf of the British East Africa Company, found himself in great difficulties on account of the ex-Soudanese troops. He then hit upon the brilliant idea of enlisting some of them as soldiers to serve under him, and he made the first start with a detachment of 200, whom he employed in garrisoning Toru. The 1,500 unenlisted

  697
  Soudanese ravaged Unyoro and elsewhere, but the outrages committed by the enlisted Soudanese mercenaries still continued, and Captain Lugard, in apologising for their misconduct, in a letter dated 13th December 1893, said that he had been
  "debarred from exercising such a full measure of supervision and control as he should have desired, owing to the insufficient number of Europeans available to the Administration."
  In the same year Sir Gerald Portal called attention to the
  "hatred and terror inspired by these Soudanese ex-soldiers, and the deeds of cruelty practised upon native men and women by that portion of them who were left by the company unpaid and uncontrolled on the western frontier of Uganda."
  Thus it will be seen that it was not only the unenlisted Soudanese mercenaries who were creating terror and havoc, but even the enlisted troops were a terror to the whole neighbourhood. Captain Lugard undertook this experiment because he had no other recourse. He was the representative of the British East Africa Company, whose financial resources were then at a very low ebb, lie had not, as the Administrator in Uganda has now, the whole wealth and strength of the British Empire behind him. The experiment was repeated by Colonel Colville, the British Administrator. He, no doubt, recognised the value of these Soudanese mercenaries as fighting material once they were brought under strict discipline. Accordingly, he and his successors continued enlisting them until in September 1897 we had no less than 1,600 of these men regularly enlisted, and practically forming the whole of our Army in Uganda. The Soudanese have not only the merit of being good fighters, but they are very cheap. And for this reason: that every soldier is allowed to have as many wives and slaves as he chooses. Their wives do all the work, clear the jungle, sow the seed, pull up the weeds, and reap the fruits; and if the harvest is late they often anticipate it by a little stealing. The consequence is that the soldiers being allowed to have as many wives as they please to work for them, are in a position to accept very much less pay than Indians or Swahilis. Now, I do not deny for one moment that these
  698
  Soudanese troops have shown considerable improvement on the robbers turned loose at Kavallis. When they have been employed in small bodies in Uganda and Unyoro, and mixed with a number of other troops, there has been little to complain of in a military sense. But still their old predatory instincts remain, they are "permeated and saturated with mutiny, rebellion, and treason," and more than once have given indications of sympathy with the Mahdists. I regret to say that such is the material of which we make the pack-horse to bear the white man's burden in Uganda. It is a sorry tool in our hands, and hardly worthy of the dreams of spreading civilisation of which we boast in this country. It is admitted that some native force is necessary in order to govern Uganda. The Waganda are slow to enlist at the present time, because they are too loyal to their chiefs. We ought to have employed Swahili troops. It is proved that they make admirable soldiers. They have only one drawback; they are somewhat dear. This desire to govern Uganda for £49,000 a year is all wrong. It cannot be done. Experience has shown it to be a hopeless failure. The troubles in that country were simply and solely due to the anxiety not to let the people of Great Britain realise the financial responsibilities we are undertaking in our African Empire. In consequence of that desire, we employed Soudanese mercenaries, because they are cheap, and neglected the Swahilis, and thereby made the difficulty of governing these territories infinitely greater. On the whole, I believe we should have found had we employed Swahilis, it would have been less costly, in the long run, to this country, and far less costly to Uganda, when we recollect the immense devastation caused by the Soudanese troops and their wives and families. The rage for economy, which has increased the expenditure from £19,000 to £339,000, has not been limited to the Army. It also extended to the administration. I will read very shortly the testimony given in a book recently published by Dr. Ansorge, who was in temporary command at Kampala for four and a half months at the end of 1891. He says—
  "I had to combine administrative, military, and medical duties; I had to act as magistrate and commandant; I had charge of the prison

  699
  and police; I was paymaster and postmaster; I was collector and registrar; I was storekeeper and bookkeeper."
  Now, perhaps Dr. Ansorge, in his somewhat picturesque style, may have represented to the very full all the duties which he had to perform, but it is very obvious that our administration in Uganda was under-staffed, just as we were under-equipped from a military point of view. We have not, even now, any trained Service in Uganda. When the mutiny broke out, what was the result? We had immediately to entrust the administration to all sorts, and conditions of men—a colonel's valet, a bishop's secretary, and so forth. The missionaries we found invaluable, not only as administrators, but as soldiers, and we have to deplore the death of one of them on the field of battle. All this shows that we undertook the white man's burden, in Uganda and the neighbouring provinces without any real regard to the duties which our undertaking brought upon us. Of course, we are told to look to the future, and to the wealth which is to be drawn from these territories by the expansion of trade. Those who believe in the possibilities of trade expansion in Africa may comfort themselves with that hope. But in the meantime if we undertake responsibilities, we owe it as a duty to ourselves and to the protected States to carry out these responsibilities properly. It is true, and I am glad to recognise it, that with this paltry equipment in men and officers our officials have achieved marvels; and it is to the credit of Mr. Berkeley and his coadjutors that they have succeeded so well as they have done with such scanty material. All that is a matter for congratulation. Mwanga had become so far civilised that he used to drive to church on a, Sunday in his brougham. But although there were these apparent signs of improvement, there was no real stability. We had first the outbreak of Gabriel, then the rebellion of Mwanga., and the trouble with Kabarega. It was in the midst of our weakness, and when the whole of the troubles accumulated on the heads of our officials, it was at that moment that orders were sent out from Downing Street to undertake the expedition northwards in order to anticipate the
  700
  French at Fashoda. The troops, already fatigued with constant fighting, were withdrawn from Uganda for that purpose, and is it surprising that the Soudanese, permeated and saturated with mutiny, treason, and rebellion, should have broken out into open mutiny? Is it surprising that we have since had trouble upon trouble when we recollect that Uganda was depleted of its troops to form the abortive expeditions under Colonel Macdonald and Colonel Martyr towards Fashoda and Lake Rudolph? If we are going to undertake the organisation of our Empire in Africa we must face our responsibilities at once, fairly and squarely. We must not encourage the wretched chiefs to rebellion by our apparent weakness; and we must not endeavour to make Uganda a jumping-off ground for expansion northwards.
  COLONEL DENNY: I will only deal with one part, and a very small part, of the subject which has been brought forward by the honourable Member for Monmouth. It is, however, a matter in which I have interested myself for two and a half years. I am sorry to say that it appears to be no nearer a, conclusion than on the day when it began. I refer to the proposed line of steamers between British ports and the ports of British East Africa, to which the honourable Gentleman has alluded in his speech. The origin of British East Africa is pretty well known to the House. We do not owe it to the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office, but to the disinterested patriotism of a number of private individuals who initiated Imperial British East Africa. After having worked it for a number of years they got rid of it to the Government on the payment of about 50 per cent of their expenses. In these days there was no Uganda Railway, even in prospect, but a line of steamers was started with a subsidy of £19,000. At the conclusion of the second year the line was brought to an end, after a loss had been incurred of £45,000, including a subsidy of £19,000. The result was that British East Africa was left without any connection with this country whatever. Either out of a spirit of patriotism, or from some other motive, a German line, with

  701
  a monthly service to Mombasa, was started and, as stated by Sir Sir Arthur Hardinge, the German Government granted it a subsidy of £45,000. Within the last few months, so much are the Germans in love with the prospects of this line, that they have increased their service to fortnightly sailings. Now, Sir, British subjects object very strongly to anything being done by Germans which can be done equally well by them, and at less expense. But the result of the present state of affairs is that, so far as outward freight is concerned, the only possible mode of shipping is by way of Hamburg or Antwerp. The alternative route is by trans-shipment at Aden, but that is impossible for large parcels of goods. The Crown Agents' steamers under special charter for large quantities of railway materials are not available. The result is the loss of any homeward traffic, which is now practically going to Germany. In fact, the central markets for ivory and rubber have already left this country and gone to Germany. On the 16th March 1897 I approached the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Curzon, and made him a definite proposal to establish a line of British steamers to the East African ports, having previously arranged with a reliable firm who would undertake it. I assured him that, so far as I personally was concerned, it was a matter of no moment. He looked upon the proposal favourably as long as I had him individually to myself. I asked him who had the working of the materials for the Uganda Railway, and he informed me that it was done by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, who were temporarily lent to the Foreign Office for the purpose. I went to see them, and was told that the idea was a good one, and that nothing but the Foreign Office stood in the way. Six or nine months after objections began to crop up. I was told that my friends and I wanted to make money out of it. Well, that is quite a justifiable supposition, but it so happened that we had no prospect of making money at that time, nor for a good long time to come. I proposed to take out the materials for the Uganda Railway, getting what homeward cargo we could from the district.
  702
  The objections to the original proposal of a fixed rate was that the Government might lose, and the Crown Agents might lose; but nothing was said about freights going up, although fixed low in the contract, thus entailing loss on the shipowners. Then I altered my proposal to a, rate fluctuating with the rates of coal to Aden—which is the very cheapest species of traffic—with a small extra amount for giving two ports of loading in England and two- ports of discharge in East Africa. The original offer was 10s. per ton over coal rates, but I was told that that was too high. I then proposed 7s. 6d., but I got no reply, and then proposed 5s., but with no result. I have looked most carefully into the matter, and have examined the record of every ship chartered by the Crown Agents for taking the railway material out to East Africa. I have compared it with the rates for coal to Aden within a fortnight of the fixture of each sailing, and I find that, allowing the 7s. 6d. per ton over coal rates, there would have been a saving on the Uganda Railway of 1s. 1d. per ton since the beginning of its construction. But even if there had been no gain, the House of Commons would surely have condoned an arrangement to give British industry a fair chance against subsidised German capitalists. The Foreign Office said that money might be made by the shipowners, but they absolved me front any personal aim in this direction. Money-making, as I have said, was not possible at first, but my friends, in order to meet this objection, offered to take the entire risk for a year on the terms named, and at the end of the year to submit the results to the Foreign Office. If the books showed that money had been made, then public tenders were to be called for, and my friends, who are the largest shippers to East Africa, guaranteed to send all their goods by any British line to which the Government might give the order. If the results were bad, and money was lost, then the shipowners were just to grin and bear it. Objections being still raised, I thought it might be due to fear on the part of the Crown Agents' office that they would lose their 1 per cent. which they get upon all goods shipped to the Colonies under their control, and to a fear on the part

  703
  of the Government brokers that they might lose their commission. We agree to see that neither of these events happened, and we thought that we had met every possible objection. The final result was that after many conversations with the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose courtesy was exceedingly great, we received the reply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to grant a subsidy. That is to say, the Foreign Office refused an offer which had never been made. We did not propose a subsidy; we knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not grant a subsidy. All that we asked was that the materials for the Uganda Railway should be shipped in such a way as to give a foundation for a service to East Africa of a line of British steamers. After that foundation was laid the line would look after itself. It has been said that we can dispatch goods to East Africa via Aden or by the German line. No one in his senses would tranship at Aden, and therefore we are practically restricted to the German line, whose balance-sheet shows that they are doing surprisingly well. They are increasing their sailings, and it is becoming more and more impossible to initiate a British line. I know it is a little difficult to persuade the Foreign Office that there is any patriotism outside Downing Street. We have been met there practically by a stone wall. It is no use to advance arguments that are not looked at, and to knock your head against that stone wall month after month and year after year. From the manner in which the Foreign Office has dealt with this fair business offer from fair business men it is impossible to avoid the conviction that there is a serious lack of businesslike capacity and breadth of view in that Department of Government. I am still prepared to establish a line of British steamers without any subsidy to carry the railway material from this country at two ports of loading to ports of delivery in East Africa, at the coal rates to Aden plus 7s. 6d. per ton. The House should make it their business to see that British capital is not discouraged in this way, and that an offer made in good faith, and which cannot possibly have bad results, should either be accepted or exceedingly good reasons given for declining it.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY (): The question of the continuance of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba has been before the House on two or three occasions lately. Shortly before the Recess, the honourable Member for Derbyshire had the first place on the Paper for a Motion in regard to the legal status of slavery. The exigencies of the public service did not permit of that Motion coming on, but had it done so, I was prepared to move an Amendment as follows—
  "That in view of the small amount that has been claimed for compensation for freed slaves, and the disproportionate cost of the machinery for investigating claims, and the delay caused thereby in the progress of emancipation, a time in the near future should now be fixed after which these claims should not be allowed; and that the time is now arrived for the complete abolition of the status of slavery."
  In a former Debate which took place on the Appropriation Bill, it was stated that this question is one about which the country is getting impatient. I am not one of those who would for a moment minimise the great steps which have already been taken, and the anxiety which has been displayed by the Foreign Office to take measures which would gradually result in the ultimate abolition of slavery. When this question has come to the front, there has always been a difference of opinion as to the expediency or prudence of taking steps at once to abolish slavery, or by going on with gradual and tentative measures. These gradual and tentative measures have been tried for some time in Zanzibar and Pemba; but the time has arrived, I think, when the country expects that, considering our position in that part of the world, and considering that Great Britain is practically responsible for the appointment of the Sultan, and controls all he does, that there should be some further decisive steps taken, and that under the British flag, which is practically flying there, slavery should no longer be tolerated. I think it is a fact that at the present time there are something like 140,000 slaves in the two islands, and that during the period that these emancipation rules have been working, practically only 5,000 have received their liberty, some of these by entering into contracts with their masters. There are thus left behind 135,000 in a very doubtful posi-

  705
  tion. Now, considering that according to previous decrees issued all children born of slaves are free, and that after a certain time slaves imported into the islands are free, it is a great question whether more than 9,000 or 10,000 of these slaves are legally held as slaves at all. The whole compensation paid in 12 months is little more than £1,000, whereas the cost of the administration machinery, and the salaries of officers, has been something like £8,000 or £9,000. The real question is whether we cannot pluck up courage and simply abolish the legal status of slavery altogether, as was done in India. An Act was passed in 1813 by the East India Company by which slavery was abolished. It was done in a quiet way, so that it created no disturbance, and it gradually came to the knowledge of both masters and servants when the masters found they could no longer call in the aid of the law to enforce the old rights against their slaves. The Act is very clear, and I need not trouble the House with its details. It simply consisted of four clauses, which denied any further right on the part of anyone to apply to the courts of law to take action as against a slave. What is the obstacle that stands in the way at the present time to complete emancipation? I think it is the construction of a dispatch or decree by Lord Kimberley in 1890, which said the status of the slaves should remain unchanged. But was it intended by that dispatch that the status of the slaves was to remain for ever? That seems to have been written into the construction of the dispatch; but it is a construction which I do not believe English people will be inclined to tolerate. The Government must move in the matter. We have an able Administrator in East Africa in the person of Sir Arthur Hardinge; and I think his great services call for some recognition on the part of Her Majesty's Government by moving him to some other post. His prepossessions on this question are rather an obstacle to progress; and if the Government would only grant him some honour elsewhere we might get forward with this question. I do not for one moment wish to bring any charges against the Government in this matter, for I believe they have been doing their best.
  MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): The prospects of the slaves on the East Coast of Africa are rather more favourable than seems to be understood by my right honourable Friend the Member for Honi-ton. The law respecting slavery on the ten-mile strip of territory on the coast is the ordinary law common to all Mahom-medan countries, but that has been modified by various edicts issued by the local ruler, Seyyid Khalifa, by which all persons entering his dominions after 1889 are made free. Again, all children born after 1890 are free, and all slaves whose masters leave no children are also made free. The result is that out of a total population of 275,000 in the two provinces of Tanaland and Seyyidieh there are only 26,259 slaves. The action of these edicts has been to produce a great diminution in the number of the slave population; and Sir Arthur Hardinge contends, and contends truly, that under the operation of these edicts not only have a third of the slaves obtained their freedom since 1890, but he concludes that it seems almost certain that in less than another decade slavery will disappear as completely as villeinage from England, without any compensation to owners or general simultaneous manumission of slaves. Extracts which are given in "The Times" this morning from Sir Arthur Hardinge's latest report show that very considerable progress is being made in accordance with his previous anticipation. The question of Uganda has been raised, and I may he allowed to ask my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make any inquiry into the cause of the mutiny there? The matter has been referred to on more than one occasion this Session, but still there are questions in regard to the pay of the troops, in regard to transport, and also as to the principle on which the troops were called upon to serve on several of the expeditions, which have not yet been cleared up. I was surprised to find that before the date at which the mutiny in Uganda took place the, Zanzibari Askaris had their pay raised from six rupees a month to 11 rupees per month. That was at a time when the Uganda Rifles were receiving not more than four rupees a month. One would like to know when it was that the Foreign Office became aware of this striking contrast between

  707
  the pay of the two different classes of troops. There is a very remarkable passage in "The Times" of the 23rd January, which has not been brought before the House. In that passage Mr. Berkeley explained that the arrears of pay of the Uganda Rifles was wholly attributable to the difficulties of transport, which could not possibly be made good. Now, in "The Times" it is stated that—
  "If the precise statement made to us is correct the Administration cannot even shelter itself behind the difficulties of transport. This statement is that Mr. Brown, the local agent in Uganda of the well-known firm of Messrs. Smith, Mackensie and Co., of Zanzibar, offered to contract with the Administrator for the constant and regular supply of trade goods for the payment of the Soudanese, and that Mr. Berkeley declined the offer."
  Mr. Berkeley has the power to make contracts, and he might have given this offer of Mr. Brown's a trial. Of course, we know from other sources that a great many transport bullocks had died. Mr. Jackson told Reuter's agent that 500 or 600 transport bullocks had died of rinderpest, and that the mules had died partly owing to the carelessness and maltreatment of the Cape boys, who acted as sayces. The behaviour of these Cape boys is a subordinate point for inquiry. Referring to Major Macdonald's report of 9th December last year, it appears that donkeys ought to have been requisitioned. That is an experiment in the right direction, for donkeys are immune from certain ailments to which other beasts of burden are exposed. We have not yet had a quite satisfactory explanation of the reason why three of the companies of the Uganda Rifles who had undergone special hard work for months prior to the Juba expedition were sent on that expedition, which was especially distasteful to them. I should be very much obliged if the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he is disposed to make any inquiries on the subject, would tell us why the management of Uganda should not be transferred from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. Of course, it is quite clear that the Foreign Office can choose the officials as well as the Colonial Office. The War Office and the Board of Admiralty could doubtless make an equally good choice. It will all depend on the men you send, and not on the orders you give them. But
  708
  it would be reasonable to suppose that the gentlemen at the Colonial Office would, from their training, experience, and study, be better able to deal with, and would act more effectively upon, the reports of the officers and officials by whomsoever sent.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): I rise to make such reply as is necessary to the various speeches which have been made. At the same time it is very difficult to do so without trespassing on the indulgence of the House and repeating statements which I have made on previous occasions. We have already discussed this subject of East Africa on the Address, when it was raised by the right honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean; secondly, there was a discussion on the Supplementary Estimates which covered nearly all the points raised this evening; and again, a fortnight ago—a few days before the House adjourned—we had a discussion on slavery. On all the questions touched upon in the last four speeches I really think I have given the explanation which the Government has to offer, with the single exception of the question of a direct line of steamers, which has been so feelingly alluded to by the honourable and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs. I shall deal with that question first. My honourable and gallant Friend has given a long history of his dealings with the Foreign Office, which, I am afraid, have not been satisfactory to him. He was desirous of setting up a new steamship line, not by means of a subsidy, but he desired as an honest trader that preference should be given to British ships over those of any other Power. We are entirely in accord with the honourable and gallant Gentleman in his desire that as far as possible communication with our Colonies and Protectorates should be carried on by British ships. But in the proposal made by my honourable and gallant Friend there were one or two points left out of view. In the first place, it must not be considered for a moment that we are entirely dependent on foreign lines for communication with the Protectorates of East Africa. At this moment there

  709
  are six lines of steamers. The British India Company have a monthly service between Mombasa and Delagoa Bay. The Union Steamship Company have a regular line from Capetown, and occasionally an extra service from Delagoa Bay. The Castle Mail Packet have a service, and the Mersey Company have a three-weekly service from Delagoa Bay. These four British lines have regular services with East Africa at the present moment, exclusive of two German services.
  COLONEL DENNY: Ail these British lines go round the South of Africa and are not available for shipping goods direct to Mombasa.
  MR. BRODRICK: Whether they go round the South of Africa or the North of Africa or not does not matter, provided they arrive at their destination, and the Foreign Office is willing to take advantage of them. Therefore, I do not think my honourable and gallant Friend has stated the case quite fairly when we are asked to decide between making use of a German line which is subsidised and establishing a new British line, for he spoke as if there was no British connection at all. My honourable and gallant Friend is anxious that the Government should make a contract with a line which would carry for a stated period all the railway materials which the Government have to send to East Africa, and that at the end of the period the terms should be reconsidered and put on a more advantageous footing. Nothing seems to be fairer than that, but nothing is more difficult than to assure the requisite amount of loading at a particular date, and the contractors would have to fill up the ship at whatever cost by a particular date.
  COLONEL DENNY: Not at all. All we asked was that whatever material was ready should be taken monthly; the balance of the loading would not be at the charge of the Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government, if they are to avoid complaint, will find it necessary to keep as nearly as they possibly can only to the amount of tonnage specified. My next point is that our experience is that after arrangements have been made to form
  710
  a line, and that line has not paid, it would be pleaded that a British line ought not to be allowed to go to the wall, and that a subsidy should be granted to it. Of course, that would involve a fight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is obvious that the Chancellor would say that he was not in the habit of granting subsidies for such a purpose. My honourable and gallant Friend seems to think that because the Foreign Office have not been able to do business with him, it does not know how to do business at all. That is the argument of the man who said that the pleasantest and wittiest man he ever found was the man who always agreed with him, but it does not justify my honourable and gallant Friend in speaking of the Foreign Office as not being a business office. If my honourable and gallant Friend likes to confer with me privately in regard to his proposals, I can promise him that I will have them looked into again, and see whether it is possible to do anything in the matter. At the same time, I do not think there is any argument before the House sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that it is necessary to make any sacrifice of money, seeing that there are already six lines of steamers serving the East Coast of Africa. With regard to the increase in the expenditure, that matter was fully explained upon a previous occasion, when the circumstances were fully laid before the House. It is quite obvious, as I pointed out upon a previous occasion, that the work of the Uganda Protectorate is one as to which there is no precedent to guide us. We were working at a great distance from our base; we were working in a country altogether unknown, except by the explorations of my honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth, and others, until a few years ago. In such an experimental occupation there must be mistakes. There are two classes of objectors to the Uganda policy and the administration of this protectorate. The first is the class represented by the honourable Member for Northampton who object altogether to expansion on principle; and the second class consists of honourable Gentlemen who are ready to face expansion, provided we can do it without expenditure and without risk. But it is impossible to enter upon expansion of that character upon such a limited

  711
  liability, and expansion must mean expense. If you increase your dominions, you must necessarily increase danger. Difficulties have had to be faced in Uganda, and I do not think that the history of this Protectorate, if you look at it from first to last, at the present day, justifies us in feeling that we have thrown large sums of money away to no purpose. It is quite true, as will be seen from figures which I have given before, that between the three Protectorates and the expenditure on the railway we have spent up to now very nearly three millions of money since 1890. Of that amount more than half has been spent on the railway, and for that expenditure there is an asset of nearly 300 miles of line. I do not think that that is an unsatisfactory result, and I am quite sure that you may take any other great undertaking in Africa—take any of the undertakings carried out by the Chartered Company, or the Congo Free State, or our own earlier adventures in the Soudan—and you will not find so much has been achieved either by way of dominion, or civilisation, or of conquest for such a sum and within such a period. I do not think that the outlook is in any way unsatisfactory for the future. My right honourable Friend near me has again asked me to deal with the steps that are being taken in Zanzibar and Pemba with regard to slavery. The right honourable Gentleman has said that these gradual steps have been going on long enough, and he wants them to come to an end. At this moment steps for the freedom of slaves are going on as fast as the slaves themselves desire. They have the opportunity given them of going to the court and obtaining their freedom, and they have largely availed themselves of it, though to some extent they appear to abstain from exercising this right and have hung back. At this moment, at any rate, by a gradual process, we are changing the state of slavery into a state of freedom in Zanzibar and Pemba. My right honourable Friend says that out of 240,000 persons who are at present supposed to be slaves, not more than 10,000 are legally held, and the freeing of these slaves is going on by a gradual process. I was very sorry to hear my right honourable Friend suggest that Sir Arthur Hardinge's continuance at Zanzibar was an obstacle to progress in this matter.
  712
  I believe that Sir Arthur Hardinge has loyally striven to carry out the orders transmitted to him at different times, and he has had a very difficult task to face. He has had to consider the general prosperity of the population committed to his charge, and it was absolutely necessary that he should keep the Government officials on good terms with the Arabs, who are themselves not rich men, and who, if the prosperity of the country is to continue, must have labour provided for them to carry on their industries. I believe that, generally speaking, Sir Arthur Hardinge has steered with considerable prudence through a very difficult period, and has shown great administrative capacity. I think the attacks which have been levelled against him have often been made in ignorance of the difficulties with which he has had to deal. Making allowance for this, I say that the progress of the East African Protectorate under Sir Arthur Hardinge has been satisfactory in past years, and that the receipts have increased and the expenditure has diminished. Those receipts are expected to increase further in the current financial year, and the expenditure will be kept strictly within limits. We do not intend to establish fresh posts, but we intend to administer the country which we have already taken up. We do not intend to send forth expeditions, with the single exception of Colonel Martyr's expedition, which is going out now, and which is on its way down the Nile. That expedition has already made considerable progress. The end which it is desired that this expedition should accomplish—namely, that of occupying the country and establishing posts, so as to connect Uganda with the advanced posts of Lord Kitchener's forces—has been practically achieved. There is now only a small strip of some 200 miles of river and unoccupied country between the last of the posts that has been established which will enable us to connect our possessions in British East Africa with the Soudan. I think in that respect, quite apart altogether from the promises of trade, that the policy which has actuated both this Government and the last in undertaking the charge of this Protectorate in East Africa has been fully vindicated. I think that we cannot speak sufficiently highly of the efforts of those who have been in charge, when we con-

  713
  sider the great difficulties which they have had to meet. Mr. Berkeley, the Administrator in Uganda, has suffered very severely in health in consequence of the strain laid upon him in that time, and he is now coming homo for a period of well-earned rest. We shall take care that the interests of the Protectorate do not suffer in his absence. We have fully determined that the posts which have been established and the centres which have been created shall be fully developed, and the administration there will be put on the best basis which it is possible to achieve both for the purposes of trade and for the humanising influences which surround British posts in Africa. I believe if the House will have a little patience, having regard to the difficulties which have been already surmounted, that we shall be able to show before a. very long time has passed that the advantages which were expected from these operations have been achieved; that the expenditure has been laid out at good interest; that the railway, which some honourable Members of this House appear to think is hanging back, is really advancing at the rate of over half a mile a day, and will, within the period anticipated, have been brought to completion. I believe that the work done by Great Britain in East Africa will compare not unfavourably with the work that we are doing in the Soudan and in South Africa in the civilising influences which have been brought to bear upon the population inhabiting those regions.
  SIR C. DILKE: This Debate is marked by the fact that three speakers from the other side have criticised the Government in reference to the matter under discussion. The answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, as I understand him, that there should be a connection with British East Africa, and he seems to think that it is a matter of indifference whether we go round South Africa or by the Bed Sea to accomplish it. I confess that I do not consider that an adequate reply to the remarks made by the honourable Member opposite. I was not able to gather from the right honourable Gentleman's remarks that he made any reply to the speech of the honourable
  714
  Member for St. Pancras, who seemed to point out the unfitness of those in charge to deal with difficult Colonial government such as we have had to. face in Uganda. The only point upon which I should like to ask a question is in reference to the speech of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire, whose remarks, I think, deserve the attention of the House, and deserve the consideration of the House in a higher degree than has been extended to them by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The right honourable Gentleman attacked the right honourable Baronet for suggesting in his speech that the time had come when the promotion of Sir Arthur Hardinge was desirable in the interests of British East Africa and of Zanzibar. Now, nothing can be further from our minds, so far as the official work of Sir Arthur Hardinge is concerned, than to depreciate his public services or his abilities, for which we have the highest respect. But undoubtedly upon this question of slavery ho holds an opinion so definite, so strong, and so frequently expressed in his dispatches which are laid before this House, that many of us entirely agree with what the honourable Baronet has said—that Sir Arthur Hardinge might be more usefully employed somewhere else than in this particular spot, where the abolition of the legal status of slavery is a matter which concerns the honour of this country. The Under Secretary has suggested at various times that we are proceeding steadily in the direction of the abolition of the legal status of slavery, and he seems to be under the impression that the Foreign Office have done as well as the Indian Government was able to do in its early days—distinguishing those early efforts from the Indian Penal Code. Upon this point the right honourable Gentleman has not expressed his views very clearly, and he appears to think that with regard to what has been done in Uganda we are in advance of India. Now, can we make an offer to the right honourable Gentleman? Will he undertake to establish in Zanzibar and in this coast strip of British East Africa the Indian Law of 1843? We will not ask him for the Indian Penal Code, but simply for the Indian Law of 1843, which was

  715
  applied, I believe, not merely to British Dominions proper, but throughout the native States of India This is a law which Sir Arthur Hardinge's grandfather had to apply when he was Viceroy of India in 1844, when it was applied throughout India, not merely in British India, proper, but was applied throughout the whole of the Protectorates.
  MR. BRODRICKdissented.
  SIR C. DILKE: The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head, but I have it on the authority of a gentleman who was one of the Commissioners in the native States at that time that they immediately applied in the States the Law of 1843, and I can only find one exception.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am informed, upon the highest authority, that this law was not so applied throughout the native states.
  SIR C. DILKE: I can speak positively on this matter with regard to two of our native States in India. Although there is one exception, it lasted only for a short time, and long before the Penal Code was applied to British India that had been put an end to in the native States. The right honourable Gentleman has repeated his remark in reply to some comments of the right honourable Baronet opposite, that the hands of the local Governor were tied by the promise we made on going into East Africa to observe the Mahommedan law. It is a very curious fact that Sir Arthur Hardinge himself has given us full information upon this question in an article which has been very recently published. I allude to the journal of the Society for the Study of Comparative Legislation, in which Sir Arthur Hardinge has written a, very able article, which I do not think has been very much noticed in this country, and to which I venture to draw the attention of the House. He states that—
  "The Sultan of Zanzibar is bound to govern according to the Mahommedan religion. In practice, many of the enactments made under British pressure are a flat contradiction of the law of the Koran, and are, nevertheless, held to be constitutionally valid by the Mahommedan courts."
  716
  I do not think that we ought to be more disposed to support the views of Sir Arthur Hardinge than he is himself. In India at the present moment, where there are 60 millions of Mahommedan subjects of the Queen, where they live under Mahommedan law, so far as the Indian Penal Code recognises that law— among the whole of these 60 millions of Mahommedan subjects there is not a single slave. Slavery in India has become extinct through the operation of the natural forces following upon the abolition of the legal status of slavery. Therefore I contend that the right honourable Baronet ought to have the support, of this House in asking, at all events, that the legal status of slavery should be put an end to; that there should be no recognition given to slavery in any of the courts under the British flag; and that we should apply in Zanzibar the, law of 1843, which absolutely abolished slavery in India,
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not know that the Debate upon this subject was coming to an end. I want to know from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs precisely what Uganda is, for I have never yet, been able to discover this. We knew exactly what it was when we took it over at first from the company, but since then Unyoro has been added to, our Protectorate, and it has not yet been made quite clear what is our position with regard to the Equatorial Province, and I should like to know if that is considered as a part of Uganda? As far as I understand, it is part of it at, the present time. When we went to the Soudan, and when, with Egypt, we acquired the Soudan, we laid it down that, with the Egyptian Government, we should be the joint owners, because we, had aided with our troops and our money in driving out the Khalifa, and in restoring to Egypt territory which originally belonged to it. But the Equatorial Province was part of Egypt, like the Soudan was, and I should like to know whether Egypt has relinquished its right in any sort of way to that territory, and, if not, do the English and the Egyptian flags float over this province? I think I am right in saying that we have not taken the slightest account of the original claim

  717
  or right of Egypt, whatever it may be called, but we have calmly and deliberately annexed it to one of our own Protectorates, just as though this Egyptian right did not exist. If so, why should we do this in the case of Uganda and not do it in the case of the Soudan? I agree entirely with my honourable Friend opposite, that our original difficulty arose from our taking over these wretched Soudanese. These Soudanese—and I could quote from reports to show it—were regarded as the most disreputable and desperate set of scoundrels that ever existed, and the trouble arose when we took these men under the British flag; and ever since that time there have been rebellions on the part of the Soudanese, which I have no doubt have made our rule more obnoxious to the Ugandese themselves than it otherwise would have been. My honourable Friend pointed out as one of the reasons which got us into this trouble that we had no fixed frontier in regard to this Protectorate. Directly we acquired one portion we took action in some other part. Upon the slightest pretext we say that the tribes have misconducted themselves, and we send out expeditions which quarrel with the natives; we send out punitive expeditions against those natives, and in the end we increase our territory by a further large portion. This is the reason why I am asking precisely what the Uganda Protectorate is, and whether it includes the Equatorial Province. Another reason, which my honourable Friend did not urge so much, is this— we took over this enormous territory to govern, which costs a great deal of money. It costs us a great deal, but it does not cost nearly as much as what it ought to cost us if we want to establish there a sound government. It is absurd to suppose that with one regiment and 200 or 300 European officials you can establish a sound government and maintain order in a country which is probably as large as France, and in which you may have revolutions and revolts upon the least provocation. Where we allow the native' law to exist under our flag great wrongs are done to those who, I suppose, we are to call our fellow-subjects, and this is one of the reasons why I have always been against this expansion of our Empire, in which the honourable Gentleman the
  718
  Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs glories so much as one of the noblest feats of modern civilisation. then the right honourable Gentleman told us that the receipts were increasing, and that the expenditure was going down. I really do not know how he makes that out. I see that the expenses were estimated to be about £40,000, but I see that last year the expenditure was nearly £400,000. I see that the Estimate for the coming year is, of course, not quite so large, but if we take the past year as a guide of what will take place, there seems no earthly reason why we should not have an expenditure of £400,000 per annum. How, then, can the right honourable Gentleman state that the expenses are going down, for they have gone up, and, in the very nature of things, in all probability, that expenditure will be maintained at its present high rate. Then the right honourable Gentleman says that the receipts have gone up in the whole of East Africa, but they have gone up naturally, because there is a certain amount of revenue conies in from those employed on the railway and the employees of the Government, who are spending money there on luxuries upon which they have to pay duty. If you take away the revenue derived from these sources I think you will find that the receipts have not gone up, and are not likely to go up. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to the question of slavery. I notice that whenever anybody alludes to slavery in this House that some Minister gets up and declares, in general terms, that it is the intention of the Government to put an end to slavery wherever the British flag waves, and that this House ought to assist him in doing it. But is this so in regard to the East African Protectorate or in regard to Uganda? I do not think it is. Take the case which occurred at Mombasa, for we had a lame explanation from the right honourable Gentleman in regard to that atrocious case of the girl who was taken before a court and sent back to slavery. I want to know, in regard to slavery on the coast line, what instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's officials there? We know that the Attorney-General laid it down that it is a crime for any official or any Englishman in any part of the

  719
  world to aid or abet in restoring a British subject or a slave who has escaped to slavery. As far as I can understand the right honourable Gentleman's explanation, he has laid it down that when a. slave is brought before an English court, after escaping from his master, then the court may declare that that person is a slave. Of course, we know what will occur. The court declares that the person is a slave, and the court will enforce that decision, and oblige that person to go back to slavery. In any case, the officials of the court will in no sort of way interfere when that slave leaves the court and is laid hold of by his master and taken back into slavery. I have not yet found out what has become of that girl who was sent back to slavery to which I have alluded. Are she and her mother in slavery at the present moment? Surely, if these persons, as appears! to be the case from what we know, were restored to slavery by the action of the English court, and if it is true that any Englishman is guilty of a crime who aids and abets in restoring any person to slavery, we ought to know what is the position of these particular slaves. Are they with their master, or are they not? We ought to know what has been done in that case, and what is done in any other case when a master lays hands upon them and takes them back under his control. This state of things is monstrous, and it is made more monstrous after the Attorney-General has laid down what the law is, and it appears to me that our officials in that part of the world decline to act upon the law as laid down by the Secretary of State. This is so in Uganda, because I see in the Papers just laid before us that it is admitted in the policy of that country that the legal status of slavery is recognised. What our administration there precisely is it is difficult to understand. Suppose one of these persons under the legal status of slavery were to escape from his master and take refuge in the house of some Englishman. Would that master have a, right to go into that house and bring him back to slavery? Would he have a right to go to an English court— if there are English courts there, although I have not been able to understand whether there are or not —and insist that a man should be sent
  720
  back to his master? Sir, I think we have a further duty to perform when we bring any of these new territories under the British flag, and that is, that we should declare that the legal status of slavery cannot exist under the British flag, and we ought to take measures to put an end in every sort of way to slavery. What is the explanation which the right honourable Gentleman gave just now? He was speaking, not of Uganda, I think, but of the coast line, and he said—
  "The Arabs must have labour, and it is well that the English officials should keep on good terms with the Arabs."
  That is an absolute justification of slavery in those countries, and also an absolute justification of the action of our officials in recognising the status of slavery, and in giving practical effect to it.
  MR. BRODRICK: That was not my argument. My argument was that if there was a too rapid transition from slavery, the whole prosperity of the island would be at a standstill. At the present moment the slaves are making contracts with their masters, and they are going through a very gradual process of emancipation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The gradual process of emancipation alluded to means that slavery will be abolished in about 30 or 40 years' time, and the right honourable Gentleman has not made his case any better by his explanation. He says that the island must prosper; that it only prospers under slavery, and, therefore, slavery is to continue until some further arrangement is made by which the necessary labour can be obtained. Why, that is precisely what was said in defence of the slave owners of the West Indies in this House! It was first declared that it was necessary that there should be slaves, and then it was said that it would take years and years to gradually abolish them. But the House did not take that view, and having come to the conclusion that slavery was indefensible under the British flag, we paid the price of the slaves. If the Government choose to go to those districts where the labour is slave labour, they must accept the consequences, and, no matter what happens, they must release at once those people from slavery.

  721
  There are one or two things which I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman about in regard to the railway. As far as I can make out, these accounts go down to 1898 to the month of March. I do not think the right honourable Gentleman has stated what the precise amount is which has been spent up to March of the present year. The accounts state that in 1896, £962,000 were expended up to March, 1898, and I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he knows what the amount is which has been expended up to the present time, that is, up to March, 1899.
  MR. BRODRICK: The total amount spent up to 31st December, 1898, including cash balances in hand on the spot, is £1,726,000.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand that the railroad has been constructed up to a certain point where it was easy to make it, and comparatively inexpensive, but now it has reached a mountainous district, where the expenditure will be very much greater. If this is so, how can the right honourable Gentleman assert that the expenditure all round will not exceed the estimated cost of £3,000,000? Does the right honourable Gentleman say, or does he not say, that in all probability that amount of £3,000,000 sterling will be increased, and we shall have to spend a much larger amount upon this railway? Another point I should like some information upon is this: from the point which the railroad has now reached, it was originally intended that it should go to a bay on the north part of the lake near to Uganda. Has a change been made in the line, and has it been decided that instead of going to the north, that railroad, after having gone north-west, should take a southerly course, and reach the lake close by the German frontier? I believe that is the case, but I am not perfectly certain.
  MR. BRODRICK: That is so.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, here is a wonderful thing. We agree to spend £3,000,000, and we have an official gentleman saying that £3,000,000 will be sufficient. When the railroad has gone through part of the country, then suddenly it is discovered that part of the service will be worthless, that it will
  722
  involve an enormous expenditure to carry it out, and that it is necessary to diverge it to the south, close to the German frontier. By diverting the line in this manner it cannot be called a Uganda railroad, for Uganda is on the north side of the lake, and you go to the south with this railroad in order to save money, you had not the slightest idea that your surveys, which have cost £28,000, were worthless, and the Foreign Office absolutely knew so little about what it was doing that it decided to change the direction of this line after one-half of it had been actually constructed. We are in this position in regard to Uganda. It is a place which, in all probability, will produce nothing, and which will take nothing from us, in a general sense, for years. There may be some trifling business done, but generally speaking there will be nothing. We are told that it may grow like other parts of Central Africa have grown. But in those parts we have considered what articles can be grown, and whether they can be produced under conditions which will prove remunerative to persons growing them; but it can hardly be supposed, and, indeed, we cannot expect it, that any large body of colonists will go out to Uganda to live in such a bad climate to induce these African people to work for them. The whole thing is utterly absurd. I remember a speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, in which he stated that he was no great advocate either of the railway or the extension to Uganda. But somehow or other, we were the first to lay hands upon the country, and we have had to go into it, and in the end we got these useless, worthless, and expensive possessions. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting in his place, and he knows that he will have to provide a little extra money for the coming year. Now, I would point out to the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would do well to keep his colleagues in order, more particularly those at the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office. In Uganda at the present time we are spending about £600,000 upon the railway. It is perfectly true that we take that money from the Consolidated Fund, but we take it, all the same, out of our own pockets. Besides that, we are spending £400,000 in administering the

  723
  country, and we are administering it in a most wretched way, shameful for us, and miserable to the inhabitants of that country. How very convenient that money would have come in to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment. I used to place strong reliance upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy, but I am bound to say that he has weakened of late in his financial views. He used to be a firm man, but he has been carried away by everybody telling him that he was firm, and instead of being firm against his colleagues he is now firm against us. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that if we continue to annex these countries the expenditure will go up, up, up I When we hear of posts being established to unite Uganda with the Soudan—why we should do this I do not know, for I have not the slightest notion—I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be called upon to provide money for that, and also to provide money for Lord Kitchener for what is going on in the Soudan. He will be called upon to provide money year after year for Uganda and Western Africa, and all these things cost money; and I am happy to say that I am not sorry to think that the right honourable Gentleman will, in all probability, either have to take from the Sinking Fund or raise money by new taxation. I want the British public to 'know that all this nonsense costs a good deal of money, and if this fact is brought home to the taxpayers of this country I am sure they will not be quite so pleased. I have never doubted for a moment that this policy of annexation would wreck itself upon the rock of finance. I am the more confirmed in that view by the feeling which is rising against it in our own country—-and I am bound to say that gentlemen who are Conservatives, and who are sufficiently enlightened to take the views which I do, and the majority of the Liberals throughout the country are taking the views that I hold on this question as to the great expenditure which this policy is involving—and we shall before long have a Liberal Party which will have no connection with the spirited Foreign Policy now pursued by honourable Gentlemen opposite and advocated by some honourable Gentlemen
  724
  who were in office when a Liberal Government was in power, and we shall go back to those happy times when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came clown to this House and could say, "I am going to reduce the taxation instead of increasing it; and I am going to spend, notwithstanding this reduction, a greater amount of money upon education and upon home matters instead of wasting and fooling it away in wild schemes of annexation."
  MR. DUCKWORTH: I take a particular interest in the question of slavery, and it will be within the recollection of the House that just before leaving for the holidays I asked a Question upon this subject, which I put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the answer I received to that Question was not satisfactory, but was very unsatisfactory. I do not wish to make any strong remarks or do anything that will increase the difficulties of the right honourable Gentleman, but, at the same time, I do wish to emphasise the fact that there exists a strong and growing feeling in the country upon this question of slavery in East Africa. That feeling is growing stronger and stronger, and it is firmly believed that there has been unnecessary delay in freeing these people from their slavery. The feeling is that our officials out there have power to do more than they actually do in this matter, and that our principal official there, in fact, is out of sympathy with the ideas and the views which prevail to such a great extent in this country upon the question of slavery. I do not think that we have got to a state of things in this country in which the feelings which animated our forefathers in reference to slavery have died out. Our expansions have, no doubt, made the question more difficult, and I quite appreciate the argument used by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he asks us to have patience in this matter, for there are great difficulties, I have no doubt, in the way. But, as his predecessor in office once said when addressing the House in reference to the Indian frontier, a very great deal depends on the style of the man you send there, and I believe it is so in this case. I am afraid the style

  725
  of the man, able as he may be, is not of that stamp which will render any kind of quick dispatch in this matter, for I am afraid he is out of sympathy altogether with what we desire and with what we believe to be right on this question of slavery. Now, the cases mentioned in the Question which I put to the right honourable Gentleman are so glaring that they have caused a feeling, amongst our own people especially, so strong because they feel that a great wrong has been done to those poor people who were sent back into slavery. Let me say that we have, in the denomination to which I belong, a missionary station there from which these people were taken. We have over 80,000 members, and our adherents total three or four times that number. We have been at this mission station for 35 years, and have spent large sums of money and lost very valuable lives there, and that place is very dear to these people. These poor people have been on the mission station for some 10 years, and had been free, but they were taken back into captivity again under what we say was a false pretence. I do not wish to press that view of the question too hardly upon the right honourable Gentleman, because the missionary who was on the spot at the time is on his way home, and I hope to hear from his own lips his version of this matter before I press it any further. I would, however, like to say that the feeling in this country against slavery is very strong, and there exists a feeling that by permitting this state of things under the British Flag you are doing a great moral wrong, and weakening that feeling against slavery which was so strong some years ago. I hope we are not right in this suspicion, but the continual delay and putting off of this question in our Protectorates, more especially in East Africa, is making people feel that our keen sense of the moral wrong of slavery is not so strong as it used to be, and that we are not actuated by the same determination to put an end to it which our forefathers were. I have no doubt this question will come up again, but I do trust that the moderate tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman this afternoon, and his request for patience in the matter, will be justified by events, and that the result will be satisfactory to the country at large.

  TELEGRAPHIC CABLE COMMUNICATION
  MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.): I rise, Sir, to call attention to the present subsidies given to certain cable companies, and to move—
  "That it is desirable that all cable communication between the various parts of the British Empire should be under Imperial control."
  It may not be within the knowledge of all the honourable Members in this House that we give various subsidies to these cable companies. Altogether, these subsidies amount to £94,241, which is a, large sum of money—and in regard to these subsidies I might here point out that this sum, if made a permanent charge, would be equal to a capitalised value of about £4,000,000—of which sum the Eastern and South African Telegraph Company receive £59,141. In the observations that I shall have the honour of addressing to the House I do not wish to say one word antagonistic to any of the various cable companies, for they have been more or less the pioneers of cable communication between us and our various distant possessions, but I venture to think that we have now arrived at a stage when we should have a better system, probably at no greater cost to the country at all. As the man succeeds the boy, so this question has now arrived at maturity. Now, this question is by no means a new one. In 1887, when a number of our Colonial Governors met at a Conference, this question was discussed, and it was the opinion of those gentlemen that it should be grasped in a very thorough manner. At the time of the last Jubilee, or shortly before it, there was a Committee formed, and, prior to that, at Ottawa, there was a Conference held, over which Lord Jersey presided, and that Conference came to the conclusion that it was desirable that all cable communications should be under Imperial control. Since then, in 1896 or 1897, the Colonial Premiers passed the following resolution—
  "That if Great Britain and Canada each contributed one-third of the cost of the Pacific cable, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania would bo in favour of contributing the other third."
  No doubt, in advocating this important change of system, one has to go against the interests, so to speak, of a very important cable com-

  727
  pany—the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. No doubt this company would be unwilling to have the present state of affairs changed and divide its business, because it is a very rich monopoly, and it has practically a monopoly of the whole of our cable communication with India and the Far East, and, to a very great extent, to the Cape. Supposing a man at the present time living in Australia wishes to send a telegram, as he might do, to Canada or Vancouver Island, that cable would have to go all the way through Australia, via India, Egypt, France, and Great Britain, then cross the Atlantic right across to Canada. The distance is about 12,000 miles, and it costs 8s. a word to send a telegram from Australia to Canada, which takes in many instances 24 hours in transmission. I believe that if the Pacific route was carried out we should not only reduce the distance from 12,000 miles to under 7,000 miles, but the cost would be reduced from 8s. to 2s. per word shortly, and a message would arrive within an hour. Now there are two alternative routes proposed—one by the Eastern Extension Cable Company, who are, of course, very anxious to maintain their monopoly, and who did, to some extent, persuade the Admiralty a few years ago, more or less, to give a favourable view to their proposed cable to the Cape via St. Helena, Ascension Island, Sierra Leone or Bathurst and Gibraltar. With regard to that cable and its general advantages I will not say one word against it, but it is impossible to admit that this proposal and the claim of the Eastern Extension Cable Company is preferable to a trans-Pacific cable, or would render that cable line unnecessary. The proposed Pacific cable was to take the following route from Canada to Australia: firstly starting from Vancouver, touching at Fanning Island, and so on to Fiji and Norfolk Island. From Norfolk Island it is proposed to make two cables, one to New Zealand and the other to the Eastern side of Australia. Very properly, this proposal met with the approval of the Canadian and various other Prime Ministers of the Colonies interested. From Australia it was to go by King
  728
  George's Sound on to the Cocos Islands. That was to be a sort of junction, and there would be one cable from that island to Mauritius, Cape Town, and Natal, and another from Cocos to Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong-Kong. There is also a proposal which might be carried out in connection with these schemes, and that is that there might be a line established from Cape Town or Natal right to Bermuda, joining the mid-ocean stations at St. Helena, Asceneion and Barbados; thence to Jamaica and the other West Indian islands and British Guiana, tapping the whole telegraphic system of that important market of South America at Carthagena; again from Jamaica northward by the present British line via Bermuda right to Halifax. Now, there have been a great many objections made by the Post Office and by various other authorities to the cost of this cable system. If the whole of this scheme was carried out—and I do not advocate that all of it should be carried out at once—according to Sir Sandford Fleming, in letters which have appeared in "The Times" and other papers, the cost would be from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. I may say in conjunction with this fact, that although I read some of his articles with great interest, I wished to bring this subject before Parliament as far back as 1897, but I did not succeed in my attempt to bring on this question before the House at the time of the last Jubilee, because the Naval Review prevented me doing so on account of many Members wishing to leave the House early in the evening before the Naval Review at Portsmouth, and so I did not bring the subject forward on that occasion. Regarding this proposed cable from Vancouver to Australia, it is not to be denied that if it was carried out it would take away some of the large profits made by the Eastern Extension Cable Company. The projectors of the Pacific cables say in substance that if this change is indispensable in the interests of the public, we should recognise that the existing company is entitled to full and fair compensation. Now, I do not wish in any form or shape to injure the cable company, which I admit is entitled to full and fair compensation, and it would be

  729
  easy for an actuary to prepare an estimate of the value of the Eastern Extension Cable Company's system of cables in any given year, and if that valuation was once equitably established, it might be considered probably free for the company to accept the terms of purchase, or to continue the working of the cables under the altered conditions. But the fact remains that not only would the company lose about £60,000 a year, which it receives as a subsidy, but it would probably lose a vast amount of the official cables from Australia, Hong-Kong, Singapore, South Africa, and other parts of our dominions, as well as official and commercial cables to the Colonies. Now, I do advocate this scheme, because if we were to carry it out we should have a cable touching only on British territory and encircling the globe, annihilating distance, and binding together the mother country and her children as nothing else can. Submarine cables are essentially the nerves of the Empire, just as ships and railways are the veins and arteries of our commercial wealth in various parts of the world. I would advocate this Imperial cable from the fact that the estimates that were framed by our Postal authorities have proved to be absolutely inaccurate. The Postmaster-General estimates that it would cost no less than £2,924,000, but the Canadian Government have received one tender to construct an 18-word per minute cable at a cost of £1,800,000, and that cable is not only to have an adequate set of proper instruments, but it is also to have the use of two steamships fitted with cable requisites, and is to be kept in order for three years. That is a saving of over £1,200,000 upon the estimate of the Postmaster-General. But, as I said before, there would be no necessity to lay all these cables in one year. If we could join together by a double system of cables South Africa and India and the Far East, we might afterwards, when we found them paying concerns, make another cable across from South Africa to Bermuda. I venture to believe, Sir, that this cable would not only practically extinguish all the subsidies now paid, but it would be absolutely self-supporting. At the present time the cable rate from South Africa to Australia is no less than 4s. 9d. per word, and it has been reduced in the last few years from 9s. 4d. by the
  730
  threatened competition of the Pacific cable to 4s. 9d. per word. I think, however, it should be further reduced to 3s., and at no distant date to 2s. a word. As regards our Anglo-Australian traffic, the former reduction would save the mercantile classes no less a sum than £190,000 a year, a reduction in rates which would naturally lead to an expansion in our commercial business with the Colonies. With regard to the advantages of this cable, I would point out, for instance, that when Her Majesty the Queen's gracious message at the Jubilee was sent to the Colonies and the dependencies of the Crown, it had to be sent through wires touching on foreign soil, and depending on the favour of France, Spain and Portugal, to all the Colonies, and went alone without touching foreign countries to Bermuda, Canada, and Newfoundland. At the present time there are most grave and striking anomalies in the charges of cables, as anyone can see by referring to that useful book, the "Post Office Guide." From England to Demerara, a distance of 4,000 miles, the charge is 10s. a word; but, owing to the proposed Pacific cable having threatened the Eastern Extension Company, you can send a cable to Australia, a distance of 16,000 miles, for 4s. 9d. a word. From England to New York, where there is keen competition, the charge is 1s. a word; to Hong Kong, 5s. 5d.; to India, 3s. 8d.; to Algeria, 3d. per word; to Egypt (British Protectorate), 1s. 7d.; to Suakim, 2s. 6d.; and to the Argentine Republic, 4s. 6d. The anomalies in our unfortunate West Indian Colonies are very striking. It casts us to send a cable to Jamaica, 8s. 10d. a word; to Grenada, 6s. 7d.; St. Vincent, 6s. 3d.; and to Trinidad, 7s. 1d. Practically the whole of these tariffs are prohibitive. Nobody at the present time sends longdistance cables unless absolutely obliged to dot so through pressing business. No doubt these cable companies have in their time done useful work, and been the pioneers of a most important movement, but before we took over the telegraphic system in the British Isles in 1869, many of the British and Irish telegraph companies were doing useful work, but as a rule their charges were very high—the charge was, I believe, 3s. 6d. a word to send a cable message to Ireland, and 2s. 6d. a word to Edinburgh.

  731
  When we took over the cables, in 1869, only 7,000,000 messages were sent per year to various parts of the United Kingdom. In 1879, the price being reduced to a uniform charge of 1s. for 20 words telegraphed, the number had increased to 29,000,000, and the profit had gone up to £354,000 a year. Now, Sir, as we have reduced the tariff down to sixpence, the profit is not so large, but it is gradually increasing, and I doubt not that before long it will more than pay its expenses, and the telegraphic facilities have been increased tenfold in the last 30 years. Now, let us look at the cables to Australia prior to the alteration. In 1890, before the alteration, when the tariff was 9s. 1d. a word, the receipts were only £331,468. In 1897, when the charge was reduced to 4s. 9d. per word, there were £567,852 worth of cables sent to Australia, so we have an increased amount of £236,384 a year. Well now, Sir, the great advantage of these cables would be that you would have a double route of cables stretching right through the British Empire. But there is another question. If we do not do this—and do it pretty quickly—there are others who will do it, taking into account the keen competition now existing for the trade of the Far East and of the territories bordering on the Pacific. The Americans have already made an important survey of the Pacific, and the French have laid the first link of a chain destined to connect Australia with North America. I have already gone into the question of the cost of construction. One of the main advantages of the cable, if carried out by the State, would be that it would be carried out in such a way as to give encouragement to business, because the State would endeavour, as indeed it has endeavoured, to further reduce the cable rates. Gradually we should have a 2s. rate per word to our more distant Colonies, and a 1s. or 6d. one to those near at hand, and, as time goes on, probably a small uniform charge for telegrams to all British Colonies. Besides, the State could obtain capital at a cheaper rate than a company could. There would be no watering stock. It is not for me to point out that in the amalgamation of all these cables which now comprise the Eastern Extension Cable Company, and to which we pay a
  732
  subsidy of £60,000 a year, they have watered their stock to the tune of half a million sterling, and they pay a sum of no less than 7 per cent. on the watered stock, and would pay 9 per cent. on the watered stock. No doubt they have done a very useful work, and have spent upwards of a million of money in recent extensions of their system. Now, Sir, I believe that a remunerative tariff would greatly increase the facilities and reduce the charges. Even if the Eastern Extension Company lost half their present profits, they would still retain ample receipts to yield a good return. I should like, Sir, to touch upon another important aspect of this question, the commercial side. To be of stragetic value to Britain, cables should only pass through regions where the British have paramount control. The Pacific route offers this inestimable advantage. The co-operation of Great Britain and her principal Colonies in establishing this telegraphic connection would present itself to the world as an ideal co-partnership for mutual defence and for mutual interchange of commodities unparalleled in history. What do the Russians say with regard to how they would act if at any time they were engaged in hostilities with ourselves? I find that in one of their official journals, the "Novoe Vremya," a newspaper apparently not devoted entirely to pacific ideas, it is stated in a recent issue—
  "In case of an armed conflict between this country and England our task would be to block England's communication with India and Australia."
  In times of peace the frequent failure of the service compels the Colonies to depend on the Russian-Siberian land lines for communication. What does Lord Wolseley say?—
  "To depend on lines so placed is unwise and suicidal."
  During the Jameson Raid the Eastern Extension Company admitted that the East Coast route to Africa had failed. Sir James Anderson, who was knighted for laying the first successful cable between England and America, said, in the speech he made at a meeting of the Spanish Telegraph Company—
  "They estimated the life of the Barcelona Cable at 25 years."

  733
  The great importance of cables to our Fleets must be obvious to all. With an all-British cable system the naval and military headquarters in London would be able to light with the Navy in the Channel or the Mediterranean, or both, while at the same time placing India, Canada, Australia, or South Africa in a condition of defence. I would point out to the House that at the present time the cables that go through the Cape have to go through Portuguese territory, and even if the neutrality of the Portuguese were certain they pass through French territory, touching St. Louis especially. A cable can be cut at 2,700 fathoms. In the Mediterranean, through which our cables chiefly go, there is only an average depth of 768 fathoms, and in some parts the depth is only 200 fathoms. In case of war dual alliance "telegraph ships" might be busily at work in severing the cables, isolating Great Britain from her Colonies. With a length of 2,200 miles of sea in the Mediterranean it stands to reason that no British Fleet, however powerful, could prevent these cables being severed, and I venture to say that the French could, with the greatest ease, do such work from Biserta, Tunis, or Algiers at a minimum of risk. It is impossible to estimate the disasters that might occur from sudden cable isolation from India and Australia, whilst all news from the Far East would be in the hands of the Russians, whose cables run from Port Arthur, through China, across Siberia to St. Petersburg. To put an end to the present anomalous position of our most important coaling stations and naval bases we must have a double route to the imperial naval and military authorities in London, so as to give two lines of communication to the following ports, whose importance in the Imperial chain of defence it is impossible to exaggerate: — Hong Kong, Singapore, Trincomalee, Colombo, Aden, Cape Town, Simon's bay, St. Helena, Ascension, St. Julia, Jamaica, Bermuda, Halifax, Durban, Karachi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Rangoon, Adelaide, Melbourne, Hobart, Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Auckland, and Wellington. These are many of our great coaling stations, which are, more or less, the larders of the Navy. A closely-contested engagement will be decided by the advantage gained by effectual communication and the con-
  734
  centration of a sufficient Fleet. The submarine cables are the nerves of the Empire, as ships and railways are the veins and arteries of our commercial system. Cables annihilate distance, and bind the Mother Country and her children together in face of foes as nothing else can. With effective cable communication our naval and military authorities will be able to deal with any development of her enemies or covert foes, link all the Colonies and the Mother Country together, and make them secure from surprise, and ten times stronger from a defensive point of view. If an all-British cable system is made, and the complete circle is kept intact from and to all parts of the Queen's Dominions, it will tend to encourage trade, and add at least the equivalent of another flying squadron to the defence of the Empire.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

      CLASS I.
      1. Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum not exceeding £33,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
      Motion made—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £32,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
      MR. CALDWELL: I rise to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the installation of the

      735
      electric light at Buckingham Palace, which is estimated to cost £11,000, and on which £3,500 has already been expended, is to be completed? I notice also that new works at Buckingham Palace are estimated to cost £3,575, but particulars are only given in the Votes of works of the value of £2,700. The maintenance of the Palace last year amounted to £3,050, and this year to only £1,300. I should like to know how this extraordinary difference is accounted for, and whether the present sum may be looked upon as the approximate sum for the future? Then, with regard to Buckingham Palace, the question arises, whether the gardens ought not to be made more accessible to the public than they are at present. Of course, it may be said that Buckingham Palace is the personal possession of the Sovereign. Well, so is Windsor Castle, and Windsor Castle is more in the possession of the Sovereign than Buckingham Palace. The Queen stays more at Windsor Castle than at Buckingham Palace, but, that notwithstanding, the public have more access to it than to Buckingham Palace. It does seem to me that there is no possible objection to the suggestion that Buckingham Palace should be a little more accessible to the public. Now, there is one other matter in connection with Buckingham Palace to which I wish to draw attention. There is a very valuable collection of pictures there. Those pictures were given by one of the Georges. As a matter of fact, those pictures are not seen by the general public. There is no reason why these valuable art treasures should be locked up in the Palace without the public seeing them. I think that something ought to be done in that direction. These pictures are not exactly the private property of the Sovereign. They were given to the nation, and were deposited at the Palace for the general convenience of the public. Now, Sir, it is only a question of time, but I really do think that the grounds of Buckingham Palace and the Palace itself, with its art treasures, should be made a little more accessible to the public than they are at present. They are kept up by the nation at consider-
      736
      able expense, and the grounds, at all events, might be made more accessible in the same way as the grounds of Windsor, which is in the personal occupancy of the Sovereign. I quite recognise, of course, that there is a difficulty. I quite recognise that the First Commissioner of Works might say, very naturally, as he did say last year, that he has really to do more with the buildings, and not so much the uses to which they are put; I quite recognise that so far as the present position is concerned. But so far as this House is concerned, we can only deal with the question by bringing it before the Committee, when the Estimates come before us. We are spending a very large sum of money on these buildings, and we are entitled to criticise the use of the buildings when we are asked to vote for their maintenance and upkeep. Although it is perfectly true that, so far as the First Commissioner of Works is concerned, he may feel that he has not the power to grant this demand, on the other hand, the only way in which we can bring the matter before those who have the power is by discussing the matter upon the Estimates, and we naturally do it. It is not so much that we blame the First Commissioner of Works in this matter, as that we wish to bring this matter before the proper authorities. I do think, so far as regards the little matter of the opening up of Buckingham Palace, of the pictures, the art treasures, the gardens, and the grounds to the public, that it would enhance the beauty of the district in which it is situated, and be an ornament to the city; and I think it is a question to be considered by those who are more immediately connected with the matter. Now, in the same Vote we have an increase for the Royal Mews. In 1897–1898, I notice the amount was £1,770; this year it is £2,730. I should like to know what is the reason for the increase in that Vote. It looks as if the amount was for new works, but the new works only come to £825, and that does not account for the whole of it; so the new works from 1898 no doubt will come in as well. There is a considerable rise in this Vote, £1,000; and the

      737
      First Commisioner of Works may be able to give us some particulars with regard to it. With regard to the Royal Palaces, again, I find in the case of Windsor Castle that the new works amount to £3,500; that is the amount which is put down in the Estimates, but we only have particulars given to us for £2,200, which leaves a balance unaccounted for of £1,300. No doubt the First Commissioner will be able to give us some particulars with regard to it. Then, I find a considerable rise in the amount. The amount which is put down this year is £4,460, whilst that for last year is only £2,250. That is a very considerable rise in the amount required for maintenance, though no doubt the First Commissioner of Works will give us some explanation with regard to that. I do not know why the cost of maintenance of Windsor Castle should be increased so much, but I hope the First Commissioner of Works will be able to give us some hope that there may be a prospect of Buckingham Palace and its art treasures and the gardens and the grounds and the Royal Mews being opened to the public more than they have been. If you go to foreign countries, you will find that there is an obligation on the part of the Sovereigns to open their Palaces to the public. That is not the case here. In this case, there is a considerable amount of tourist traffic from the, provinces to London, and, naturally, one of the things which they most want to see is the Royal Palaces, if they can. I think it is desirable that Buckingham Palace should be opened. I admit there may be some little difficulty in doing it, but it is only by bringing the matter forward when the Estimates are before the House that we can hope to bring it before the authorities. Therefore, in order to do that, I move to reduce this Vote by £100.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I do not quite agree with the honourable Member who has just sat down as to the desirability of opening Buckingham Palace to the public in general. The honourable Gentleman says that foreign palaces are always open to the public;
      738
      of course, his experience may be greater than mine; but that is certainly not my experience. There is one subject, however, which I am rather surprised the honourable Member opposite sitting for a Scotch constituency has not mentioned, which amounts, to my mind, almost to a national grievance. There is a mysterious item in this Vote, which I have never been able to understand, and that is the item of the turncock. There are two at Buckingham Palace, one at Hampton Court Palace, one at St. James's, and one at Kensington; in fact, although there are one or two in every Royal Palace in England, there is not one at all at Holyrood, and I certainly should have thought that the honourable Members opposite would have made a complaint with regard to that. But I cannot understand this item of turncock; why two at Buckingham Palace and only one at the other palaces, and why should there be any at all? In ordinary houses it is not the custom to keep a turncock on the premises. You rely for the turning on of your cock on outside' authority provided by the water company. I cannot understand why there should be a turncock in these premises; I can, understand the watchman, the fire brigade, the lodge-keeper, and the gatekeeper, but this turncock I cannot understand, and I think there should be some explanation with regard to that by the First Commissioner of Works, and perhaps he will tell us, if it is necessary to have them in English palaces, why it should be unnecessary to have one in Scotch palaces.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The amount which we are taking this year for the extension of the electric light in Buckingham Palace is an amount on account, and there will be probably some further sum required before the full service is complete. This, matter was very carefully gone into some two or three years ago by a Committee from the point of view of safety from fire. There' were at that time, unfortunately, two fires which occurred at Buckingham Palace, and the palace for some time' was in considerable danger. That was in 1897.

      739
      That Committee considered the means of securing the palaces from fire, and one of the means which they decided upon was this scheme of electric lighting so far as it was possible. It was decided on for no other reason than for the safety from fire. The honourable Gentleman has asked me to explain the Vote for the Royal Mews. A large amount of that is accounted for by new works which are proposed to be completed in the present year. All these works are quite necessary, and will in many cases secure a saving, inasmuch as better care will be taken of the carriages and harness, which are now housed in very unsuitable places. The honourable Gentleman also mentioned a question which we have discussed several years, the opening of Buckingham Palace to the public. I do not think that the country can complain of Her Majesty's exclusiveness in regard to access to the Royal Palaces. Her Majesty has given every possible facility to the public to gratify their curiosity in viewing all the objects of art in certain of her Royal palaces. But Buckingham Palace stands in a different category. It is much more used than the honourable Gentleman thinks; it is the town house, so to speak, of the whole of the Royal Family, and I may tell the honourable Member that when this question was raised some years ago I went thoroughly into the matter and discussed it with the Lord Chamberlain, and I found for the greater portion of the year that there were very few days when Buckingham Palace was not occupied by some member or guest of the Royal Family. I do not think that Her Majesty can be complained of as being exclusive. Last year a very great boon was given to the public with regard to Kensington Palace and Kew Palace, and with regard to a large portion of the grounds at Kew, which Her Majesty has thrown open to the public. I do not think we can press this matter, because this palace is not shut up for a large portion of the year. What we have to consider is, that for a very large portion of the year it is in the occupation of some member or guest of the Royal Family. I cannot see myself that
      740
      much can be done with regard to this, and I cannot hold out any hope that any further concessions will be made in this matter.
      MR. DALZIEL: I think the House must have listened with some surprise to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, especially with regard to his remarks in answer to the demand made for public inspection with regard to Buckingham Palace. We had a hope that that demand would have been conceded last year, and I think the right honourable Gentleman, got his Vote last year on the suggestion that he should see the authorities as to what was going to be done.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: That was the year before last. Last year I took the same course as this year.
      MR. DALZIEL: There is a rather delicate point about the subject, and that is, the fact that Buckingham Palace is the town house of the Royal Family. That is the case against my honourable Friend, who demands that the house, and the grounds, and the art treasures should be thrown open to the public. It is suggested, in answer to him, that Buckingham Palace is the town house of the Royal Family. Is it the town house? My information does not at all agree with the statements of the right honourable Gentleman that Buckingham Palace is used for all but three or four days during the year. My information is that for months and months it is not used at all, and if the right honourable Gentleman grants us a Return upon that point you will find that my information is more correct than his. My honourable Friend's suggestion is that Buckingham Palace gardens and the palace itself should be thrown open more than they have been in the past. I think that is a legitimate demand. If it is the town house of the Royal Family, why do you provide Marlborough House, St. James's, and other palaces? Her Majesty has not slept at Buckingham Palace six nights during the last eight years, so that it is not her that we have to

      741
      consider in this matter. But apart altogether from that, the demand made by my honourable Friend is a small demand and a reasonable demand. We are asked to vote £32,000 for electric lighting at Buckingham Palace, and that is a very large order. What I suggest is this: I think it is only reasonable that there should be some consideration given to the country in this matter. The people of London should have an opportunity of seeing the grounds and the art treasures of that palace. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of it as gratifying their idle curiosity; but when the people of London and the country go to see their own property and the buildings upon which they have spent their money there is not much idle curiosity about it. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not allow this matter to slip out of his mind, and I think it is reasonable that this palace and these grounds should be thrown open for the public, if only for a few weeks in the summer.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I have no desire personally to wander about Buckingham Palace and see the rooms. I have been to palaces both here and abroad, and in most cases I have seen only large rooms most inartistically furnished. But in this particular palace there are some very fine pictures, which are the property of the nation, which are in the possession of the Sovereign for the time being, whoever the Sovereign may be. If they are the property of the nation, it does seem to me that they ought to be removed to a place where the public might see them. I put it to the Commissioner of Works—and I am sure he has done his best to try and get the public a right of way to Buckingham Palace—that he should not treat the matter of the pictures in this manner. These pictures belong to the nation in contradistinction to the Crown, and the nation surely have a right to see them, and, therefore, I put it to him whether they should not be removed to some museum where they could be seen.
      MR. CALDWELL: I think that the First Commissioner of Works must be satisfied that this is a point which is
      742
      intended to be forced publicly upon this House on every occasion that it can be brought forward. It will come up again at some future time, even on the Appropriation Bill if necessary. It is not a matter which we are going to allow to sleep, and the explanation that some members of the Royal Family come up there and occupy the palace is no reason why it should not be thrown open. They have apartments in other places, and so far as Her Majesty is concerned, and everything must be considered in her interests, Windsor Castle is in her occupation, and the public can see a great deal more of Windsor Castle than they can see of Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty would be more willing to let the public see the palace than some of the underlings, than would be some of the younger members of her family, and I do hope that the First Commissioner of Works will bring this to the attention of the authorities. If this motion is to be negatived, it will be brought up upon every occasion, because we all think that so far as the palace and the grounds are concerned there ought to be a reasonable allowance of time given to the public for seeing them.
      COLONEL MILWARD: I think there ought to be some correction as to the amount of money which is to be spent upon Buckingham Palace. The honourable Gentleman opposite said that £32,000 was the amount, but, so far as I can see, it is nothing like that amount.
      MR. DALZIEL: I do not know whether the honourable Member is referring to me, but I said that the whole amount of the Vote in connection with the palaces not in the occupation of Royalty was £32,000, and that was rather a large order.
      COLONEL MILWARD: The amount so far as Buckingham Palace is concerned is £5,000.
      Question put—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £32,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
      The Committee divided: —Ayes 46; Noes 142.—(Division List No. 71.)

      AYES.

      Allan, William (Gateshead)

      Labouchere, Henry

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Logan, John William

      Spicer, Albert

      Billson, Alfred

      M'Dermott, Patrick

      Steadman, William Charles

      Burns, John

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Causton, Richard Knight

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Ure, Alexander

      Cawley, Frederick

      Maddison, Fred.

      Wallace, Robert (Perth)

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

      Wedderburn, Sir William

      Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Duckworth, James

      O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

      Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

      O'Connor, James (Wicklo, W.)

      Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Wilson, John (Govan)

      Gold, Charles

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Hogan, James Francis

      Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Dalziel.

      Holden, Sir Angus

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

      Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

      NOES.

      Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

      Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Garfit, William

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlirgton

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond.

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Baillie, James E.B. (Inverness)

      Gibbs, Hon. vicary(St Albans)

      Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin.)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Giles, Charles Tyrrell

      Purvis, Robert

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

      Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

      Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

      Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

      Goldsworthy, Major-General

      Renshaw, Charles Bine

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

      Barnes Frederic Gorell

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

      Bartley, George C. T.

      Graham, Henry Robert

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Gunter, Colonel

      Robson, William Snowdon

      Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

      Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Round, James

      Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

      Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

      Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)

      Bethell, Commander

      Heath, James

      Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

      Biddulph, Michael

      Henderson, Alexander

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

      Howell, William Tudor

      Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

      Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

      Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

      Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

      Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Kemp, George

      Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

      Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

      Kenyon, James

      Spencer, Ernest

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Knowles, Lees

      Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

      Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

      Lafone, Alfred

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

      Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

      Strauss, Arthur

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

      Charrington, Spencer

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Thomas, David A. Merthyr)

      Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

      Lowe, Francis William

      Valentia, Viscount

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lowles, John

      Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

      Curzon, Viscount

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

      Lucas-Shadwell, William

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Denny, Colonel

      Macartney, W. G. Ellison

      Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

      Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

      Macdona, John Cumming

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

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

      M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'gh, W

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

      Donkin, Richard Sim

      Malcolm, Ian

      Whiteley, George (Stockport)

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

      Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.

      Drage, Geoffrey

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Milward, Colonel Victor

      Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

      Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

      Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

      Fitzgerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

      Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Flannery. Sir Fortescue

      Newdigate, Francis Alexander

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Northcote, hon. Sir H. Stafford

      Original Question put, and agreed to. Vote agreed to.

      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £79,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March 1900, for the Royal parks and pleasure gardens."
      MR. WARNER: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner how it is that the ranger, the deputy-ranger, the bailiff, and the other officials draw pay or pensions" under the Army or Navy Votes as well as salaries under this Vote. It ought to be made perfectly clear what their total salary is. The bailiff of the Royal parks receives £700 a year, and he has an assistant-bailiff who is paid a considerable salary. We should like to know what the actual duties of these officers are, and why their total salary is not put down on the Paper? I am not, of course, referring to pensions, because they have been earned by past service.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: The bailiff is the official who has entire charge of the whole of the Royal parks, including Hyde Park, Regent's Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park. He is an Engineer officer of some standing, and was entitled to an Army pension in that capacity. But in consideration of that fact his remuneration as bailiff was reduced proportionately, and his salary is fixed, having regard to his being entitled to an Army pension which he does not draw. Since the present bailiff has been in charge there has been a marked improvement in the London parks. It was found impossible for one man to do the whole of the work, and other savings were made to enable us to appoint a proper assistant-bailiff, who receives £400 a year. He is a Major of Engineers, and draws an Army pension, but a certain percentage is taken off his salary on that account. All the park-keepers are old soldiers or old sailors.
      MR. WARNER: I am quite aware that the work is very well done by the present officers. I was not finding fault on that account, but I want to know, if there is a salary paid out of the Army Votes, why the total is not stated? We have been told by the right honourable Gentleman that the bailiff superintends the parks most ably, with which I agree; but what are the duties of the ranger? We have just been told that the bailiff is the head official. Is he superior to the ranger?
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: The ranger of Hyde Park and Green Park draws no pay, but he receives £110 a year as ranger of Richmond Park. His deputy receives a small salary. Their duties are of a more general character than those of the bailiff. They have nothing whatever to do with the bailiff, in so far as he caters for the public in the amenities of the park, the cultivation of flowers, and the general appearance.
      Motion made—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £78,900, be granted for the said Service."— (Mr. Goddard.)
      MR. GODDARD: It seems to me, Mr. Lowther, that there is a great multiplication of unnecessary officers. The ranger receives £110 a year. He has a deputy who receives £57 a year, and I understand that both of them are military officers who are in receipt of pay or pension. In addition to these gentlemen you have a superintendent under the ranger who receives £250 a year, and a further £96 in lieu of fees, which seems to me a very objectionable system of payment, with a residence rent free thrown in. The assistant-superintendent receives £90 a year in addition to residence rent free. I think the time has come when we might get rid of some of these sinecure offices. There is no need for a ranger, a deputy-ranger, a superintendent under the ranger, and an assistant-superintendent. The payment of £96 in lieu of fees is a very unnecessary payment altogether. This official receives £250

      747
      a year and residence rent free, and I think he might very well do without the £96 a year given in lieu of fees. I do not consider the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman as a satisfactory one, and I move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have not risen to join in the attack which has been made upon one of the greatest institutions in the country, that of ranger, but merely to ask my right honourable Friend the First Commissioner of Works one or two questions in connection with the London parks. I observe that he proposes to take in the Estimate the sum of £4,000 to lay wood paving between Marlborough and Buckingham Gates. I admit that it is necessary that this road should be paved with wood, but I suggest that a strip of the roadway near the Palace railings should be utilised for horse riders, so that it will be possible to ride a horse without imminent danger of breaking one's neck. I know this suggestion will be an expensive one to carry out, but as it would prove a great boon I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider it. Under the right honourable Gentleman's management Rotten Row has been greatly improved, but it is still far from being perfect. It was quite a quagmire this morning, and the arrangements are such that when a heavy fall of rain comes it is apt to wash away the sand from the surface and expose riders to the danger of falling over uncovered bricks. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman may be able to hold out the hope that the ride will be extended into that deserted part of Kensington Gardens which is not even frequented by babies and nursemaids, and which is yawning, so to speak, for the extension I am suggesting. This extension would, I am sure, prove a great boon to riders. At present the ride is so short that if a horse is fresh and gets away with its rider there is no room to pull it up, but if the ride was extended into Kensington Gardens the difficulty would be obviated. I do not think the extension of the ride in the direction I have suggested would really do any injury to
      748
      anyone. Some consideration should be given to riders, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be able to furnish some satisfactory reply. Recently, Hyde Park has been invaded by those abominations called motor - cars, which are nauseous in every way. There is plenty of room outside the park for these cars. In the park they frighten horses, and should not be allowed to run there. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will tell us that he is willing to make provision for the prevention of this nuisance in the parks.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: The honourable Gentleman opposite seems to be a somewhat timid rider, but I do not see why public money should be spent in order that he might ride in Hyde Park without fear and trembling. His view, apparently, is that Rotten Row is not long enough to enable him to pull up his peculiarly fresh quadruped, and the honourable Member wants a kind of circus ride created around which he might guide his horse should it run away. But that is not enough for the honourable Gentleman. When he gets his circus ride he is afraid of the motor-car, which I look upon as a most useful invention. I do think it would be a very reasonable thing if a drive or ride were made in Kensington Gardens. I remember often riding in Kensington Gardens in. 1851. At that time there was an exhibition in the park, and riders could not get on to Rotten Row, and a ride was made for them in Kensington Gardens. It was a very pleasant ride, but the nursery maids and other people in charge of children said they were disturbed in their avocation with the children and the Life Guards, and protested so strongly that a large number of Members came down to this House and insisted upon riders being deprived of the privilege of riding in Kensington Gardens. Coming to Richmond Park, I want to know the nature of the distinction which is made between the park proper and the department of the ranger as to the maintenance of the park. We used to have these Estimates presented in a far more detailed form than at present. I want to know if there is still a large number of game-

      749
      keepers. It used to be said that the gamekeepers were employed for the deer, but it was generally admitted that they were employed for keeping up a head of game there. I contend that game should not be kept in a public place like Richmond Park unless every taxpayer has the right to go and shoot there. I hope the right honourable Gentleman may be able to inform us that these abuses will be done away with.
      MAJOR BOWLES: I desire to draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner to the want of accommodation for bicycles at Kew Gardens. An immense number of cyclists ride to Kew Gardens, but at present there is no accommodation for their bicycles. I certainly think some adequate provision should be made in this direction.
      MR. MCLAREN: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works what his intention is with reference to the road between Buckingham Palace and Marlborough Gate. Now that Constitution Hill is used for general traffic, the number of carriages has increased enormously, and I would suggest that as there are four good broad avenues along the part of the park I have referred to, one of them should be set aside for traffic going east and another for traffic going west; the third might be reserved for foot passengers, and the fourth for cyclists. The right honourable Gentleman has done so much to improve the London parks and to accommodate the public that he might, I think, reasonably give this matter his favourable consideration. In regard to Hyde Park, I would ask the First Commissioner whether he could not see his way to get the rules altered so as to allow cycling in that park till a later hour in the day —say to 2 o'clock.
      MR. COHEN (Islington, E.): I rise to plead for a more equal distribution of the right honourable Gentleman's favours in Hyde Park, and to urge that something should be done for the beautifying of the north side of the park, from the Marble Arch westwards, in the same way as the side running parallel with
      750
      Park Lane is treated. At present there is nothing but bushes and quite uncared-for sort of trees on the north edge of the park, although flowers and tropical plants would flourish there even better than along Park Lane. Such an improvement would, I think, be greatly appreciated by the large proportion of people who travel east and west to and from the direction of Bayswater.
      MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I want to say a word in support of the plea that has been urged on behalf of the cyclists. I really think cyclists have been treated very shabbily in the Royal parks. The matter has been placed before the right honourable Gentleman quietly and persuasively year after year, and I now again appeal to him to consider whether he could not do more in Kew Gardens and in the other parks for cyclists. I think that the restriction as to hours might be done away with altogether, or, in addition to extending the hour from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock, that at half-past 6 p.m. in the summer months cyclists might be admitted to Hyde Park. If cinder paths were laid down for cyclists it would prove a great benefit, and prevent a number of accidents. I think all the parks which are reserved for carriages might with public advantage be thrown open to cyclists. The suggestion made by the honourable Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicester that an avenue of the Mall should be set aside for cyclists is one which the right honourable Gentleman ought not to resist. Speaking of St. James's Park, I think the proposal to lay down wood paving between Marlborough and Buckingham Gates is a serious experiment. I think it would have been far better if the width of the road had been doubled and macadam retained a little longer. Wood paving is sometimes an exceedingly dangerous form of paving, and, seeing that so many pedestrians use this part of the park, the laying of it here is an experiment which should receive more consideration than it has received up to the present. I should like some information upon another point. I understood that the right honourable Gentleman was going to set up refreshment kiosks in Hyde Park, and some of the

      751
      other parks as well. I would like him to tell us how this experiment is getting on. I understood that a new and pretty tea-house was to be provided near Hyde Park Corner. That would be a most desirable improvement. I think everybody will admit that one of the great drawbacks in our parks is the difficulty which is experienced in getting refreshments in them. That splendid site along one side of Piccadilly could not be used to better purpose, in my opinion, than as a site for a magnificent glass restaurant. I think that is one of the finest sites in the world for such restaurants, and if they were constructed the right honourable Gentleman would derive from them a great deal of revenue towards the expenses we have to meet year by year. There is room for improvement in all the parks. I agree that cheap refreshments are desirable, but I think better class refreshments might also be provided if the First Commissioner entertains the idea of erecting these kiosks. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will tell us what steps are being taken in this direction.
      COLONEL MILWARD: I desire, Mr. Lowther, to urge the extension of the hours of cycling in Hyde Park. The large number of cyclists who frequented Hyde Park some years ago caused a considerable amount of obstruction, but now that the novelty has worn off the number of cyclists has decreased to a very great extent, and I think the First Commissioner could safely extend the hour to three o'clock. I also think the suggestion that one of the avenues of the Mall should be reserved for cyclists is an excellent one, which I hope the First Commissioner will endeavour to meet.
      MR. BURNS: I desire to associate myself with the honourable Members who have asked that greater privileges should be given to cyclists in all the Royal parks. I see no reason why there should be any restrictions in Hyde Park at all. and as the bicycle mania is over there is no need for fear. I would suggest that Hyde Park should be treated in regard to cyclists in the same way as the London County Council treat
      752
      their parks. If that were done I do not think the privilege would be abused in any way. I would also ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner to respond to the appeal made by the honourable Member for the Enfield Division of Middlesex that at Kew Gardens some accommodation should be provided for bicycles used by visitors. There is no reason why one or two men in the service of the Government could not be put in charge of some such arrangement, and, if it were necessary, a small fee could be charged. I am sure cyclists would be delighted to pay it rather than be compelled to depart, as they are now, owing to there being no one of a reliable character with whom they can leave their bicycles. I think a shed could be conveniently erected for the storage of the bicycles at the back of one of the shrubberies. I frequently walk or ride down to Richmond on Saturday afternoons and enjoy myself in that beautiful park. It is a source of pleasure to me to see the increasing use to which Richmond Park is every year subjected, and I would ask the First Commissioner of Works to seriously realise that this splendid park is now frequented—I speak in the correction of the honourable Member for Richmond, but I think I am correct—by four or five times the number of people who visited it even 10 years ago. Richmond Park has of recent years been invaded by eighteenpence-an-hour horsemen, who career all over the Park to the danger of foot passengers and to the serious damage of its splendid turf, and I would urge the First Commissioner to put some restriction upon them, if only for the preservation of the excellent turf. Hundreds of people now get to Richmond Park on bicycles, and I am under the impression that the increasing use of the park warrants the First Commissioner of Works in getting rid of the coverts and reducing enclosed portions of ground in the centre of the park. There is no reason why preserves should be kept up any longer. It is a characteristic of the Londoner that he rarely interferes with birds in the parks. He is very kind to all sorts of birds and animals, and it seems to me the time has arrived when the coverts should be thrown into the park, and additional

      753
      room given for the people who use it. Now I come to the gentlemen paid to look after the park. It seems to me that the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the deficit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us about on Thursday, has scope for economy in the, management of Richmond Park. I make no reflections on the officials, but I must call attention to the fact that of all the Royal parks there is no park that can be more easily managed than Richmond Park. There are no flower gardens and no elaborate gardening to be supervised, and there is not a great deal of special knowledge required. It is a very beautiful park, with broad roads and great swards of turf, but ordinary labourers with a competent foreman ought to be able to keep it in order. In Richmond Park there is, however, a ranger with £110 per annum, a deputy ranger with £57, £250 for a superintendent, and other allowances in lieu of fees, making a total of £603 per annum for the management of the park, which, with proportions of other amounts paid to the head officials, bring the cost of supervising Richmond Park up to £1,000 per annum. Let me give comparative figures. That sum is more than the London County Council pays for the supervision of 3,200 acres of parks and open spaces distributed over the whole County of London, most of them of a different character from Richmond Park, and requiring more attention and technical knowledge. I think the time has come when we should get rid of the ornamental ranger and deputy ranger and one or two other gentlemen whose services are really not required; and if the Government are determined to spend the money these gentlemen now receive, they might use it in slightly increasing the salaries of the men who do the work in Richmond Park. I would appeal to the First Commissioner of Works to effect certain improvements by dispensing with the ornamental officials, who, like the rabbits in the coverts, are eating their heads off at the nation's expense. I now come to the suggestion made by the honourable Member for Islington. I am a bicyclist myself, and the necessities of distance and the exigencies of public life compel me to
      754
      adopt the ironmongery that the honourable and gallant Member for King's Lynn objects to. But, fond as I am of bicycling, I cannot go to the extent of asking that we should have a cinder-path around Richmond Park. I do not think it is necessary, and it might lead to racing and scorching. It would be most objectionable, from the æsthetic point of view, to have a black cinder-path running around the park intersected by the ordinary roads, and obtruding its black surface above the green turf. I hope the suggestion will not be adopted. It would be a standing argument in favour of keeping the existing roads in a worse condition than they are at present. Good flint roads as now would be more satisfactory. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. I am rather favourable to the establishment of kiosks in Hyde Park and elsewhere for the convenience of Londoners. But I respectfully suggest that the very last place for a kiosk is Piccadilly. I am a stranger in that part, and I have not the experience necessary to speak with the authority others may have, and I may be wrong. If kiosks are to be gradually introduced in the parks, I think there ought to be one in St. James's Park for the sale of refreshments for children and others; but if we are to adopt the Continental restaurant system, I would not select Piccadilly as the first place where the experiment should be tried. I again impress the advisability of economy in the management of Richmond Park, and I protest once more against the practice which is becoming too prevalent, especially in the Office of Works and elsewhere of appointing military men with pensions to positions when there are other men better qualified. I have nothing to say against Colonel Wheatley, but I think if it is necessary for him to have an assistant some man from Kew should be appointed, who is either a gardener or a forester. In these days, when we are so far behind in the study of forestry, the Government should select from Cooper's Hill or Kew a competent forester to be Colonel Wheatley's assistant. I certainly trust the First Commissioner of Works will take a

      755
      lesson from the criticisms he has heard, and that he will effect economy in the management of Richmond Park, and that he will not select Army men without technical qualification and with pensions to do work which a qualified civilian could do infinitely better.
      MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I rise to join in the request for further facilities for bicycling in Hyde Park. It seems to me that there would be no inconvenience caused by allowing cyclists to remain in the Park for another hour or two, as there are not a large number of riders or carriages in the Park between twelve, o'clock and two o'clock, when the Park is almost deserted by the general public. Honourable Members are often kept in this House until one o'clock or two. o'clock, and it is very difficult to get out before eleven o'clock in the morning. I venture to say that no inconvenience would be caused, and that the general facilities of the public would not suffer by extending the time for cyclists to one o'clock or two o'clock. I hope my right honourable Friend will recognise the advisability of acceding to this reasonable request.
      MR. CALDWELL: I desire to call attention to the growing expenditure on public parks in London. What I wish to point out is the unfairness of charging these parks on Imperial funds. The sums charged for Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, and St. James's Park amount to £61,000 a, year. Some years ago objection was taken to placing certain parks on Imperial funds, and they are now upheld by the local authorities. Practically, there is little difference between these parks and the parks we are now discussing. They are said to be Royal parks. Now, so far as the provinces are concerned, if they have parks they have to pay for them themselves; yet in the case of these Royal parks we are asked for £61,000 to keep them up for the benefit of London. What happened in the case of the equivalent grant? London got very much less than her proper share. She did not get her proportion according to
      756
      her rental as compared with the rest of England, Why was that? It was because London benefited in many other ways, including parks, and that was the foundation for the disparity. But if London did not get her proper share the rest of England got it, because the money was distributed between the three countries in the proportion of 80, 11, and 9. What we object to is that parks should be kept up for the benefit of London out of public funds, whereas Scotland gets no corresponding benefit. If we have parks in Scotland we have to bear the whole cost ourselves. In London the public parks enhance the value of the rental of the adjoining districts. Take, for instance, the property around Hyde Park and St. James's Park. It commands a higher rental owing to its proximity to these parks, and the more the parks are kept up the higher will be the rental. London reaps the benefit, and I do not see why the parks should be, paid for out of Imperial funds. It is no answer to say that people from the provinces use them. That is an incidental matter altogether. London reaps the benefit of any services rendered to a stranger from the provinces. It is time attention was called to this expenditure of £61,000 a year, especially when it was taken into consideration when the equivalent grant was allocated between London and the rest of England. That was a proper arrangement as between London and the rest of England, but it does not meet the injustice as regards Scotland and Ireland.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: As I have been asked several questions, I will reply to them in order. The honourable Member for Ipswich called my attention to the allowance in lieu of fees paid to the superintendent under the ranger of Richmond Park. We ought not to pay anything in fees. An official should be paid for his services by a salary, and I can assure the honourable Gentleman that this allowance which was made in connection with an existing right will not be made to the successor of the present superintendent. As far as the principle is concerned, I am entirely

      757
      with the honourable Gentleman. The honourable Member for King's Lynn called my attention to the condition of the road between Buckingham Palace and Marlborough Gate. As my honourable Friend knows, this question has been considered for a considerable period. Some three or four years ago I entirely shared the views expressed by my honourable Friend, but I have since been converted in favour of a wood pavement. This bit of road takes more repaving than any other road, not only in the parks, but in any part of London. It has been the subject of many inquiries, and several Departmental Committees have considered it. Two years ago I found that the repairs carried out twice a year were inadequate, and I instructed that the road should be repaired three or four times a year, but even that did not meet the difficulty. It was quite impossible to keep the road in proper repair under macadam, owing to the peculiar nature of the traffic, and, therefore, we decided to ask for this large sum of money to put down a wood pavement. This is not merely a road in a park. It is really a road connecting two portions of London, and there is more traffic on it than in many London streets, and I think, under the circmustances, we are justified in departing from our usual practice of not introducing wood pavements into the parks. I can assure my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn that I have not taken this step entirely on my own initiative, or on that of my Department. I have have had the assistance of a committee consisting of experts on the state of the London roads, and they decided on a wood pavement. when the road is being put down I will take care that the suggestions of my honourable Friend shall be considered. With reference to the sand Row, my honourable Friend will bear me out when I say that we have made a considerable improvement by rounding the corner. My honourable Friend also objects to
      758
      motor cars in Hyde Park. I am bound to say, as far as motor-cars are concerned, I share his views, but it is rather a difficult matter to face. I do not think I should have any right to turn a private carriage out of Hyde Park, whether it was drawn by horses or driven by electricity, or some other motive power. Whether any restrictions with regard to pace are necessary, is another matter, and it will be considered, but, as at present advised, I cannot hold out any hope that I shall lay on the Table any now rule debarring owners of motor cars from using the park. Then, my honourable Friend returns to his favourite theme of extending the ride from Rotten Row to Kensington Gardens. One of the chief objections to it is the very considerable expense it would entail. Then there is the difficulty of getting across the road which crosses the park. There would have to be a bridge or a subway, and I do not think I should be justified in taking such a large slice out of the money allotted year by year for the maintenance of the parks for that improvement, if it be an improvement. The honourable Members for Enfield and Leicester called my attention to the desirability of extending the hours for bicyclists in Hyde Park. The question is one which does not entirely rest with me. When the concession was granted three or four years ago, I came to a compromise with the gentlemen who cycled that if I were able to obtain the sanction of the ranger that bicycles should be allowed in the Park until noon they would, at all events for the time being, be satisfied. I think when the rule was first made the time only extended to 10 o'clock; then came a concession until 11 o'clock or some other hour in the fore noon that the First Commissioner might agree to. Shortly after that, at my direction, the hour was extended to noon. I am quite prepared to consider, seeing that the crowd of bicyclists is not now so great as it used to be, and the traffic

      759
      until 2 o'clock is not considerable, whether some further concession in this direction might not be made, but I must point out that it is not entirely at my discretion, and that other authorities must be consulted before any extension is made. With regard to planting flowers along the north side of Hyde Park, I point out to my honourable Friend that the nature of the ground does not lend itself so well to that purpose as the land adjoining Park Lane. Moreover, it would require the sacrifice of a good many trees which I myself would be loth to see cut down. But if by any slight cutting down of trees, and at no great expense, I could meet the views which have been expressed on the subject, I should be glad to do so. However, you must remember I have to cut my coat according to my cloth. There is only a certain amount of money available in connection with these parks, and I do not want to take away the flowers to which the public have been accustomed. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Battersea called attention to several questions relating to Richmond Park. If I can see my way, by some more stringent regulations or otherwise, to prevent damage to the turf by galloping horses, I shall be glad to do so. I will also see if any alteration can be made in regard to the deer reservations, although I entirely agree that these reservations are wanted for the deer. My experience is that if deer are to thrive, they must have a certain amount of seclusion. The honourable Gentleman asked me about the number of old soldiers and sailors who are appointed to the Royal parks.
      MR. BURNS: I only referred to the appointment of Major Hussey while he enjoyed a pension.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I am myself responsible for the appointment of Major Hussey, and I am sure that the State will have in him a most valuable ser-
      760
      vant. He is an officer who has great taste for horticulture; but, apart from that, he is able to manage a large body of men. What weighed with me very considerably in making the appointment, seeing the great difficulties we have had with the roads, was that he was an Engineer. Whatever may be said in regard to appointments to such situations from the Army, I believe that in appointing Major Hussey I have done the State good service. As to providing a convenient place for the reception of bicycles at Kew, that is a very small matter, and I have no doubt that such a place will be found.
      MR. LOUGH: What about the refreshment kiosks near the band-stands?
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS: I have nothing further to add on this point to what I stated two years ago. I am most anxious that visitors to the park should have some means of obtaining harmless refreshment, especially in the neighbourhood of the band-stand. We have done a good deal in regard to the improvement of the music in Hyde Park. There are a large number of people there on Sundays and certain days of the week, and I think they should have some opportunity of obtaining harmless refreshment without having to go outside the park for it. I took a Vote two years ago for the erection of a kiosk, but I was unable to find a site which would meet my views. The site which was offered to me, some way from the band-stand, was in my opinion not suitable, and I therefore did not spend the money. I trust we shall now be allowed to take this Vote, as we have had very considerable discussion upon it.
      SIR II. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): I only want to make a few very brief observations. I may be allowed to express my satisfaction with the general policy which the right

      761
      honourable Gentleman has indicated, and especially in reference to the construction of a wood pavement in St. James's Park, between Marlborough Gate and Buckingham Gate. I think the right honourable Gentleman formerly yielded unwisely to pressure put upon him in this matter. This was a public necessity, and ought not to be put on one side, as it is one of the most important routes of traffic in London, and the right honourable Gentleman ought to be congratulated on taking the matter on hand. The improvement should have been made long ago. I am glad to hear that the right honourable Gentleman is not prepared to entertain the very debatable question of the extension of Rotten Row into Kensington Gardens. That would open up a large controversy, and occupy a good deal of time in public discussion. A point on which I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman is, whether he is considering what he promised me to consider last year—the better lighting of the park, especially between Marlborough House and Buckingham Gate. The visible darkness on Constitution Hill would be a discredit to a back street in a fourth-rate town. I know that the lighting of Hyde Park is regarded as one of the best police arrangements that could be devised; and now that Constitution Hill is open to the traffic, and a great many carriages use it, it is entitled to be well lighted.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I have paid considerable attention to this matter of lighting, and I entirely agree with the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman opposite. My only difficulty is want of funds. I promised the House four years ago to put down in the Estimates £1,000 per year towards the extending and bettering of the lighting of the parks, and especially of the walks, and I have got a similar sum this year. The right honourable Gentleman will
      762
      remember that three years ago none of the main walks in the park were lighted. I agree with him that better lighting is one of the best means of policing the parks. I cannot say that we could light the whole of Hyde Park, for if we did that the aesthetic appearance of the park in the day time would be spoiled by the number of gas lamps. But I do think that where short cuts exist across the park, such as the walk from Albert Gate to the Marble Arch and from Buckingham Palace to the Naval and Military Club, these should be lighted. As soon as I can I shall extend a better method of lighting on Constitution Hill, but there is not quite the same necessity with regard to some other walks. In regard to the avenues of the Mall, I am anxious not to come to any very definite decision, because I hope that shortly we may be able to extend the Mall into Charing Cross, and it will be a question then for consideration as to how these avenues should be treated.
      MR, BURNS: On the whole I am satisfied with the general statement of the right honourable the First Commissioner of Works, although I am sorry he-has not more liberally responded to the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, who justly pressed for the better lighting of the parks at night time. The right honourable Gentleman said that it was a lack of funds and not a lack of intention which prevented him from carrying out this improvement to the full. I would suggest to him that if he-goes to Richmond and gets rid of four or five of the ornamental rangers there-he would get sufficient funds to carry out the proper lighting, not only of Constitution Hill, but of the whole of the parks between the House of Commons and Kensington Gardens. I am told by a most competent authority that for something like £-1 per lamp, incandescent burners into the bargain, you could get St. James's Park and Hyde Park lighted up. The light is wanted, and

      763
      every budding town is better lighted than these districts. The sooner the right honourable Gentleman goes to Richmond and gets rid of the ornamental rangers the better; he would then find plenty of money saved from these salaries for lighting Constitution Hill and Hyde Park. This year, as usual, we hear from the right honourable the First Commissioner of Works that in the matter of Hyde Park he is not alone responsible, but has to consult other authorities. I do not want to go behind the First Commissioner, but I would most respectfully suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that he should put aside those other authorities who prevent him carrying out his well-known views in regard to the improvement of the London parks. The right honourable Gentleman should act on his own responsibility, and unceremoniously put those other authorities on one side. I do not see how those other authorities we hear of should prevent him doing what he is most anxious to do. I am glad to hear that the right honourable Gentleman is going to do something in the way of removing the coverts in Richmond Park, which are not coverts for deer, but are coverts with unclimbable wire fastenings for rabbits, pheasants, and other game. I would suggest that he should reduce and open up the coverts in the centre ring, and allow the deer to wander into the external rings of the park. I trust the right honourable Gentleman will not be weary in well-doing, but will run the management of the parks off his own bat.
      MR. LOUGH: I think this is the only occasion on which we can enter a protest in regard to the complaints as to the control over these parks. It is foolish to suppose that the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is allowed to do as he likes in, the parks as the representative of this House, when the authority of the ranger vetoes all the right honourable Gentleman's plans. I think it is perfectly foolish for the Members of this
      764
      House to flatter ourselves that we have the control of these parks under those circumstances, or that the right honourable Gentleman has control over them. He has told us that two years ago, after this House had voted a sum of money for the erection of a kiosk, and after the right honourable Gentleman had selected a spot for the kiosk, his decision was vetoed by this extraneous authority. We should divide every year on the ranger's salary until we can bring the matter to an issue.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The honourable Gentleman is mistaken; there is no salary attached to the office of ranger.
      MR. LOUGH: Then we should fall back on the whole Vote. We must make our protest against the right honourable Gentleman not being allowed to do what he wants to do in deference to the wishes of the Committee. We all desire to give the right honourable Gentleman in regard to his views as to London improvements our unanimous support, and we ought to press the matter to a Division.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I ought to have acknowledged the assistance which I have generally received from the ranger, not only in regard to the permission to cycle in the parks, although there may be one or two matters in which we do not see with a single eye. I could not endorse any observation to the effect that His Royal Highness was in any way desirous of excluding the public from, or of standing in the way of what would be a general improvement to, the Royal parks.
      Question put—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £78,900, be granted for the said Service."—[Mr. Goddard.)
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 112.—(Division List No. 72.)

      AYES.

      Allan, William (Gateshead)

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Steadman, William Charles

      Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under Lyme

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Billson, Alfred

      Maddison, Fred.

      Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

      Burns, John

      Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Caldwell, James

      O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

      Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

      Cawley, Frederick

      O'Connor, James (Wieklow, W.)

      Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Rickett, J. Compton

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Goddard.

      Holland, W. H. (York, W.R)

      Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

      M'Dermott, Patrick

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      NOES.

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Garfit, William

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond.

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

      Giles, Charles Tyrrell

      Purvis, Robert

      Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

      Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

      Renshaw, Charles Bine

      Barnes, Frederic Gorell

      Goldsworthy, Major-General

      Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

      Bartley, George C. T.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

      Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

      Graham, Henry Robert

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

      Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)

      Bethell, Commander

      Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

      Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

      Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

      Heath, James

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

      Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Howell, William Tudor

      Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

      Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

      Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

      Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

      Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

      Kemp, George

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

      Kenyon, James

      Spencer, Ernest

      Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

      Knowles, Lees

      Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Lafone, Alfred

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

      Charrington, Spencer

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Cohen, Benjamin Louis

      Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

      Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

      Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

      Cranborne, Viscount

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Curzon, Viscount

      Lowe, Francis William

      Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

      Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Denny, Colonel

      Lucas-Shadwell, William

      Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

      Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

      Macartney, W. G. Ellison

      Webster Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

      Donkin, Richard Sim

      Macdona, John Cumming

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

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh,W.)

      Whiteley, George (Stockport)

      Doxford, William Theodore

      Malcolm, Ian

      Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Milward, Colonel Victor

      Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

      Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for expenditure in respect of the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £36,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, Dot exceeding £22,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900. for expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £228,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day "of March 1900, for expenditure in respect of Revenue Buildings."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £166,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings, Great Britain."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WATS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

    CLAUSE I.
    Question proposed—
    "That clause I stand part of the Bill."— (The President of the Loral Government Board.)
    MR. LOUGH: I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman not to press this Bill. It is most inconvenient to take it now, as the honourable Member who represents the County Council here and who knows what the wishes of the majority of that Council are in regard to it, is unable to be present through illness. I really think the right honourable Gentleman will not lose anything if he meets the wishes of honourable Members on this side of the House in respect to this matter and will abstain from pressing the Bill. Having got into Committee, surely he might rest satisfied and let the Bill stand over to a more convenient day.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I can assure the honourable Member that, in common with all other Members of this House, I greatly regret the absence of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Hoxton, and still more the cause of it, but I am afraid if legislation were postponed whenever Members interested are unfortunately laid up with influenza there would be no progress with business. Under ordinary circumstances, I would go a long way to meet the views of Members, but I must remind them of what I said the other day, namely, that the Bill deals with a matter which becomes more urgent every day. The honourable Member has said that the County Council are not represented today. But this Bill does not only affect the London County Council, and it is pressed by the Government for the purpose of saving people in the East End of London from a repetition of the suffering from scarcity of water they experienced last year. The views of the London County Council were powerfully presented before a Committee upstairs, and the Council came to the conclusion that, having thus made their wishes known, they would reserve any further representations they might have to make for the passage of the Bill through the other House. That

    769
    gave me the impression that they were satisfied so far as the progress in the House of Commons was concerned. The Bill will have to go before another Committee upstairs, when anything further that may be necessary can be said. I consider it my positive duty to take such opportunities as offer to make progress with the Measure.
    MR. CALDWELL: The original intention was to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair to-night, and that was all, and if the Debate on that Motion had been kept up till midnight, no Votes would have been obtained, and no opportunity would have been afforded of bringing on this Bill. It is understood that when Supply is down on the Orders no other business shall be taken. We have no wish to delay this Bill, but I am bound to point out that up to the present it has passed through its various stages with scarcely any discussion. It is no answer to our complaint to say it can be discussed in another House, and I submit it is both ungracious and unreasonable to press the Bill now. Under the circumstances it would be far more gracious to postpone the stage and to provide facilities for it another day.
    Question proposed—
    "That clause I be added to the Bill."
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Clause 2, line 34, leave out ' raise any money required to be contributed by the company, and insert instead the word 'apply.'"— (Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I beg to move as an Amendment in line 34 to leave out "raise any money required to be contributed by the company," and to insert the word "apply." In consequence of the action of the right honourable Gentleman we are placed in the inconvenient position of having to discuss Amendments without seeing them on
    770
    the Paper. But, perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain verbally what is the effect of this Amendment. In the first place the clause as drawn enables a metropolitan water company with the consent of the Local Government Board to raise money required for the purposes of the Act, and that, so far as I know, is an absolute departure from ordinary Parliamentary practice. No water company has hitherto been allowed to raise money without the amount having been specifically approved by the House. The right honourable Gentleman has appealed to the House to proceed with this Bill on the ground of urgency, and if the Amendment would in any way stand in the way of protection to the people of East London from water famine, I would be the last man in the world to move it; but in this, a financial detail, there is no urgency to justify departure from established and salutary practice. The money with which this clause deals is not money which has to be spent on the spur of emergency, such as in the midst of a water famine, but it is money which has to be provided for constructing works in readiness for emergencies, and for purposes which can be carried out when emergencies arise. In the second place, my Amendment would not leave the companies without resources from which necessary expenses could be defrayed, and it provides that companies may apply to the purposes of the Act any money which they have authority to raise under any other Act. The majority of the companies have an ample margin of funds available, and those which have not, have actually money Bills before the House this Session, and in these Bills any additional money required for the purposes of this Act might very well be inserted. I therefore move a preliminary Amendment to leave out the words "raise any money required to be contributed by the company," in order to insert the word "apply."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I wish in the

    771
    first place to correct a slight inaccuracy on the part of the honourable Member. He was in error in stating there had been no opportunity of giving notice of his Amendment, because intimation that the Bill would be taken on the present occasion was given on the 28th of last month, on which day the House sat at noon, and did not adjourn till nearly eight o'clock.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I meant that the Report of the Committee was not then in our hands.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am quite ready to admit the honourable Member is perfectly accurate when he says that in water Bills there has always been a clause providing for a sinking fund, and that the plea of urgency on the general progress of the Bill does not apply. But there are good reasons why a sinking fund clause should not be included in this Bill. The whole question was threshed out by a Royal Commission, which, among other recommendations, recommended that in this particular case the provisions as to a sinking fund should not apply, because the works contemplated under the Bill were to be made not on the initiative or will of the companies, but on the initiative and under the orders of the Local Government Board. It was held by the Royal Commission that these were works which, to use their own words, "would not yield revenue or profit for the companies." Under these circumstances it would be a very hard measure to insist on a clause requiring a sinking fund. The honourable Member gave as a further reason in support of his Amendment, that it is quite unnecessary to make this provision because there is an ample margin of funds available already in the case of certain companies, while in regard to the other companies the funds required might be provided for in other Bills now before the House. That is quite true, but what guarantee can he give me as
    772
    to the time when any one of those Bills will become law. It is of most vital importance that this Bill should become law with the least possible delay, and, with all respect for the honourable Member, I think I have given the Committee adequate reasons for resisting his Amendment.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Clause 2 agreed.
    Other clauses added to Bill.
    Bill reported without Amendment.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am going to make an appeal to the House to allow the Bill now to be read a third time. It was not opposed on the Second Reading, and has passed through Committee unamended—
    MR. CALDWELL: It was not amended because there was no one here to speak on it. I think it is most unreasonable to press it.
    MR. LOUGH: I hope it will not be-pressed, for if it is the amiable proceedings of the last few minutes will be brought to naught. The right honourable Gentleman should be satisfied now he has got the Committee stage.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: To-morrow.
    Bill ordered to be read the third time to-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Fifty after Eight of the clock.