Sitting of 21 February 1873

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED — For Mid Cheshire, v. George Cornwall Legh, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Coal, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [63].
Considered as amended—Polling Districts (Ireland)* [1]; Local Government Provisional Orders* [2].

PRIVATE BILLS—RAILWAY AND CANAL COMPANIES AMALGAMATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUErose to move—
  "That all Bills of the present Session which include among their main provisions any of the following objects:—(1.) The transfer to any Railway or Canal Company of the undertaking or part of the undertaking of any other such Company; or (2.) The transfer to any Railway or Canal Company of any Harbour; or (3.) The amalgamation of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any Railway or Canal Company with the undertaking of any other such Company, shall be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
  He desired to explain that he moved this Resolution, not merely on behalf of the Government, but also as having been Chairman of the Joint Committee of last Session on Railway Amalgamation. That Committee were not able to lay down any general rules or principles on the subject such as would relieve the House from the necessity of inquiring into each separate case. They therefore thought it desirable that Parliament should, at all events, take the most efficient means in their power to secure a complete consideration of every proposal for amalgamation which might be made, and with that view they unanimously recommended the Resolution which he now moved. In their Report the Committee advised that each amalgamation scheme should be dealt with in reference to its bearing on other similar schemes and on the general railway system. They desired also that unity and consistency in the action of Parliament should be obtained, and, in order that the information gained in one year should not be lost in the next, that the Committee should be, as far as practicable, permanent. The Committee he now moved
  784
  for referred, however, only to the present Session. This proposal did not prejudge the general question of the advisability of referring all Private Bills to Joint Committees, although the opinion of high authorities had been reported to Parliament from time to time in favour of that plan. Mr. Milner Gibson's Committee of 1863 reported in favour of a single hearing for each Bill, and the Committee of 1869 upon the Business of the House distinctly recommended Joint Committees of both Houses for all Private Bills. Amongst the witnesses who gave evidence upon this point were Sir Erskine May, Lord Grey, Mr. Bidder, Colonel Wilson Patten, and several others. The object of the former plan was mainly economy, and Sir Erskine May stated that if it had been adopted for some years past, the public and promoters of Bills would have saved millions of money. But while the plan of 1863 was mainly advocated on the ground of economy, his present proposal was designed to secure efficient inquiry—conducted by a powerful Committee, composed of the most capable Members for the purpose of both Houses of Parliament—and likewise as much continuity and consistency of action as the circumstances allowed. Whatever might be decided hereafter as to the general principle, it was desirable to avoid conflicting decisions and to consider amalgamation schemes as a whole; and in nearly cognate cases, such as the metropolitan railway scheme of a few years ago, Joint Committees had proved advantageous. The Peers who were Members of the Committee having unanimously recommended the plan, there was no reason to apprehend any obstacle from a majority in the other House to the adoption of this course. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the Resolution.
  MR. GREGORYremarked that, as the Resolution was moved on the recommendation of the Joint Committee, he could not offer his individual opinion against it; otherwise he should have objected to such large interests being referred to one tribunal without appeal. At all events, it was very desirable that the functions of the Committee, and the nature of its inquiry, should be more fully defined, and their attention directed to the points for their consideration. For instance, the question of tolls

  785
  materially affected not only the trading community, which in some cases looked after their own interests, but the public in general, yet no instructions were apparently to be given to the Joint Committee as to the questions which they wore to consider. Having practised before Private Bill Committees for 25 years, he had had some experience in this matter. Some years ago he was concerned in a Lancashire amalgamation scheme, where the rates were of vital importance to the colliery traffic, making it necessary to go into elaborate calculations to guard the interests of that traffic, and there the trade being united and vigilant could look after their interests; but take another case in which he was also engaged, the amalgamation scheme of the Brighton, South Eastern, and Chatham Companies. The Bill went through this House unopposed, but attention being afterwards called to it, certain corporations at some risk, and individuals by means of small subscriptions, appeared before the Lords' Committee and induced them to insist on a considerable reduction of the tolls, the result being the withdrawal of the Bill. Now, under this Resolution there would be only one hearing, and it was often difficult for corporations to incur an expense which they could hardly recover from borough funds, and which individuals could not be expected to bear. There should be greater facilities for parties interested to come forward, and he would almost compel a Committee, in the absence of opposition, to obtain information from the Board of Trade, or other sources, so as to guard against the passage of objectionable schemes through compromises or the withdrawal of opposition. Unless an arrangement of that kind were adopted, he feared public interests would suffer severely by these amalgamations.
  MR. PRICEsaid, he preferred the decision of a Joint Committee to the conflicting and accidental decisions of separate Committees, because railway companies would thus be enabled to ascertain the collective opinion of Parliament upon the question. He would ask whether the consideration of these schemes would be stayed pending the progress of the general Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEcould not say at the moment what course
  786
  the Committee might take, but he believed there would be no unnecessary delay in the consideration of the schemes.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That all Bills of the present Session which include among their main provisions any of the following objects—

  (1.) The transfer to any Railway or Canal Company of the undertaking or part of the undertaking of any other such Company; or

  (2.) The transfer to any Railway or Canal Company of any Harbour; or

  (3.) The amalgamation of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any Railway or Canal Company with the undertaking of any other such Company, shall be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

  Resolution to be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto. — (Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)

  CENTRAL ASIA—BOUNDARIES OF THE AFGHAN STATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the India Office contemplate publishing a correct map of Central Asia, to enable the public to appreciate the new line of the Afghan Frontier; and, whether the map published by Stanford is prepared from information furnished by any official of the India Office?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. Friend's second Question, I have to say that I have no means of knowing from what information the map alluded to was prepared; but it is in no way sanctioned, directly or indirectly, by the India Office. In reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that an improved map of Central Asia will be published in a very few days, not by the India Office, but by the War Office. As, however, some interest has been excited on this subject, and as the Indian authorities here and in India are primarily responsible for all that has been done, I will explain exactly how the case stands. No part of Badakshan is on the right bank of the Oxus; but, as to Wakhan, no geographer is able positively to answer the question whether some fraction of the at this moment inhabited portion of that district—which is, by the way, 9,000 feet high—is or is not on the right bank of the Oxus. The fact is that only one European is certainly known to have been there in modern times, and that European—the distinguished traveller Lieutenant Wood—

  787
  is unhappily dead. The line, however, laid down under the advice of Sir Henry Rawlinson, who is one of the very few people who has access to all the information which exists about these little known districts—information consisting chiefly of the data collected at various times by six Natives of India and communicated to the Indian Government—was laid down with the most full knowledge of the geographical uncertainties prevailing with respect to the Upper Valley of the Oxus—geographical uncertainties which have been curiously complicated by one of the most remarkable literary forgeries of modern times, as to which I would beg to refer any hon. Members who care to pursue the subject to the collected writings of the last Lord Strangford, and to an article on Marco Polo in a recent number of The Edinburgh Review. What we have done is this:—We have recognized Shore Ali's rights up to the Oxus and to the Northern Oxus—the Oxus flowing out of Wood's Lake. We have not recognized in him any right to territory beyond the Oxus, because even if it could be proved that he has a title to certain hut villages, if such hut villages exist, it would have been a very cruel kindness to him to have encouraged him to stand on them. The Oxus, from Wood's Lake down to Khojah Saleh presented a clear, definite boundary, the same being the boundary of the land inherited from Dost Mahomed by Shere Ali. All the northern side of the Oxus basin till you get to the Bokhariot territory belongs to a number of independent potentates—chiefs of Shagnan, Roshan, Darwaz, and what not, some smaller and some larger, of all of whom Europeans know absolutely nothing.

  GALWAY ELECTION PROSECUTIONS EXPENSES.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If there will be any objection to place upon the Table of the House a Paper stating the cost of the prosecutions arising out of the late County Galway Election?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that the cost of the Galway Prosecutions had not yet been ascertained; but when it had been ascertained, there would be no objection to lay on the Table the Papers relating to it.

ARMY—YEOMANRY UNIFORMS.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to assimilate Yeomanry Uniforms; and, if so, when?
  SIR HENRY STORKS,in reply, said, that there was no intention to assimilate the Yeomanry uniforms.

  GALWAY ELECTION PROSECUTIONS— BISHOP DUGGAN, &c.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked Mr. Attorney General, What effect the acquittal of Bishop Duggan of the charges preferred against him in consequence of the Report of the Judge in the case of the Galway Election Petition has upon the Bishop's political status; and, whether the Bishop who has been tried, and the Bishops and priests who have not been tried, equally remain under what the Judge termed "seven years' penal servitude?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, he did not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by the Bishop's "political status." Whatever it might mean, he apprehended that the acquittal of the Bishop from the charges which had been preferred against him had no effect upon it. What effect his conviction might have had was quite another matter; but certainly his acquittal had absolutely no effect. It remained exactly what it was before. With regard to the second branch of the Question, as to "whether the Bishop who has been tried, and the Bishops and priests who have not been tried, equally remain under what the Judge termed' seven years' penal servitude,'" the answer was not quite so easy to give. From the authentic report of the learned Judge's Judgment, which was furnished to hon. Members of the House by order of the House, he found that what Mr. Justice Keogh stated on the subject was this. He did not find there the expression which the hon. Gentleman quoted, but he found these words—
  "I will guard the franchises of the people of this country for seven years at least, for the statute will not allow any one of those persons" (i. e., those persons whose names he reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons) "to be again engaged in conducting or managing an election, or in canvassing for a candidate aspiring to be the representative of the county of Galway."

  789
  The law on that subject was certainly somewhat remarkable. It was contained in 31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, s. 43, 44, and 45. The 43rd section, in substance, declared a candidate who had been found guilty of bribery to be incapable of voting, of holding any office, municipal or judicial, and incapable during the next seven years of sitting in Parliament. Then, any agent who had been found guilty of bribery was by the 45th section subjected to penalties very similar to those to which the candidate himself was liable; and the 44th section enacted that any candidate who personally engaged as canvasser or agent for the management of an election any person who within seven years previous to such election had been found guilty of any corrupt practice—which included undue influence—by any competent legal tribunal, or who had been reported guilty of any corrupt practice by a Committee of the House of Commons, or by the Judge of an Election Petition under that Act, should have his election at once declared void. That was the language of the Act of Parliament on the subject. But it had been said, with some amount of truth, it was hard that a person who had been reported to the House of Commons as guilty of corrupt practices, but who was afterwards tried and acquitted by a jury, should rest under the stigma that a candidate engaging him as an agent should by such engagement void his election. But it must be remembered as a matter of justice, as had been more than once pointed out, that the evidence given before an Election Judge, as formerly before Election Committees of that House, was entirely different from that which could alone be given on a criminal trial afterwards, before a Judge and jury.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT— PENALTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Home Secretary, Whether his attention has been called to the penalties mentioned in sec. 2 of 35th and 36th Vict., c. 78 (Wild Birds Protection Act), wherein the first offence is to be visited by a reprimand and discharge on payment of "costs and summons," and for every subsequent offence the penalty is to be one, including costs of conviction, not exceeding 5s.; and, whether the
  790
  effect of this enactment was not (even by statutory official fees) to make a person (except in the metropolitan district) liable for a sum of 6s. 6d. at least—and probably 9s.—for a first offence, while for a second or subsequent offence he could not be made to pay more than 5s. altogether; and, whether, seeing that the Act came into operation on the 15th of March next, the Home Secretary thought it necessary to provide a remedy for this anomaly previous to that date?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, that his attention had been called to this subject. No doubt, under the operation of the words as they stood in the Act, it would be in the power of a magistrate to inflict for a first offence a heavier penalty than for a second, although such was obviously not the intention of the Legislature. There had, no doubt, been a mistake in the printing, by which the words "payment of costs of summons" had been altered to "payment of costs and summons." The magistrates, however, had a discretion with respect to imposing costs, and he felt satisfied they would exercise that discretion so as to obviate the anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It was, he thought, hardly worth while to introduce an amending Act for the purpose of remedying so palpable a mistake.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SOUTH AFRICA.—QUESTIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to call attention to the affairs of South Africa, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies questions relating to Algoa [Delagoa] Bay, Basutoland, and the separation of the Eastern Province of the Cape of Good Hope. In the first place, he desired information with regard to Delagoa Bay. This was a Portuguese colony, and rumours had recently been circulated to the effect that it was about to be annexed to the German Empire. It was of considerable importance with regard to our South African possessions; but whether valuable or not he should be glad of any information the Govern-

  791
  ment could give. The next Question had reference to Basutoland, the governing chief of which had repeatedly requested that he might be allowed to become subject to Her Majesty, and that request had at last been complied with. As to the Orange Free State, it was, he contended, in a much better position in consequence of the course which England had taken than would otherwise have been the case; for a great Power like England would take care that no irregularities were committed on the frontier. Complaints had frequently been made that the Government of the Orange Free State were bent upon exterminating the unfortunate Basutos, and he submitted that if the people of the Free State were as unoffending as their advocates asserted they had no ground of objection to the course we had taken. Complaint had, he might add, been made of the course which had been taken by this country with regard to the Diamond Fields. They had been claimed by the Orange Free State; but he had no doubt General Hay and Sir Henry Barkly had arrived at a correct decision in the matter. Even if they had come to the conclusion that those Fields belonged to the Orange Free State, it was, he thought, impossible that they should continue under its dominion; for the population of the Diamond Fields consisted mainly of English people, besides Europeans and Americans, and though leading a rough life, included a large number of gentlemen of education, and it was not likely that they would consent to be governed by the regulations of the Orange River Free State. He therefore thought our Government did only right in taking measures to secure the safety and good order of that important territory. He wished, in the next place, to advert to a question which had created great interest in the Cape Colony—the separation of the Eastern Province. Towards the close of last Session, when it was impossible to have any discussion on the subject, an Act for responsible Government at the Cape was sent home. He, however, ventured to ask a Question with regard to it; and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies in reply stated that a Bill for conferring responsible Government on the Cape had the year before been negatived by the Legislative Council by a majority of 1, but that last year it was carried by a similar majority, the fact being that in the
  792
  interval two hon. Members who had opposed before the Bill, after consultation with their constituents, and finding the preponderance of feeling among them in favour of responsible Government, voted for it. Such was the answer of the hon. Gentleman. But Gentlemen having changed their views on the subject without announcing the fact to their constituents and offering themselves for re-election, had voted in favour of the scheme and had thereby violated the trust their constituents had reposed in them. The result had been that a very violent agitation had sprung up in the Eastern Province in favour of separation from the Western Province. The House was aware that he had for a long time been anxious that the Cape Colonies should be united into one federation; but, at the same time, the feeling in the Eastern Province had grown so strong in favour of separate government that he should only be doing his duty if, without giving any opinion of his own, he laid their views before the House. The Western Province had belonged originally to the Dutch, and most of its inhabitants preserved their old manners and language; whereas the Eastern Province had been originally colonized by Englishmen, who were attached to our laws and customs. It was an unfortunate circumstance that party politics in the colony should generally turn upon the question of the preponderance of either the Eastern or the Western Provinces. He might state as regarded the Eastern Province that a Petition had been presented to the Queen from it containing 13,670 signatures. The number of registered voters in the district was 13,365, and it had been very much signed by them. The total number of male adults, white and coloured, of the 18 districts was 46,455; of this number it had been estimated that Natives and others not qualified to vote constituted nearly 30,000, so that out of 16,000 people qualified to vote 13,000 had signed this Petition, which showed the importance attached by that Province to the question. The value of the fixed property of the Western Province was nearly £9,000,000 and about £9,500,000 in the Eastern. From 1861 to 1872 the Customs had yielded in the Western Province £1,315,000, and in the Eastern £1,182,000; the imports in the Western had been £9,802,000, and in the East-

  793
  ern £12,000,000; the exports had been £5,500,000 in the Western against £17,300,000 in the East. The population, according to the Census of 1870, was 346,000 in the Eastern Province, against 236,300 in the Western Province. But in the face of these facts the expenditure upon public works in 1870 had been only £291,000 in the Eastern Province, as against £343,000 in the Western Province, although the public Revenue for the two Provinces was £370,299 and £291,000 respectively. Thus, while there was an excess of Revenue on the side of the Eastern Province, there was an excess of expenditure as regarded the Western Province. With regard to intelligence there were 25 newspapers having 32 weekly issues published in the former Province, and only 7 newspapers having 15 weekly issues published in the latter. It was under these circumstances that the Eastern Province not being satisfied with the present state and believing that their interests were not duly represented in Capetown, asked for a separate Government. They complained that the Colonial Parliament was held at a distance from their Province, and that whereas the first responsible Minister, the Colonial Secretary, his private secretary, the Under Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General and his clerk, and Clerk of the Peace, the Treasurer General, the Chief Clerk for Public Works, and the Chief Clerk for Native Affairs, all belonged to the Western Province, only two Members of the Government—the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary for Native Affairs—belonged to the Eastern Province. Hon. Members must admit that this was not a proper representation of the Eastern Province on the Government. From these facts it seemed to him that this was a question for the people of the Province themselves, and if they had a well grounded cause of complaint it was well that the attention of the Government should be called to it. He had to thank the Government for what they had already done for South Africa. The course adopted in regard to Basutoland would. be a great advantage to South Africa, and he hoped that further beneficial results would continue to flow from it.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN,in reply, said, no doubt there was a great advantage in having to deal with
  794
  such an amiable critic as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler); but there was also some disadvantage in dealing with so vague a Resolution as that which he had brought forward. As to "Algoa Bay," to which the hon. Gentleman announced his intention of calling attention—[Mr. R. N. FOWLER: It is a misprint]— he might remind him that there was such a place, and that it was going on as well as could be expected. "Delagoa" was 750 miles north of "Algoa Bay," which was the bay of which Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern Province of the Cape Colony, was the chief town. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER intimated that he had informed his hon. Friend privately of the mistake.] He did not complain of the mistake on his own account, but that the House might have been misled by the non alteration of the Resolution. At Delagoa Bay there was a long-pending dispute between the Portuguese and English Governments with regard to a portion of the territory adjoining. The northern part of the Bay always belonged to Portugal, and had been so regarded in various Treaties; but England had obtained a certain portion of the territory on the southern part of the Bay, which was stated to have been ceded to Captain Owen in 1823 by the Kings of Tembi and Mapoota. These disputes had gone on for some time; there was no very accurate definition of the territory, and it was a matter of some importance upon several accounts. One reason was the probable importance of this Bay to the future development of Natal. Then with regard to what might possibly happen in relation to the slave trade, the Government were of opinion that it was not desirable to give up our position of advantage to put an end to that trade —a position which Lord Palmerston was always so anxious to maintain. He believed that if federation were carried out it would be of the greatest advantage to South Africa, and in this point of view also Delagoa Bay would. be of great importance. His hon. Friend had alluded to the possibility of Germany acquiring possessions on that coast. He had no wish to say anything unfriendly in respect to that Power; but, considering how much England had done for the country, he thought we should view with regret the establishment of any great Power in that part of the world

  795
  which might tend to hinder union and consequent progress. But it had been denied, both by the Government of Portugal and that of Germany, that there was any intention on the part of Portugal to sell, or Germany to buy, any portion of the territory, and the English and Portuguese Governments had referred their disputes as to boundaries to the arbitration of the President of the French Republic. Our case was now being prepared by Dr. Deane under the direction of the Foreign Office, and however much we might desire the development of South Africa, England had no desire to take by superior force anything which might be decided to belong of right to other people. Then as to Basuto Land—it was not a Crown colony of England; but in November, 1871, it was specially annexed to Cape Colony by an Order in Council confirming a local act for that purpose. Civilisation had not sufficiently advanced to justify the application of all Cape laws to Basuto Land; but it was under the administration of an able resident magistrate named Griffith; and, as regarded the financial condition, there was in May, 1872, a balance of between £4,000 and £5,000 in the local exchequer after paying the whole of the expenses, which wore defrayed by a hut tax readily paid. There were nine missionary stations, 38 out stations, and upwards of 2, 000 children now attending day schools; the Basutos were contented, and agriculture and other branches of industry were making satisfactory progress. As regarded the diamond fields, he looked back with great satisfaction to the course which had been pursued by the Government, and was ready to take his full share of the responsibility of their annexation to the British Empire. It was impossible that this country should ever give up a territory of that kind, and public opinion would endorse the action of the Government in its annexation. But he was bound to say that objections with respect to boundary had been raised by the Free State, and the Papers on that subject would shortly be laid on the Table. What had been done was this. According to the wish of the people, instead of their territory being annexed to the Cape Colony, an administrator, Mr. Southey, lately Colonial Secretary at the Cape, and one of the most eminent statesmen of South Africa, had been
  796
  sent to administer the Government. It was intended to constitute him "Lieutenant Governor," and under his administration he hoped the colony would enjoy a happy and prosperous future. As to the separation of the two Provinces, no doubt the subject of responsible Government had been a good deal debated at the Cape. Some years ago Sir Philip Wodehouse proposed to approximate it to the position of a Crown colony; but the Parliament of the Cape rejected that proposal. There remained, then, as the only alternative, the establishment of responsible Government. A Bill to carry out this system had been rejected in the Upper House by a majority of 1, though there was a majority in favour of the Bill in the Assembly. Two hon. Members of the Upper House who had formerly voted against the measure subsequently changed their opinions; and, accordingly, when the Bill was again submitted to the House it was carried by a majority of 1, the majority in the Assembly having increased. A large Petition had since been presented from the Eastern Province praying that responsible Government might not be granted without the separation of the two Provinces. It was the fact, however, that out of a Cabinet of five Members, two came from the Eastern Province, both of whom opposed responsible Government, so that the Province was not inadequately represented. Moreover, an analysis of the Petition, so far as Port Elizabeth was concerned, showed that the method sometimes adopted at home for the manufacture of Petitions had not improbably been imported into the colony. Eight-ninths of the signatures, moreover, came from districts which only contained one-third of the whole population of the Eastern Province. An important and influential section of persons in the Eastern Province had pronounced against the separation of the two Provinces, and these gentlemen maintained that public opinion had much altered there on this question. They had formed a Frontier League, and took for their motto—" Frontier Defence and Frontier Trade, for all Equal Justice, and an United Colony," words in which would probably be found the germ of the future prosperity of the country. Thus, public opinion was by no means unanimous in the Eastern Province in favour of separa-

  797
  tion; and the truth probably was that speech actually delivered; but the matter this feeling in favour of separation originated in Port Elizabeth and Graham's town, which were jealous that Cape town should be the seat of government. No doubt the distance from Capetown— 600 miles—was inconvenient; but this would diminish as the means of locomotion improved. Edinburgh was 400 and Inverness nearly 600 miles from London; but Scotland did not ask to be separated from England. Lord Kimberley, in a despatch just sent out in answer to this Petition, said that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a fair trial should be made of the new system of Government, especially as now for the first time the Eastern Members would have to deal with Ministers responsible to the Legislature and the constituencies. If the Eastern Province had grievances, the inhabitants had no right to assume that the new Government would be deaf to them. The Eastern Members would be able to make their voices heard; and, as the two Provinces were pretty evenly balanced as regards representation, there was no ground for expecting that the Legislature would deal unequally between them, or, indeed, that any question was likely to arise upon which Eastern and Western representatives would be, as such, opposed one to the other. As to the comparison between their case and that of Queensland, New South Wales contained 1,000,000 of square miles before Queensland was detached from her, and still contained an area nearly double that of the whole Cape Colony, whilst the difference in climate and products between New South Wales and Queensland justified the separation. Under all the circumstances, Her Majesty had been advised not to take any action upon this Petition; but those who signed it had been informed that their Petition had been graciously received. As a last resort, there might, perhaps, hereafter be a Provincial Assembly, subject to a general Legislature; but this should certainly not be resorted to until it had been proved that the existing system of Government could not be advantageously carried on. Some of the newspapers here had last year been hoaxed by a speech purporting to have been delivered by Sir Henry Barkly at the opening of the Legislature. He had promised in last year's debate to lay upon the Table the
  798
  Speech actually delivered; but the matter had been deferred until more complete Papers could be presented upon this and other South African subjects which were now in preparation, and he hoped soon to present them.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he was glad the affairs of South Africa had been brought under the notice of the House, and highly appreciated the information given by the Under Secretary of State, especially as it was accompanied by a new expression of opinion on his part of the value of the colonies to the mother country. The Under Secretary had anticipated his intention to refer to a promise made by him on the 28th of May last, that he would lay on the Table the speech of the Governor; but he still felt bound to refer generally to the small amount of information supplied to Members respecting colonial matters. The information in the Library respecting Victoria was more complete than that as to any other colony, and the Acts and journals of the Government there were transmitted with much regularity. They had a record of the Acts of the Cape Legislature, but with several gaps; the Canadian journals were also incomplete; and respecting Bermuda there was a solitary journal for the year 1856. It was very hard hon. Members should have to go all over London for information which should be accessible within the walls of the House; and he trusted, when the new building in Parliament Street was finished, the library of the Board of Trade, supplemented by all Papers relating to the Colonies, would be open to hon. Members. The most important point connected with the Cape Colony was the proposed confederation. It was impossible to continue the present order of things without running continual danger of collision, as might be seen from a mere perusal of the recent Acts. Last year they had to pass an Act to authorise the Governor of Cape Town to make, without entering into a distinct treaty for the purpose, a bridge over the Orange River, which separated his territory from the Orange Free State. There was another Act for the extradition of criminals from the Orange Free State, though he could not understand how such an act should have become necessary; because the extradition of criminals was one of the stipulations made when the independence of that

  799
  State was granted in 1854. There were other cogent reasons in favour of federation; for instance, the diamond fields, which last year returned £376,000, and which would attract a large number of Europeans, especially English, to a State over which we had no control and thus add to the complications already existing, for it was impossible that a large number of British subjects could remain under the Government of the Orange Free State. In spite of what had been said he must consider the question of distance from Cape Town as an important one at present, considering the defective condition of communication. Many Members from the eastern side did not, in consequence of the distance, go down to Cape Town; and he thought that a better place for the seat of Government might be selected. The progress made by the Cape justified the belief that it might one day become a great Empire, stretching as far as Delagoa Bay, and a very short time would show that the Orange Free State and the South African Republic would be compelled to confederate with us, because they were shut out from the sea and would be dependent upon us for imports. The matter was virtually in our own hands, and no time should be lost in bringing the confederation to a conclusion.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and complimented the Under Secretary of State on the pains he had taken to put the House in full possession of the state of affairs at the Cape. He was glad to find his hon. Friend had adopted a sound and manly policy in his treatment of colonial questions, and trusted he would continue to be guided by the same principles in the future. He believed that the colonists would be convinced that their interests now received far more attention than they formerly did in England.
  MR. WHITEcomplimented the Under Secretary upon his disposition to do full justice to our colonists, but regretted he could not agree with his estimate on the policy of the Governor of the Cape, in reference to the diamond fields. As he (Mr. White) read the despatches, Sir Henry Barkly was only authorised by the Home Government to proclaim and annex as British territory —but by and with the consent of the
  800
  Cape Parliament—that portion of the diamond fields as really belonged to the Griqua Chief Waterboer. The Governor had, however, also seized and held possession of a part which belonged to the Orange Free State; although the Cape Parliament had refused its assent to any annexation whatever. Surely, the persons best able to judge of the propriety of annexation were the nearest neighbours of the territory annexed, and yet they had by their representatives put themselves in direct opposition to the Governor.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENexplained that the Parliament had, on the contrary, last year, decided in favour of annexation by a large majority, upon which the country had been proclaimed British territory; but upon the presentation of the Bill this year to carry the annexation into effect, some delay had been occasioned by differences of opinion on the question of representation, and the Bill had been withdrawn until the matter in dispute had been settled: meanwhile, the wishes of the diamond field inhabitants had been so strongly expressed in favour of separate administration, that the steps had been taken to which he had already alluded.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that explanation did not place the matter on a much better footing; for it would seem that when the Cape was a Crown Colony it was favourable; but when it became a responsible Government it was adverse to the Governor's policy of annexation. He was strongly of opinion that the little Republic—Orange Free State—had been very hardly treated by Sir Henry Barkly. In 1854, the Orange Free State had been established and its inhabitants released from their allegiance to the British Crown. Since then, the rights, privileges, and independence of the new State were never interfered with by the Cape Government till the diamonds were discovered, and then the territory north of the Orange river was re-annexed to the British Crown. The extension of our dominion north of the Orange river was adverse to the sound policy recommended by two previous Colonial Ministers—the late Lord Taunton and the late Duke of Newcastle. To interpose the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic between British territory and the savage tribes was, he held, a wise policy, as it had of late years exempted

  801
  the British taxpayers from having to disburse, as heretofore, many millions for periodically recurring Kaffir wars. He entirely concurred in the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Eastwick) as to the great difficulty of obtaining precise information from the Government on colonial affairs. For instance, he had that morning—in reference to this discussion—consulted the latest and best known official authority, —namely, the Colonial List for the present year—and he was astonished to find that by its map the boundary of British Dominion was laid down at only two degrees north of the Bay of Natal, whilst there was now pending in Paris an arbitration between us and Portugal whereby we claimed—and he thought, justly claimed—as British territory fully four degrees north of Natal and including the greater part of the coast of Delagoa Bay.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that when not long ago this country endeavoured to govern 40 colonies from England, to manage all their minutest affairs, and defend them by English troops, the House was obliged from time to time to interest itself in such subjects as the present, because enormous sums of English money were spent, while we ignored the capacity of the colonies for self-defence and self management. The policy which we then pursued injured the colonies even more than ourselves, because it weakened and demoralized them, while it produced numberless wars and disturbances among them. He could remember the time when this colony, much smaller than it was now, cost this country £1,000,000 a year on account of Kaffir wars. Since then, their ordinary expenses had been relieved by English taxpayers by more than £500,000 a-year. Recently they had approached self-support. He wished to obtain fuller information from the Under Secretary as to the prospect of our completely getting rid of all interference with the internal administration of South Africa. The Under Secretary had complained of the vagueness of the terms of his hon. Friend's Notice; but the Government kept the House in much more impenetrable darkness with regard to colonial subjects in general, and as to this colony in particular. He should like to know why the blue-book told us nothing until nearly two years after date? The latest in-
  802
  formation he could find in the library of the House of Commons with respect to this most important colony, now in a transitional state, was dated August, 1871. The occurrences of 1872 were not as yet reported. He should like to know how far English troops had been withdrawn from South Africa, and how far the expenses of the troops which were still there were repaid by the colony? When he had the honour to hold the office which his hon. Friend now held, it was arranged by Lord Carnarvon that, as responsible government was established in South Africa, that colony should gradually take upon itself its own defence, or that the arrangement made with Australia for payment should be adopted. As to the subject of Basutoland they had very little information. It was very desirable that they should be furnished with more information as to the terms on which it had been annexed. The boundary between the Orange Settlement and the annexation should by this time have been satisfactorily settled. All South African governments they hoped to see merged in the Government of the Cape. When the hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Government had no intention of abandoning any territory of South Africa he wished that that sentiment had been always held. He had stood alone in opposing the abandonment of the Orange River. It had cost us much to get rid of it, and its abandonment was now universally regretted. The inhabitants of the Orange River had the audacity to ask us—now they wished us to take them back to federation—to pay them on their return as we had on their leaving us, so that they wished to be paid both ways. With regard to federation of all South African Governments, which now seemed generally desired, the only question to be considered was on what terms this federation was to be established. That, however, was a matter for the colonists themselves to determine, and not the British Government. It would be, he thought, most unwise for us to originate or dictate such federation upon that point. We should hasten the time as much as possible when Natal should no longer be a Crown colony, but have constitutional government like the Cape. All would then be ready for federation; but it ought to be left to the colonists them-

  803
  selves, whether and how this federation should take place, and it would be unwise on our part to interfere further than to see that their views and ideas when arrived at were fairly carried out.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he did not altogether agree in the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) with reference to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect to Kaffirland and the diamond fields, or in respect to the subject of confederation. That subject had been discussed in May last, and, speaking generally, the opinion of the hon. Members who took part in the debate, was in favour of confederation. He was not afraid that the confederation of the British colonies would lead to any oppression of the native population, but he could not but regard with some apprehension and uneasiness the proposal to bring in the two Dutch Republics. Slavery had no doubt been abolished in the Orange State, but it was still kept up under the name of apprenticeship in the Transvaal State, and from thence murderous expeditions were made into the native territories for the purpose of capturing slaves, and parents were butchered in order that their children might be secured. The Orange State, too, made it a condition of entering into the confederation that, while they would leave the question of offensive war to the general Government, they should themselves be at liberty to engage in what they called defensive war—a power which he feared would be used for the purpose of oppressing the native population. He thought that if the scheme of confederation was to be carried out, those two Dutch Republics should not be admitted into the confederation until they renounced all right to enter into hostilities with the tribes in the neighbouring territories without the consent of the federal Government.

DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE—PURCHASE AND SALE OF STORES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOLMS,in moving that—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report upon the existing principles and practice which in the several Public Departments and Bodies regulate the purchase and sale of materials and stores,"
  said, that economy in public expen-
  804
  diture was to be secured rather by minute investigation than by general discussion. The difference between the two methods appeared to be that a general discussion and the declaration that the expenditure was too great and ought to be reduced was like a physician entering a sick room and declaring that the patient was very ill and ought to get better, while the minute inquiry was like a physician making a diagnosis of the disease and applying a distinct remedy to it. That what he might call disease and disorder existed in some of the public Departments all, he thought, were agreed, and the importance of investigating their symptoms would appear from the expenditure of 1872–3. It appeared by the Estimates for that year that the Departments spent upon military and other stores in the following manner:—The Navy expended over £2,000,000; the Army, £3,600,000; upon India, £1,400,000; for workhouses, £2,000,000; for prisons in the United Kingdom, £625,000; upon the police, £435,000; the Stationery Office expenditure was £376,000, and the Post Office £353,000, making in round numbers the vast sum of £10,800,000 spent without any concert between one Department or body and another. They each acted according to their own free will, no pre-concerted method existing, and no general rule being laid down for their guidance. The Treasury was, he might say, the counting-house of the nation, and from the Treasury rules and regulations ought to be sent forth to the different Departments. The House of Commons was the guardian of the public purse, and yet the House had never yet issued any regulations upon this all-important subject. The result was that in place of uniformity being the rule it was entirely the exception. The House would agree with him that there ought to be some comprehensive scheme for buying and selling stores in the great Departments, and his object in moving for a Committee was that some uniform system might be arrived at for their guidance. The Committee could take evidence from the different Departments, and would then be enabled to compare the various methods of buying and selling which they adopted. The Committee could also take evidence of the different plans at present pursued by Belgium, France, Austria, Prussia, and probably the United

  805
  States, from most of which he believed information would be found readily available. Nor should they forget to take evidence of the course adopted by the different public companies and large commercial firms in our own country—for no nation was so much accustomed as our own to make purchases upon a large scale. Taking what was good from all these different sources, and eliminating what was evil, the Committee would have the opportunity of founding a good sound system, at once simple and of general application to all our Departments. This was not the first time that such a Committee had been asked for in the House of Commons, for in February, 1856, the late Mr. Ricardo obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the making of contracts for the supply of public Departments, and the effect the system of that day had upon the public service. That Committee sat during three Sessions, but owing, unfortunately, to the death or illness of some of its Members, it never reported. But although the country did not have the advantage of its very protracted labours, it had such an influence upon some of our great spending Departments as to lead to a reduction of expenditure. He might here say that in seeking the appointment of this Committee he had no preconceived idea as to what would be the best system for the country to adopt, and no sensible man with our present limited information on the subject would venture to hold any very strong opinion upon it. The duty of the Committee would be to enter on its labours in a philosophical spirit seeking to obtain information in the most careful and impartial manner, and determining how to apply it to the several Departments. He would readily acknowledge that Her Majesty's Government deserved very great credit for what they had done in the past. He was willing to acknowledge that they had endeavoured to make inquiries, and had followed up those inquiries in a very marked manner. The Local Government Board, the War Office, and the Admiralty had each of them instituted these inquiries; but the fact that each of these Departments had made these inquiries for themselves was an argument for a general inquiry into the different methods adopted for the purchase of stores, whence all Departments could alike gain advantage. To give
  806
  the Committee a notion of how very opposite some of the plans adopted by other countries were, he would instance the cases of Belgium and Prussia. In Belgium everything required for the public was purchased by public tender. They were advertised for in the most public manner, and tenders might be put into the box within an hour of its being opened. The examination of the tenders was held in the presence of the reporters, the public, and the contractors, and, if possible, the lowest tender was accepted then and there, security, of course, being taken for the fulfilment of the contract. The goods supplied under these contracts to the Army were supplied direct to the officers requiring them, these officers being furnished by the War Office with a sample, which they could use as a test of quality. If the articles were rejected, the contractor had an appeal to a Court composed of officers of a higher rank, and from them he could again appeal to a tribunal composed of three persons, one of whom was appointed by the War Minister, and the other two by the burgomaster. The Belgian plan was thus simple and beneficial to the public, and satisfactory to the manufacturer and contractor. In Prussia, again, though all the power was vested in the central authority, purchases were made to a large extent locally, the local authorities making the purchases under a responsibility which was well defined and insisted upon. Already some very valuable information had of late years been gathered upon these points by our public Departments. The Report of the Local Government Board, for instance, with reference to the metropolitan workhouses, showed that the want of preconcerted action had been productive of considerable mischief, and had led to the most extraordinary variation of price paid by different unions for the same articles. He could see no reason why the workhouses should not combine and buy for the entire body, distributing afterwards what had been purchased, instead of asking for small tenders and competing against each other, as if they had rival interests to deal with. It would be as easy for the metropolitan unions to purchase, for instance, coal, and divide it amongst themselves, as it was for the Admiralty to purchase coal for the Navy and distribute it amongst the different stations and ports. During the Crimean War the

  807
  War Office had a number of sub-spending departments. They were brought under one head in 1869. The Admiralty had done the same, and both had laid down rules for their guidance, and if the two Departments were to go a little further and consider the best mode to adopt for the purchase of stores, the result could not fail to be a great public advantage. The system of limited tender which existed in the different Departments at this moment he could not but regard as very mischievous. As in ordinary life, the Government Departments ought to encourage sellers to come forward, and by advertising openly and doing away with the system of limited tender they would, he believed, be doing much to encourage the large manufacturers of the country to come forward as competitors. He would even go further. He thought that in advertising for tenders the quantity purchased at the last tender and the price given for it ought to be stated, so that there might be some guide for the manufacturer. Another duty of the Committee would be to remove some of the anomalies that existed under the present system. Why should they have the War Office and the Admiralty advertising at the same moment for the same article, as if they were competitors? The nation was able to make prompt payment and was a large buyer, and the public ought to gain the full advantage of these two circumstances. But the anomalies were not confined merely to the purchase of materials, but extended also to the sale of stores. The sale of stores was carried on at the present time without any attempt at regulation, and, in some instances, while one Department was actually selling stores of a certain kind, another Department was purchasing stores of exactly the same character in the open market. They ought undoubtedly to have a system of exchange of stores, and a list of articles to be disposed of might be made out and sent round, so that one Department requiring such articles might obtain them from another Department having them to spare. The principle had, he believed, been carried out lately in the case of some timber very successfully, and he could see no reason why it should not be adopted in relation to all other stores. From the want of preconcerted action they found the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Board of Works purchasing coals each on its own
  808
  account, instead of as one great firm, and in reference to this matter there arose a very curious anomaly a short time since. The coal contractor who had a running contract with the War Office went and said that, as the price of coals was so much higher than when he had accepted the contract, he should be glad to receive the difference in price. The War Office did not agree to this, but they generously gave him the half. No such application was, however, made to the Admiralty. He was not now making any charge against the War Office, but a little preconcerted action would have probably saved the taxpayers a considerable sum, and have secured more business-like conduct. Anomalies also existed with regard to running contracts which required alteration. Another point to which the Committee might, he thought, well turn its attention was to the question of arbitration. At present we had no well-regulated system of arbitration throughout our Departments, and he believed that a well defined system would be exceedingly valuable, because it was of the greatest importance that they should do all in their power to induce the best men to come forward and serve them. Arbitration, it was true, was already partially adopted in some of our Departments, but the experience of everyday commercial life would furnish the Committee with ample materials for drawing up a good, sound, and well-defined general system. A system of this kind would also give the House a grasp and control over a large section of our national expenditure such as it had never had up to that time. It would also be of great service to political officials going from one Department to another. Indeed, the absence of such a system had at least an indirect influence in increasing our expenditure. A political official going from one Department to another found a system in the one totally different from that which prevailed in the other. The first he had brought himself to understand—perhaps to a certain extent had been its author—and the probability was that he immediately set to work to reform the system of the second Department—a serious consideration when they remembered that every change involved additional expenditure. He had scarcely done more than touch on the question, on account of its magnitude,

  809
  but he hoped he had shown enough to prove that such an investigation as he asked for would be conducive to the public interest. It would be impossible to have sound and wholesome economy until we had reformed our present system.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the existing principles and practice which in the several Public Departments and Bodies regulate the purchase and sale of materials and stores,"—(Mr. Holms,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to say in very few words that which it is necessary to state on the part of the Government with reference to the Motion of my hon. Friend, and justice compels me to commence by acknowledging that, in our opinion, my hon. Friend has performed a public service in bringing the subject before the House. With regard to the mere question of form, I hope my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw his Motion, but simply on the ground of form, inasmuch as another subject of interest is likely to follow this, which could not be brought on if my hon. Friend's Resolution were put in opposition to the Motion that you do now leave the Chair. There will, however, be no difficulty in agreeing to it when this Motion is made substantively, with the same approval on the part of the House which it will receive from the Government. My hon. Friend justly observes that there is a great deal which might be said on this question, while he had only lightly touched upon it. I think my hon. Friend in so doing exercised a sound discretion, because it is not at all required that either a case of corruption or of negligence should be established in order to warrant his Motion. In the immense magnitude of the expenditure, and in the great difficulty of regulating that expenditure properly, my hon. Friend has an ample warrant for what he has done. Necessarily an argument such as he has used assumed a somewhat accusatory colour. But I do not think that was the inten-
  810
  tion of my hon. Friend. It grew naturally out of the statements necessary to justify this inquiry. My hon. Friend is aware that in one great Department of the State considerable efforts have been made of late years by my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Baxter), now Secretary of the Treasury, and those with whom he served at the Admiralty, towards bringing the system to the best state of which it is susceptible. Upon one point, I think, my hon. Friend was not quite fully informed—namely, as to the machinery of Government applicable to this question. I will mention it without scruple, because what I have to say tends to strengthen rather than weaken the case he has made out. He appears to be under the impression that it is in the power of the Treasury to issue rules and regulations for the guidance and. conduct of the Departments with respect to the making of contracts for the supply of the public service. Well, there are certain Departments of the State, and not unimportant Departments, in regard to which undoubtedly the control of the Treasury is sole and paramount, and there, I apprehend, it would be within the power of the Treasury to issue those regulations. But still there are eases which are not of primary but secondary importance. The two great spending and contracting Departments are the War Office and the Admiralty; and I apprehend, with regard to those two Departments, it is not within the power of the Treasury, by any authority of its own, to make regulations which would bind the representatives either of the First Lord of the Admiralty or of the Secretary of State as to the manner in which they shall make contracts for the public service. My hon. Friend will see that, if I am right in this—and I do not entertain any doubt as to the correctness of what I say—that is an additional reason for appointing a Committee of this kind; because the question will arise—and it is not a very easy question, and one which will deserve careful examination—to what degree it may be possible to establish some unity of control with regard to the regulations for making contracts. This is a question of very great difficulty, in which the Executive will cordially welcome any aid it may receive from the House of Commons. The Departments of the Executive for the most part, and the great Depart-

  811
  ments in particular, have really sufficient difficulty—such is the load of their engagements—in getting through their work as it comes up from day to day, without reconsidering to that extent which I fully feel would be desirable their general position and the general rules applicable to the transaction of work. It is eminently within the constitutional functions of the House of Commons that this sort of general review and consideration should be undertaken either by it, or by its most appropriate organ—a Select Committee. Having said this, there is no reason why I should travel over the same ground as my hon. Friend. From us he will receive the most cordial assistance and co-operation. The difficulties inherent in the system of large supplies for the public service can never be altogether got over. You never can find in regard to the public service a perfect substitute for that vigilant, that ever-living sense of self-interest which applies to private concerns; but the question is, how near can we get to the provision of an efficient substitute, and my belief is that my hon. Friend will render us a very important assistance in the solution of a problem of great difficulty. I undertake to say this on the part of the Government; first, because I can say it without in the least degree appearing as a party in the case, inasmuch as no hon. Member of the Government is less immediately in contact with this subject than myself; and also because it is a matter which does not concern alone any one public Department, but embraces so many, all of whom have a common interest in lending their co-operation to my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. BROWNsaid, he was glad the Committee was to be appointed, because he was convinced it would do some real good in the matter of contracts. It should have two objects steadily in view—that the contracts should be so drawn as to protect the public, and on the other hand to do justice to the contractor. Many of these Contracts were so vexatiously framed that it was believed the best men in particular trades were prevented from sending in tenders. The supply of fuel used in that House and in other Government buildings would naturally come under one form of contract. Valuable evidence might be obtained by the Committee from the Midland and other railway companies which had store depart-
  812
  ments and used large amounts of stores, as to the best form of contracts, &c. He anticipated much benefit from the labours of the Committee.
  MR. WHITWELLbelieved that the House would receive the appointment of this Committee with unquestioned satisfaction, which would be equally shared by those contractors who supplied the large buying Departments. What was wanted in the interests of economy was the establishment of a system of cooperative buying on the part of the Government. The plan of having "select lists" in contracts was a grievous evil. Another point was that the Inspector of Contracts should never be brought into contact with the contractor. If these and other improvements were introduced great advantage was likely to arise to the service. He had no doubt that the labours of the Committee would effect a great reform in the present contract system.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it was thought by some a profitable thing to get a Government contract, but as a rule the Government did not pay too much in buying. A great many were of a different opinion, but he asserted that as far as his experience went on the subject, the Government bought very well. He had known his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter), when at the Admiralty, buy to as much advantage as anyone else was able to do. It had been pointed out by the Return of the Local Government Board on the contracts for the metropolitan workhouses, that one contract for tea was at 1s. 2d. per pound, and another at 2s. It all depended upon the quality. You could go into the market and buy tea for 9d. per pound, and there was plenty to be had for 2s. 6d. The price of sugar, tea, or any other article was, therefore, no certain criterion of quality. In most instances the Government exercised great judgment in making their purchases, and he wished to give them credit for this. Indeed, many persons who entered into contracts with the Government found that they made exceedingly little by their bargains, and, indeed, people with a large business, as a rule, would not be bothered with Government contracts. There were so many tests and examinations; and, besides, perhaps they could not get their money when they wanted it. Another difficulty arose from the

  813
  fact that individuals who were thoroughly competent to make purchases could obtain higher salaries from private firms than were given in public Departments. Again, it ought always to be borne in mind that private firms learnt to buy goods because they had afterwards to sell them. In like manner, if gentlemen in the Government offices had to sell their goods as well as buy them, they would soon learn how to purchase in the best market.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to say a few words on this subject, as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) had referred to the inquiry over which he had had the honour to preside. He felt assured that the result of the labours of the Committee just moved for would be satisfactory to the public; though he could not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Hackney as to the advantages which would accrue there from to the public service: for it was so essential to have supplies of stores at a short warning, that prompt measures must be taken to procure them, or else we must lay in a large stock of stores, in order to be prepared for any emergency. Now, of all evils in a public Department the greatest was having a large stock of stores in hand, and therefore he would caution the House not to expect too much from the coming inquiry. Nevertheless he thought the information which the Committee would obtain must be productive of some good results. The hon. Member for Hackney had alluded to the method adopted by continental nations in laying in supplies of stores; but it should be remembered that their stores were of a different description from ours and were not subjected to the same severe test. The strict inspection of stores purchased for our public Departments deterred many contractors from sending in tenders; for the Inspector was exposed to the most severe reprehension and loss if the slightest defect was discovered in any of the articles delivered. It should also not be forgotten that many articles required, especially in the War Department, were different in pattern from those in common use, and therefore required to be fabricated expressly, and would be a dead loss if rejected. He might here mention that the hon. Member for Hackney was wrong in supposing that the War Department and the Admiralty did not
  814
  act together in purchasing certain articles; for instance, groceries, salt meat, rope, and other articles, were obtained by the War Department from the Naval stores; while the Admiralty was supplied by the War Office with ordnance, projectiles, and ammunition. In expressing his satisfaction at the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government having so readily assented to the Motion, he wished to express his conviction that whatever mistakes might have been made, it would be found that his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir Henry Storks), and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, had given great attention to the subject, and had carefully watched over the interests of the public service, in everything relating to contracts and the purchase of stores. In conclusion, he said he was sure his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon would willingly testify that the War Department owed much to the services of Mr. Thomas Howell, who for 17 years had acted as Director of Contracts, and who was a most excellent and conscientious public servant.
  MR. BAXTERwished to make a few remarks, because what had been said by his Eon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) might possibly confirm a misapprehension which existed in the public mind on the subject of arbitration. It was supposed that when a contractor sent in goods to the Admiralty or the War Office he was entirely dependent on the judgment of the Inspector, from which there was no appeal whatever. This was formerly the case, he regretted to say. The consequence which was found to be produced was, that many men of the highest positions would not submit to the judgment of an official who was probably in the receipt of a very small salary, whose decision could not be appealed against, and who in some instances had no special qualification for judging between one article and another. Many years ago a change was made at the War Office, and he had not been at the Admiralty more than a month or two when he mentioned to the First Lord of the Admiralty the fact that the practice at the War Office had been altered, and said he thought it indispensable that there should be an appeal from the decision of an Inspector of Contracts direct to the Financial Secretary. His advice had been adopted, and

  815
  now whenever a contractor felt himself aggrieved and thought his tender ought to have been accepted, all he had to do was to write to the Financial Secretary, who would at once direct that an officer should be appointed to judge between the contractor and the Department. There were now no complaints, and he wished it to be understood among the mercantile classes who were likely to send tenders to the Admiralty that there was an appeal against the decision of Inspectors.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SCARCITY OF COAL.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MUNDELLArose to move that—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the present dearness and scarcity of Coal, and report thereon to the House."
  The hon. Member stated it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any great length, as he understood the Government would assent to the appointment of the Committee. In proposing this Motion he begged to say that he had no desire to establish any theory of his own, or to induce the House to interfere with the general course of business in this country. He had no foregone conclusion on the matter, and all he was anxious for was that coal consumers should have on record evidence of an undoubted character as to the causes of the present dearness and scarcity of coal, in order that we might in future guard against them, if it were possible. The importance of the question it was hardly possible to exaggerate, seeing that coal was the source of the motive power of our national industries, and therefore as a necessary stood next to food. No doubt the excessive dearness of fuel was now inflicting great hardships and privations upon tens of thousands of poor people, but it was in reference to the employment of our people that this question was of greater importance than it was as a question affecting their comfort. Some of us experienced a rude shock when Sir William Armstrong, basing his calculations on the present ratio in the increased consumption of our coal, concluded that our coal pits would be exhausted in 110 years; and, although many of us might desire to live as long as we could, few would
  816
  desire to live within 20 or 30 years of that exhaustion, for nothing more disastrous could be contemplated. Even if we might be hopeful that Sir William Armstrong had taken too desponding a view of our coal supply, and of what could be done by economizing and utilizing our resources, he was quite right in estimating two years ago the increased cost to the country of the consumption of coal at £44,000,000 per annum. That was considerably under the mark; and he (Mr. Mundella) had heard the increased cost estimated at as high a figure as the total amount of the taxation of the country. A vast proportion of this increase was undoubtedly paid by the foreign consumer, in the higher prices of iron, rails, steel, and manufactured goods of every description; but a large proportion was also paid by the people of this country, and that was already producing disastrous results to the industry of the country, for mills were being stopped and labour disorganized, and he had been told of one place in Lancashire where the wages paid were £1,000 a day less than they would be but for the dearness of coal. Therefore if its price were maintained, the most disastrous results must ensue. A large proportion of the apparent loss to the country went into the pockets of the coal-owners, but they were a very small class of the community, and the mass of the people was suffering from the cause of their prosperity. There was growing up in the country a strong feeling that measures ought to be taken by the Government to meet the difficulty. He did not expect the Government could or would interfere with the ordinary laws of supply and demand; but he believed a sound public opinion could do much to put an end to the existing state of things. The very Notice of this Motion had called the attention of the coal-owners, the miners, and consumers throughout the country to this question, and it had begun to operate in the direction of a reduction of the price and an increase of the supply. Since he had put the Notice on the Paper, indignation meetings had been held in many parts of the country, and in many districts, particularly near Sheffield, a feeling was manifested in favour of the entire prohibition of the export of coal. Before anything was done in that direction, it was well that public opinion should be well informed as to the real facts of the case; and,

  817
  amongst other reasons, it was in order that an intelligent public opinion might be created, that he moved for a Committee. He had received numerous letters, some of them from men of very high intelligence, suggesting that the Government should assume the control of the undeveloped mines of the country. It was very important, however, that before dealing with the rights of property, or what were believed to be the rights of property, they should have the requisite information on the subject. Various causes had been assigned for the present dearness and scarcity of coal. Sir William Armstrong said the demand had overtaken the supply, and that a very small increase in labour on the part of the workmen would enable the coal-owners to meet the demand. He did not wish to dispute that, nor did he wish to establish any theory of his own, but he quite concurred in the statement that the coal-owners had long been aware that the limitation of quantity was the only effectual mode of raising prices, and that what they had never been able to do by their own action—namely, to maintain a restricted production—had been done for them by their workmen. His hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, in a speech at Reading a few months ago which created some sensation, attributed the present dearness of coal to a combination of the coal-owners. The coal-owners very indignantly repudiated that statement, and he (Mr. Mundella) could not say from any evidence that had come before him that there had been anything like a coal rig, or combination of coal-owners, and even if he had such evidence he would not state it in view of an inquiry by a Committee. He was quite sure that the coal-owners were willing parties to the present diminished production, and that they had no objection to pocket the enormous prices that were being paid. On the other hand, the coal-owner assigned the present state of affairs to the idleness and profligacy of the workmen; and if that were so, it was the first time in modern experience that the idleness and profligacy of workmen had been turned to so good an account by their employers. But if there were any truth in this assertion of the coal-owners, it was exceedingly deplorable. As an advocate of the rights of association, he felt it his duty to denounce in the strongest manner any attempt on the
  818
  part of workmen either to shirk their work or to combine together to restrict production, and diminish the stocks which could be raised by their employers; and it was therefore in the highest degree desirable that a Committee of this House should ascertain whether there was really any foundation for such a statement, and that the working class should bring their opinion to bear upon that small portion of their own class to induce them to conduct themselves with propriety and industry. He was glad to see that this week working men themselves were bringing their influence to bear upon their fellow-workmen, and that the Clay Cross colliers—a numerous body in Derbyshire—had met and passed a resolution pledging themselves, seeing the serious state of things that resulted from the scarcity of coal, to attend work regularly; and the speakers denounced those who, by neglecting their employment, were doing so much harm to the country at large. The evils of combination were not beyond the reach of intelligent public opinion, and the true way of making the working men temperate, thrifty, and industrious, was to bring to bear on them the influence of their own class. But the men repudiate the assertion that they were thriftless and idle; and there was certainly something to be said on the other side of the question. He had before him figures for the correctness of which he could vouch. They were a statement of the output of coal from a mine in which he was interested, and they had been worked out by the manager himself. From that statement it appeared that coals which a year and a-half ago in the South-West Riding of Yorkshire were sold at the pit's mouth at from 6s. to 8s. per ton, and in London from 18 s. to 20 s. per ton—the wages paid for under and above ground labour being 2s. 6½d. per ton—last week were sold at the pit's mouth at from 18 s. to 20 s. per ton, the difference being 12 s. to 14 s.; and in London, after paying 8s. per ton as the cost of transit, they were sold at from 45 s. to 50 s. per ton, and to poor people, who purchase in small quantities, at 60 s. And what had been the miners' wages? He could vouch for the truth of this statement also. The wages in the very same mine paid last week had been 3s. 2½d. per ton, as against 2s. 6½d. a year and a-half ago. There appeared

  819
  to be an impression in the country that the strike in South Wales had a great deal to do with the increased price of coal; but there never was a greater mistake. He was assured on all hands that the strike had rather increased the supply of house and steam coal than decreased it. The men who had been engaged in raising coal for the production of iron had gone into the house and steam coal mines, and there had thus been a larger supply of those descriptions of coal in South Wales than before the strike began. It might be asked how such an inquiry as he proposed could affect the price or supply of this important commodity? He did not expect, as the result of the Committee's labours, any legislation interfering with the trade; but he did expect that some light would be thrown on the whole question which would show the public how the present state of affairs had come about. Last week the coal proprietors of South Yorkshire had a meeting and denounced the middle-men, who they said were pocketing more than 20 s. per ton on the coal sold in London. If there was such a monopoly in this great metropolis, it was quite time it should be exposed and means taken to remedy it. The notice of the Committee had already operated in reducing the price, and he believed it would also operate in increasing the supply. While the various parties interested in the matter were reproaching each other, they might be satisfied that the result of their mutual quarrels would be to benefit the public, and the probability was that they would have the price of this most important part of their national industry, employment, and comfort materially reduced. He begged to move the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. Friend, and to express his satisfaction that the Government had thought fit to accede to this inquiry. He supported the Motion, not because he believed it would be productive of any good. He did not believe it would teach practical men—persons conversant with trade generally—anything that they did not know at present; but he thought it would have a tendency to remove a considerable amount of misapprehension which prevailed in the public mind on this subject. He could not help thinking that he had detected traces of error and misapprehension in the state-
  820
  ment of his hon. Friend opposite; and if errors and misapprehensions existed, a Committee was an excellent place to dispel them. It was upon that ground desirable that an inquiry should be instituted. He would illustrate what he meant by a reference to another matter, which had occupied public attention rather extensively. He saw or heard that somebody recently described a Royal Commission as a Commission whose object was— "to lower the price of horses from national considerations." Now he did not believe it was in the power of a Royal Commission or of a Committee of this House to lower the price either of horses or coal, even from national considerations. It was not in the power of Parliament to alter the inexorable laws of supply and demand, and therefore he was afraid that they would not do much to lower the price of coal by the researches of this Committee, but though it was not in the power of Parliament to reduce the price of favourite articles of consumption, he must remind the House it was in their power to enhance the price of such articles. It had often been done before, and he had no great confidence that it might not happen again. Every time that this House interfered with labour it had that tendency. He had often seen attempts made in this House to interfere very materially with labour, and he had little doubt that labour had a great deal to do with the present price of coal. The whole history of the present state of affairs in the coal trade might be briefly described. Coal was the first necessity in manufacturing industry, and they had seen the industry of this country expanded in what he might almost call a supernatural degree. The demand for that first necessity had consequently overtaken the supply, and when that took place it was impossible to tell to what a pitch prices might reach, because every accidental circumstance might tend to increase them. Then their friends the workmen stepped in, and not unnaturally said—" You coal-owners are making enormous profits; we must share them." Thus wages rose. The workman found that he could earn as much or more than he did before by working less time, and the effect of that was that the output of coal was diminished. Up went at once the price of coal again, and there was a great national—he would not say

  821
  grievance—but calamity, which, like an enormous snowball, went on rolling—vires aequirit eundo—and it would be difficult for the most sensible men in the House or out of it to predict what might happen or what the issue might be. Unless wiser counsels prevailed, his belief was that a long continuance of the present price of coals would end in crippling and paralyzing the productive power of the country, and in banishing capital to distant but freer fields. This he believed, and he stated his belief openly on the floor of the House of Commons, in order that those who understood the question might contradict him if they could. His hon. Friend and many other people said—"Oh, the coal-owners are making the most of all this, and putting all this money into their pockets." Well, he knew that they were making a good deal of money, and so also were the coal merchants; but were traders to be debarred from "making hay while the sun shines?" He wished to point out that what the coal trade flourished by was a steady demand and fair prices. It was the lasting price that was beneficial; an exaggerated and inflated state of prices was looked upon with apprehension by prudent men, because it could not last; it must come to an end, and the end would probably be a crash. The coal-owners would like to see a steady demand at reduced prices, because such a state of trade would be continuous. He thought that the proposed Committee might do good. He thought also that it might do good in a way which had not been alluded to; it might tend to teach the working men what he wished they would study a little more—and that was the condition of the trade in which they were employed. The English working men employed very clever agents to obtain all kinds of information, and to give them much advice—often mistaken advice—but if they would employ persons to go abroad and find out what kindred interests and industries were doing, what probability there was of those rivals profiting by the decided check these prices were already inflicting, or would inflict on British industry, such information would go to the hearts of English workmen, who would be quite sensible enough to understand it. If information of this nature resulted from the researches of the Committee, con-
  822
  ducted with a real view to the public interest, it would be extensively studied by our workmen, and nothing would so much tend to terminate the deplorable conflicts between capital and labour as a thorough comprehension of the conditions of manufacturing industries in which they were both engaged. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the present dearness and scarcity of Coal, and report thereon to the House," —(Mr. Mundella,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he thought there could be scarcely two opinions as to the advisability of the question being investigated by a Committee of' the House of Commons. The price of coals in this country went to the very root of its manufactures. There could be no question that the greatness and the prosperity of this country had arisen, in the main, from the cheapness of its coal, and disastrous consequences would ensue to our manufacturing industries from a continuance for any length of time of present prices or anything approaching them. Indeed, many of our great industries would no longer be able to exist. The great smelting industries, with which he was intimately acquainted, were already largely suffering, depending, as they did, on the cheapness of fuel. We imported ores of every kind from all parts of the world, and we should no longer be the great smelting centre of the globe if the present price of coal continued. He would touch very slightly on the present state of things. He believed the well-known and unalterable laws of supply and demand were at the root of the difficulty. He had no doubt that the commencement of the present high prices arose from the exceeding prosperity of the manufactures of this country, especially the great iron manufacture. Everybody desired at one moment to increase the quantity of iron and other manufactured goods, which could only be done by increasing the consumption of coal. In all trades it was found that a very small excess of demand produced an extraordinary increase of production; and such was the

  823
  case with the iron trade—a very slight deficiency, marked almost by a decimal fraction, would produce the evil under which England now suffered. He was not at all sure that he should find that the output of coals had been largely diminished; but he had no doubt that the short hours during which the men had worked, and the extent to which they had restricted themselves in the quantity of coals which they had worked during those hours, had had a material effect on the maintenance of the high prices. A rising price, as his hon. Friend had remarked, acted on wages, and rising wages acted on prices; and it was impossible to say where such a state of things might end. When he moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission in 1866 to inquire into this question, he expressed a very decided opinion in that House, and he gave his reasons for believing that a bountiful Providence had provided this country with such an enormous store of this precious mineral as should rid us of all apprehension of a failure of supply within any reasonable time. The results of the Inquiry by the Royal Commission corresponded almost exactly with the figures which he had submitted to the House; and he thought therefore that he needed not to speculate on the increased consumption of coals on either the arithmetical or the geometrical ratio. Those who investigated the case in that way were bound to show what other conditions must subsist if the increased consumption of coals went on according to either of those ratios. As he showed in 1866, such assumption involved a production of iron which was perfectly fabulous, and so dense a population as almost to make it impossible to supply them with water enough to drink. It was absurd, therefore, to say our coal would last only 100 years, for our population could not increase with the rapidity which this involved. He predicted in 1866 that the difficulty of the future would be labour, and so it had proved. From all the experience which he gained from that Royal Commission, he said again that the stores of those valuable minerals in this country were unbounded. At the present rate of consumption, we had coals enough to last us upwards of 1,200 years. He arrived at this point after a most careful calculation. The coals were almost measured and weighed.
  824
  The district which he undertook, and he believed every other, were investigated as carefully, and each seam as carefully estimated, as anyone might investigate a mineral property which he was about to purchase. He thought, therefore, the country might rely in the most absolute manner on the results given by the Royal Commission; and his opinion was that other coalfields would afterwards be discovered in the South of England and elsewhere, which would largely increase the quantity of coal which they were able conscientiously to report; so that, as far as that was concerned, they might dismiss all their fears. The question of labour in a colliery was not precisely the same as it was in almost any other industry. He had, indeed, been able to turn good intelligent labourers into thoroughly good colliers; but though there was no insuperable difficulty in doing that, still it took time—a great element in matters of that kind. He could only hope that the Committee would be carefully selected, so that its Members might not have any special bias, but that they should assume as nearly as possible a thoroughly judicial character.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he supported the appointment of a Committee to investigate into all the circumstances which had led to the enormous rise in the price of coals. He trusted that such an investigation would show who were the real sinners, and whether it was to the miners, the coal-owners, or the intermediate men, the coal dealers, that they wore indebted for such small mercies as were vouchsafed to them in that matter. He was himself connected with one of the London gas companies which was at that moment applying to the House for increased powers to enable it to obtain an increased price for its gas in consequence of the increased sum it had to pay for coal; therefore he felt deeply interested in the question before the House. It was a source of satisfaction to learn from the last speaker that the amount of coal in this country was so great, although his views on that point did not quite accord with those of Sir William Armstrong and Professor Jevons.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsuggested that the proposed Committee should direct its inquiries, among other points, to the question of how far it was desirable, in regard especially to those countries

  825
  with which we had no treaties prohibiting it, to place an export duty on coal.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the Government had no difficulty in acceding to the desire of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject of the increased cost of coal. He had too great confidence in the knowledge and good sense of the people to suppose they would expect the result of the Committee to be that the Government or Parliament would interfere with the production of coal; but he thought that the importance of the subject was such, and the advantage of enlightenment so considerable, that it would be wrong to lose the opportunity of obtaining the fullest information on the question. A good deal had been said about the causes of the sudden and enormous rise in the price of coal which had naturally excited such interest and anxiety. Most speakers had alluded to the great influence of the supply of fuel on the commercial greatness of this country, and also to the intense suffering which its dearness inflicted on a large part of the community. There was no doubt the immediate cause of the rise in the price of coal was a concurrence of two circumstances. The one was the sudden expansion of the demand for iron at the same time that there was a general increase in almost every description of trade in which fuel was essential to production, and the other was the coincidence of a great demand for increased wages among the colliery population. There had also been at the very moment when the demand for coal was greatest a considerable reduction in the amount of labour applied to the production of coal. He was unable to give the figures showing the amount of coal produced in the last year as compared with preceding years, for the Returns for the Government on that subject were not yet complete. The general result, however, of the information he had been able to gather from Inspectors on that point was, he thought, very much that which had been arrived at by his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian). He believed there had been little decline positively in the production of coal last year, but that relatively to former years, relatively especially to the great increase in the demand
  826
  for coal, there had not been that increased production of it which might have been naturally expected. There had been an immense increase in the means taken by capitalists to meet the demand for coal, but there had not been corresponding exertions made by the working population to supply coal. He spoke from unimpeachable sources of information when he said that in his own district the increase of the rate of wages had led not simply to a decrease in the actual amount of coal yielded, but to a positive decrease of the earnings of the workmen themselves. In some of the largest collieries in his neigh bourhood last year the total amount of wages paid to the workmen, although their rate of wages per ton had considerably increased, was less than it had been in the preceding year. That, he feared, had arisen partly from the determination of the men who had allied themselves to the trades' unions to diminish the supply of coal in order to raise its price and their own wages, and partly also, to a very great extent, to the extraordinary agitation which the state of the coal market produced among the working class. The men naturally expected to participate in the large profits made through the increased price of coal, and they hardly knew how much to ask. The consequence had been that workmen, hitherto industrious and regular in their attention to their work, had been content to work three days a-week, and, to his certain knowledge, in some cases only two days a-week, and in that way they earned far less wages. He believed, however, they were now recovering to a great degree from that error; and that, owing to the strong expression of public opinion and to the advice of some of their leaders, who were very sensible to public feeling, an improvement in that respect was occurring. At that moment probably the production of coal in South Wales was as great as it had been in any previous year. The strike there had nothing whatever to do with its production. The strike applied to the iron trade, and the coal used in the production of iron. But from a great number of the colliers engaged in the iron trade having transferred their labour to collieries worked for the general market, and also from a better feeling—and in fact a return to their old habits of industry on the part of the working population—there

  827
  was at the present moment undoubtedly a very marked increase in the production of coal. He was not surprised at the effect of the extraordinary condition of the trade on the minds of the colliers. Nor did he blame the coal-owners for making the best of the large demand. They could not expect a peculiar and exceptional generosity from any class. What they could expect was an enlightened self-interest, and he believed that enlightened men among them were discovering that the late enormous price of coal would not operate altogether to their own advantage—that it was paralyzing other kinds of industry, and must ultimately exercise an evil effect upon their own trade. It was seen that at this moment, when in all parts of the world there was the greatest demand for the products of this country, our manufacturers were in many instances actually obliged to reduce their ordinary establishments, from the simple fact that they were unable to obtain cheaper fuel. But out of evil often came good, and one good that would probably come out of the present high prices of coal would be that it would lead the people of this country, whether those who were engaged in manufacture or who consumed coal merely for domestic purposes, to be more economical in its use. He had conversed with intelligent gentlemen connected with the iron trade, who had travelled in France and Germany for the purpose of comparing the modes of production and manufacture in those countries and in England, and they had assured him that no one circumstance struck them so forcibly as the difference between those two countries and England with respect to the use of coals. There was a careful and economical use of coals in France and Germany, and a wasteful consumption in this country. But we had now learnt a lesson which he hoped we should profit by. Economy in the use of coal was in progress in our steam Navy, where the economic employment of coal was of double importance, not only on account of the actual price paid for fuel, but on account of the large room for the carriage of goods which a smaller quantity of coal would admit of. We knew that the same motive power was now obtained by about half the quantity of coal which used to be obtained some years ago, and he supposed there was hardly a boiler in use
  828
  throughout the country for which so much coal was burned as 10 years ago. In other directions efforts were being made to economise, and in proportion to the rise in price would those efforts increase. They would no doubt have the effect of preventing the gradual increase in the consumption of coal to which reference had been made. Sir William Armstrong suggested that if the increase in the consumption of coal went on at the same rate as it had done during the last 20 or 30 years we should come to the end of our coal supplies in about 110 years. But his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan-shire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had stated that it was a physical impossibility that the same ratio of consumption should be kept up, and over and above the reason his hon. Friend gave for his opinion, there was the increased price of the article. An hon. Member had alluded to the legislation of this House as having had some effect in raising the price of coal. No doubt one effect of the Mines Act of last Session was to limit the labour of young persons under 16 years of age to 54 hours per week. But he would like to know whether the coal-owners of this country would not be glad to bargain for 54 hours a-week from their workmen. He had asked one of the most experienced of the Inspectors—a man of fair and candid mind—for his estimate of the cost which the Mines Act added to the production of coal, and his estimate was that it had added 2d. a-ton. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect from that legislation a better educated body of men, and that, in his opinion, would more than counterbalance the loss to the community in the increased price of 2d. a-ton, or even a very much larger sum. All these matters, however, would be considered by the Select Committee, and the Government would as far as possible aid in fulfilling the desire of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire that the Committee should be composed of men likely to give the fullest and, at the same time, the fairest consideration to the subject.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  COAL,—Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the causes of the present dearness and scarcity of Coal, and report thereon to the House."
  And, on March 4, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Mr. CORRANCE, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. WHARTON, Mr. CARTER, Mr. DENISON, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. PEASE, Mr. JOHN STEWART HARDY, Mr. Ploy Mr. GRIEVE, Mr. EDMUND POTTER, Mr. WATNEY, Mr. STAN-HOPE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. MUNDELLA:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* (21).
FOREIGN DECORATIONS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD HOUGHTONrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is his intention to interfere with the acceptance of foreign decorations that may be awarded to any British subjects engaged or employed in the Vienna Exhibition of 1873, not being in Her Majesty's service? and to move an Address for certain Correspondence, and said: My Lords, I do not know that I should have considered the subject I have placed on the Paper of sufficient importance to be brought before your Lordships' House had I not accidentally been placed in a position which has forced upon my mind a strong conviction that under cover of the general principle that has been adopted in regard to these matters, much individual injustice has been committed. The point to which I wish to direct the attention of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is the position in which the rules of the Office over which he presides, as to the prevention of Her Majesty's subjects from receiving any foreign decoration or honour, may place foreign Sovereigns who, either through private friendship or from public reasons, may wish to confer such a distinction on any of our countrymen. But I am anxious, in the first place, very clearly to lay down what points in this matter I do not wish to interfere with. I shall feel obliged to my noble Friend to consider this point particularly, because no doubt what I am about to say might otherwise be misinterpreted. I have no intention to interfere with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government—or rather of Her
  774
  Majesty herself—as to any decoration, honour, office, or promotion, or any matter of that kind, in connection with persons in Her Majesty's service. Over all such matters Her Majesty must maintain the most absolute authority; and unless in some very peculiar case, in which public opinion is directed against them, all necessary regulations are made and are acted upon without difficulty. I wish, therefore, distinctly to state that I do not wish to interfere with any rule that has been made or may hereafter be made with regard to such persons as may be holding commissions under Her Majesty in respect to their receiving or wearing the decorations of the Sovereign of any foreign country. Nor, on the other hand, would I seek to interfere with any regulation Her Majesty may choose to make with regard to her own Court. These must depend entirely on her own will. Such being the case, I wish to direct my noble Friend's attention to some facts which I will now state. In 1867, I had the gratification of being one of Her Majesty's Commissioners in connection with the International Exhibition at Paris. With others, I took an active part in the management of that Exhibition, and in the distribution of the prizes, and in the recommendation of such exhibitors who were thought fit to receive some honour or reward, and I know that among the persons on whom it was thought fit to bestow honour or reward in the shape of a medal were many British subjects. That form of honour was no doubt, most satisfactory to those who obtained it. But there were also a considerable number of persons engaged in that Exhibition to whom it would have been inappropriate to accord medals or any such recognition for the trouble they had taken or the merit they had shown in connection with the Exhibition. Many of the persons who assisted in the way I did myself were men distinguished in science, art, or literature; and there were also persons who, though not equally distinguished, had taken great trouble in the management of the Exhibition, and had been very useful to others. When the rewards were to be distributed, I was asked to draw out a list of persons who were to receive such form of approbation as it might please the Emperor of the French to confer on them. The same request

  775
  was made of other gentlemen connected with the Exhibition as I was. But the other day I was surprised to find that while the services of the subjects of every other nation had been recognised in the only manner they could have been, some communication had taken place between the French Government and the head of our Foreign Office, who considered it impossible that any British subject could be allowed to receive such reward for his labour and services. I quite understand that a distinction might have been drawn as between myself and others, who, being Commissioners, were Her Majesty's representatives on the occasion, and persons who did not hold any sort of commission from the Crown. Indeed, I think it to be fully in accordance with the spirit of the Regulations on the subject that persons in the position we held should be held to be inhibited from receiving decorations. But there was some interference on the part of the Foreign Office which prevented the persons to whom I allude from being properly and justly rewarded. It did strike me as such a flagrant injustice that I now call attention to it. I do not wish it to be repeated. In the International Exhibition of 1855, under the presidency of Prince Napoleon, where the circumstances were entirely similar, no such inhibition was placed on British subjects—they stood in the same position as the subjects of other nations. Several Members of both Houses of Parliament were decorated at that time with the Legion of Honour; and I believe the same thing occurred with regard to all the Exhibitions that have taken place in Europe. There is now to be another of those occasions when great public interest will be excited, and when it is to be desired that England should make the best appearance possible. I think it would be a great discouragement to all English subjects who have anything to do with the preparations for the Vienna Exhibition if they heard that this special prohibition was to be in force against them, and that whatever the trouble and expense to which they might be put, and whatever the services they might render, they would be debarred by some unknown and mysterious regulation from accepting any recognition by Order or decoration which it might please the Emperor of Austria to wish to confer upon them. In 1855 Lord Elcho, Mr.
  776
  Redgrave, Mr. Wheatstone, Mr. De la Rue, and other gentlemen received decorations, and several of them would have received additional decorations in 1867 but for the interference of the Foreign Office, and this, no doubt, was the cause of great discontent. Englishmen not in the service of Her Majesty are at liberty to do anything against which there is no positive command, and I am not aware that there is any Act of Parliament against their receiving foreign decorations; nor do I know of the right of inhibition in this matter having been exercised in any such formal way as to make Englishmen regard it as the duty of every loyal subject to submit himself to the rule laid down in 1867. There was a circumstance in connection with the action of the Foreign Office on that occasion which went to show how entirely it was optional. One would have supposed that if such a rule ought to apply to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects not holding commissions, it ought to apply to them all; but, as a matter of fact, subjects of Her Majesty from Canada and from all other British Colonies received decorations in 1867, and were thus allowed to stand on the same footing with people of all other nations. It is a great object in International Exhibitions that no distinction should be drawn between the subjects of one nation and the subjects of another; and I believe it will produce a feeling of great discomfort if my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office should say that he will consider it his duty to prevent any English subject from accepting a decoration of the kind to which I refer at the forthcoming Vienna Exhibition. My noble Friend will see that this matter, though apparently frivolous, touches the feelings of many of Her Majesty's subjects. My noble Friend will remember that Lord Macaulay received the Order of Merit from the King of Prussia; and I think it would not be grateful to the feelings of an Englishman distinguished in literature or art to hear that, in consequence of some mysterious regulation, he would not be allowed to accept such an Order if offered to him by the Monarch of the German Empire. I beg to ask my noble Friend, Whether it is his intention to interfere with the acceptance of foreign decorations that may be awarded to any British subjects engaged or employed in the

  777
  Vienna Exhibition of 1873, not being in Her Majesty's service? Further, I beg to move for a copy of the Correspondence that passed between the French Government and our Foreign Office in 1867 on the subject of Foreign Decorations.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of any correspondence that may have passed between the Foreign Office and the Government of France with regard to decorations that might be offered for British subjects engaged or employed in the International Exhibition of Paris.—(The Lord Houghton.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: Before I reply to my noble Friend, I beg to repeat an observation which I made to him when he told me he had put his Notice on the Paper. I told him then that I thought he had couched his Question in a somewhat invidious form, because it represents me as having needlessly and officiously interfered with the grant of honours due to certain persons in this country. My Lords, I can assure my noble Friend that that is not the case. With regard to the particular instance to which my noble Friend has more particularly referred, I only took the course which it has been my duty to adopt on previous occasions. I was myself connected with the International Exhibition held in 1867, alluded to by the noble Lord, and the French Government asked me whether Her Majesty's Government had any objection to the acceptance by certain British subjects connected with the Exhibition of the Legion d'Honneur. It was my duty to answer, that in accordance with the Regulations in existence, no such permission could be given. To individuals who asked me the same question I had, as a matter of course, to give the same reply. The noble Lord speaks as if this Regulation dated only since 1855. I believe it has been held for centuries that orders from foreign Sovereigns could not be held by English subjects without the consent of their own Sovereign. My noble Friend's historical knowledge must have put him in possession of the saying of Queen Elizabeth—that she did not like her dogs to wear any collar but her own. The same sentiment was repeated in a more bucolic manner by George III. when he said he liked his sheep to be marked with his own mark. I do not say, my Lords, that there was not something coarse in this somewhat despotic observation;
  778
  but it contains the germ of good sense, and a right appreciation of the national feeling that for Englishmen, at all events, the Sovereign should be the only fountain of honour. My Lords, with regard to the instances referred to by my noble Friend as those in which he says that no objection was made to the reception of foreign decorations by Englishmen, I do not know anything about them. Lord Elcho may have the Legion of Honour, but certainly I never saw Lord Elcho with a decoration on his breast. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth two exceptions were permitted. Her Majesty allowed the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Leicester to accept decorations from the King of France; but when another gentleman ventured to act on these two exceptions and take the Order, Queen Elizabeth's proceedings were very summary—the offender was committed to close imprisonment in the Fleet, and was forced to return the Order. No further steps were taken in respect of foreign Orders till George III.'s time, when the inconvenience became so manifest that in 1812—and not in 1855, as my noble Friend seems to suppose—the Regulation to which my noble Friend has alluded was drawn up on the recommendation of Lord Castlereagh. According to the terms of this Regulation no subject of Her Majesty is allowed to accept any Order of a foreign State unless the same is conferred in consequence of active and distinguished service against an enemy, either at sea or in the field, or unless he is actually employed in the service of the Sovereign who confers the distinction. There is one exception to the rule so laid down, and it is only fair that I should mention it. When the Sovereign of this country sends a person to a foreign Sovereign with an Order, it has been the; custom to allow that person to receive an Order from the Sovereign to whom he is sent. It appears to me that this exception does not stand on such clear ground as do the cases of the persons mentioned in the Regulation; but there is, at all events, this great distinction between it and the case of individuals generally—that the person who is sent out to another Sovereign with an Order is in some degree selected for the receipt of a decoration by his own Sovereign, because she knows when she sends him on his mission that he is sure to be offered the de-

  779
  coration. I must say that I think the noble Lord weakened his case when he said he did not wish in any way to include persons in the service of the Queen. Without wishing to detract from the merits of other persons, there is an instinctive feeling that such honours are more suitable to men who have risked their lives with the soldiers or sailors of another country against a common enemy than they are to persons engaged in peaceful pursuits; but I think also that persons in the Civil Service would have great reason to complain if they alone, of all the community, were to be debarred from receiving such honours. I had the honour to be sent to Moscow to the coronation of the Emperor of Russia at a time when I had not yet had the honour to be enrolled in that distinguished and historic Order of which since then, though most unworthy, I have been made a member. Well, my Lords, at that time, not from any merit of my own, but owing to circumstances, I had had the offer of several foreign Orders which, as a matter of course, I had refused; and my noble Friend now beside me (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then our Minister at the Court of Russia, and myself, and our Secretaries, appeared at the coronation of the Emperor, without a single decoration, while the breast of every person around us was covered with decorations. I remember, my Lords, that on that occasion several members of the diplomatic circle reminded me of what Prince Metternich said at the Congress of Vienna, when it was pointed out to him that Lord Castlereagh was the only representative at the Congress who bore no decoration, and added that although they wore foreign Orders themselves, they had seen at particular times, and with particular objects, Orders given in such a manner as made them of opinion that our rule was the best. The remark of Prince Metternich was—"Ma foi, c'est bien distingué." I think, my Lords, the Regulation on this subject is sound and good; and when the noble Lord says that he wishes exceptions to be made to the rule, my reply is that it is impossible to make exceptions at all without breaking down the whole thing. The noble Lord seems to think that before 1867 there was no difficulty in the way of any one wearing any decoration that might have been offered to and received by him, and he has referred to
  780
  the case of Lord Macaulay and the Order of Merit. When that Order was offered to Lord Macaulay my noble Friend (Lord Malmesbury) filled the office of Foreign Secretary; and what was his reply when asked for a permission? He said that, with the greatest respect for Lord Macaulay, the rule against English subjects being permitted to accept foreign decorations was one to which no exception could be made, however distinguished the person to whom the Order was offered. I am sure my noble Friend will not accuse me of wishing to undervalue the Vienna Exhibition; but how could an exception be made in respect of this particular Exhibition? I should have thought that this would have appeared clear to one with the literary merits and cosmopolitan experience of my noble Friend. I may refer to a case that occurred during the last war. The Legion of Honour was offered to Colonel Loyd Lindsay, who already bore the Victoria Cross on his breast, who was in every way worthy of the honour the French Government offered to confer upon him, and in whose case an exception to our general rule would, I venture to think, have been equally agreeable to Germany as to France. But I should have been obliged to make the same answer in his case as I have in all others, if from other reasons he had not been entitled to wear it. I wish to point out some of the difficulties which would probably have arisen from a compliance with the application for permission in Colonel Loyd Lindsay's case. He had distinguished himself in bringing aid to the wounded; but at the same time he was doing that, there were others engaged in it. In France, there were subjects of Her Majesty engaged in it who might have been influenced by political and religious feelings. Some of them belonged to the Home Rule party. If permission to wear a foreign decoration were given to these persons, the exception would have been made in favour of men who to some extent deny the supremacy of the Sovereign; but if the distinction was offered to them on the ground of their being engaged in a humane work, your Lordships will see what a difficulty would have arisen in their case. With regard to the rule itself, I think it is a good and wise one to maintain. I have no doubt that if this rule were abrogated there would

  781
  be a small percentage of Englishmen intriguing at the great and small Courts for the purpose of bringing home on their breasts decorations, in some instances of considerable consequence, but in other instances signifying not the value of one brass farthing in the mind of anyone knowing anything of those matters. I have no desire to interfere to prevent honour being bestowed on any man who is worthy of it; but I think it is impossible your Lordships can fail to see the necessity for a stringent rule on the subject of foreign decorations. I should like to add that at the time of the International Exhibition of 1862, this subject was discussed at a meeting of Members of both sides of this and the other House of Parliament, and of the representatives from the chief manufacturing and commercial centres. A proposal that permission ought to be given to Englishmen to receive foreign decorations was introduced at that meeting by a friend of mine, but it received no support, and his motion was either withdrawn or rejected. I think that fact shows that, whatever may be said of individual cases, there is a general feeling in favour of such a Regulation as that to which my noble Friend raises an objection.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that during the short time that he held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he had occasion to consider this question fully. He then came to the same conclusion as the noble Earl the present Foreign Secretary—that it was of paramount importance to uphold the principle that the Sovereign was the sole fountain of honour; and therefore he was quite prepared to express his opinion in favour of the Regulation in favour of which his noble Friend had spoken so strongly. Great inconveniences would follow if that Regulation were to be repealed; and to make occasional exceptions at the choice of the Secretary of State would be of invidious tendency. At the same time, he regretted that there was no Order emanating from the Crown of England which was applicable to persons who, like those that had been referred to, had spent much time and shown much zeal at foreign Exhibitions, and other useful objects. He thought the Sovereign had not sufficient means of conferring honour on persons who distinguished themselves otherwise than
  782
  by military services. The Order of the Bath, as at present constituted, did not enable Her Majesty to do it; and he regretted that an Order of Merit, or some such Order, was not instituted in this country. He hoped that some day it would be.
  EARL GREYalso wished to express the satisfaction with which he had listened to the speech of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was satisfied that the rule in existence on this subject was a wholesome one, and that its abrogation would at no distant date lead to serious abuses. He admitted with his noble Friend who had just sat down that there was a good deal to be said in favour of an Order of Merit; but, on the other hand, there were objections to it.
  LORD HOUGHTON,after a few words of explanation, said, he would withdraw his Motion for an Address.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

HORSES—OUR SUPPLY OF HORSES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of this country with regard to horses, and its capabilities of supplying any present or future demand for them.—(The Lord Rosebery.)
  Motion agreed to.
  And, on Monday, February 24, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  D. Cambridge.

  E. Grey.

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  V. Falmouth.

  D. Richmond.

  Ld. Steward.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Tyrone.

  M. Ailesbury.

  L. Redesdale.

  E. Portsmouth.

  L. Rosebery.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Kesteven.

  E. Lucan.

  L. Balchford.

  And, on Tuesday, February 25, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales added.
  And, on Thursday, February 27, The Lord Strathnairn added, in the place of The Earl of Lucan.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.