Sitting of 25 March 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.
  *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill to inquire whether or not any modifications of the constitution or mode of election of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board may be necessary or expedient, and to make provision for the same accordingly; and that all Petitions against the Bill presented within the time limited by the Standing Orders relating to the constitution or mode of election of the Board be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions."
  The object of this Instruction is simply to enable the Committee sitting on this Bill upstairs to make inquiry with regard to two points in the constitution and mode of election of the Board;
  684
  and although the subject is not technically contained within the clauses of the Bill, it is so closely connected with it that I venture to ask the House to allow this Instruction to be passed in order that these two points may be dealt with by the Committee. The Motion, I may say at the outset, does not proceed from any hostile or outside body. Those whom I represent are, practically, the proprietors of the Trust. The Trust itself was constituted in 1857. Before that the Harbour Board was elected upon an entirely different principle, but it was felt that the management of the Docks should be in the hands of a Board elected by those who use the port and pay the harbour dues. That principle was strongly affirmed at the time the trust was constituted, and especially on a report presented by the Board of Trade. That report says:—
  "The principle adopted is that with which the country is familiar—namely, that taxation and representation should go together; those who pay directly towards the expenses of the Trust, i.e., the Dock and Harbour ratepayers, are, it is proposed by the Bill, to elect the Trustees. My Lords believe that this is the true principle, and that no other will be found to be at once just and practicable. That local bodies having interests often directly at variance with those of trade ought not to have the control is clear from the history of Liverpool itself; and management by the Central Government is not to be thought of. A question might be raised to what extent representation should go, as all persons producing or consuming goods exported or imported have more or less direct interest in the harbour and docks through which they pass. But the principle representation will probably be thought to be carried as far as practicable when it is extended as in the present Bill to all merchants, manufacturers, or dealers, who pay rates on goods or on ships to a certain given amount, more especially as they can vote by proxy."
  The persons I represent are the traders who form the electorate of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, and they have been affirmed by Parliament to be the proper persons to manage this important Trust. Their Petition lets out that those who take an interest in this matter consist of 30 Corporations, Local Boards, Chambers of Commerce, and trading societies in the North of England; and it is also signed by 300 firms or individuals not connected specially with Lancashire, but spread over the whole of the United Kingdom including Cork and other places in Ireland. It cannot, therefore, be

  685
  said that we are intruding upon a measure which has no connection with us. We approach it in no hostile spirit; but, being our own Bill, we think we have a right to lay before the Committee the views we entertain in regard to the constitution of the Dock Board. Nor do we entertain the slightest hostility to Liverpool and Liverpool interests as represented by the Dock Board. There are naturally a large number of the electorate who reside in or about Liverpool, and we do not propose to destroy their rights. All we say is that they possess too exclusive powers at present. It has been asserted that this is a device on the part of the Manchester Ship Canal Company to throttle the Docks. That assertion is entirely without foundation. I do not represent the Ship Company in any way. This is an old question, which was discussed long before the projection of the Ship Canal. In fact, I represent a large number of persons who must always use Liverpool both for the import of their raw material and the export of their goods, and all they wish to do is to place before the Select Committee the two points I have mentioned. At present electors who live at a distance from Liverpool will not take the trouble to place themselves on the register of electors, because they know that it would be necessary to go to Liverpool on a particular day in order to exercise the right of voting. All we ask is that in future they shall enjoy the same privilege that every railway shareholder in the Kingdom has—namely, the right of voting by proxy. The Board of Trade, in the Report to which I have referred, placed great emphasis on that condition, so that the traders might have an opportunity of dealing with their property in the way they thought best. It may have been natural in 1857 to require a candidate for a seat on the Board to reside within 10 miles of Liverpool, but, as a matter of fact, 50 miles form no greater distance now than 10 miles did in 1857; and there can be no difficulty in getting a man who resides 50 miles from Liverpool to perform his duties as a member of the Dock Trust. At present there are 2,481 electors on the register, the qualification being the payment of £10 in the course of the year in dues. That by no means represents by many thousands the number
  686
  who ought to be on the register, but of those 2,481 electors 2,239 are connected with Liverpool, leaving only 242 for the area outside Liverpool. Out of 24 elected Members, there is not a single representative of any interest outside Liverpool. So far as a precedent is concerned, a similar Instruction to the one which I now move was passed in the case of the Aire and Calder Canal. It is said that the bondholders ought to be consulted, and that they ought to appear before the Committee before any alteration in the constitution takes place; but I do not see how the interests of the bondholders can possibly be affected by this Instruction. The principles on which the Trust is managed have already been settled by Parliament; and all we ask by the Instruction is that the Committee shall consider whether greater facilities shall be given to the electorate in order that they may record their votes, and greater liberty be given to them in the choice of representatives. A suggestion has been made that the Instruction should be amended by introducing the words—"If the Committee think fit." We should have no objection to the introduction of those words, and we are quite willing to allow the Committee to decide whether they will enter into these questions or not. Another suggestion is that the words "and to make provision for the same accordingly" be omitted. I cannot consent to that for this reason—that if the Committee think it is right to make a change, that change should be carried out at once. The Instruction deals with a grievance which for 30 years has existed between the Dock Board and the traders, not only of Lancashire, but of the rest of the Kingdom, and we are desirous of seeing the grievance removed. I beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill to inquire whether or not any modifications of the constitution or mode of election of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board may be necessary or expedient, and to make provision for the same accordingly; and that all Petitions against the Bill presented within the time limited by the Standing Orders relating to the constitution or mode of election of the Board be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves,

  687
  their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners."—(Sir W. Houldsworth.)
  *MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: The Instruction which has been moved by the hon. Baronet opposite proposes to deal with a Bill of very small administrative character, which is intended to improve the working of the Trust of the Mersey Estuary and the Mersey Docks, which has been devolved by Parliament upon the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Originally the harbour accommodation was in the hands of the Liverpool Town Council, and it was they who in old days developed the trade of the port, and by the facilities granted alike to ships and to the goods they carried, created the enormous trade now centered in that port. In 1857 a Bill was introduced into this House, which was ultimately passed into law, and which transferred the management of the Harbour and Docks to a separate body—created as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The present Bill is introduced by that body, and it is entirely of an administrative character. It proposes no Constitutional changes, and it asks for no fresh borrowing powers. It consists of 36 clauses, half of which deal with the deviation of a short railway already authorized, which deviation has become necessary in consequence of the increase of the trade of the port, and which it is desirable to promptly effect in order to enable a certain dock to be deepened, and to provide increased facilities for carrying on the trade of the port. The other provisions are purely of an administrative and technical character, dealing with questions affecting the tender of pilotage services, anchorage, and navigation; nevertheless, the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Sir W. Houldsworth) seeks to found upon a simple Bill of that kind an Instruction of a very far-reaching character. I think it would be very much against the constituted precedents of the House to pass any Resolution or Instruction of the kind proposed. The House has provided a method by which a change or reform of the sort desired can be introduced. It can be done in either of two ways—either by moving for a Committee of Inquiry, on whose investigations a Bill might be founded,
  688
  or by those who feel aggrieved introducing a Bill setting forth the reforms asked for. Neither of these methods has been adopted by those who agree with the hon. Baronet; but a third method has been proposed, which ought to meet all the necessities of the case. The Docks and Harbour Board do not seek to stifle any inquiry at all; they rather court it. It has been said, and said rightly, that this is a national matter; and if the conduct of the Board is to be inquired into, they are prepared to maintain that the Trust has been managed in the interest not of Liverpool alone, but of the traders using the port. For example, take one of the matters mentioned in the Petition. When the Board was constituted the town dues were bought from the Corporation of Liverpool, the amount paid for them being £1,500,000. Those dues produced a very large sum then—they produce now nearly a quarter of a million annually, and are increasing. But these dues are applied, not for the benefit of the City of Liverpool itself, but absolutely and entirely for the benefit of the Dock Trust, and therefore the town dues are now purely dock dues, only levied under another name. It may be said, and apparently very fairly said, "Why, then, keep these town dues—why not abolish them and increase the dock dues?" The answer to that is very simple, though not very acceptable, I am afraid, to those who support the Instruction, for it discloses the imaginary nature of their supposed grievances. It is this—that the dock dues are liable to be rated for poor rates and municipal rates, but the town dues are not, and if the town dues are abolished, the result would be that the dock dues would be increased by a quarter of a million, and further increased by a sum of £24,000 or £25,000, which would be required to be additionally levied as dock rates, to pay over as poor rates and municipal rates. The interests of those who live outside the port have always been fairly considered, and very many of the cases suggested as being instances whereby the interests of those outside have been injured are really eases where the interests of all have been considered, and where the Trust has been conducted with due consideration for national interests, and not with reference to local

  689
  interests at all With regard to the question of the bondholders, all I would say is, that if either of the methods ordinarily used in Parliamentary procedure had been adopted they would have had notice that a Bill had been introduced or that a Parliamentary Inquiry had been granted. Now legislation is sought for at a comparatively late period. Under ordinary circumstances, notice would have to be given in the month of November, but here we are in the month of March, and fair and reasonable notice cannot be said to have been given to all those interested by an Instruction of a far reaching kind being sought to be foisted upon a small Bill like this. I hope the House will not accede to the Instruction unless the hon. Baronet is prepared to amend it by inserting the words he said he was willing to insert, and to omit the words, "And to make provision for the same accordingly." I beg to move the omission of those words.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the words "and to make provision for the same accordingly."—(Mr. W. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: I wish to say a word in support of the Motion. It seems to me that the Instruction proposed would require the Committee only to attend to a very limited matter. They are seeking, mainly, an improvement in the representation of the Mersey Harbour Board; they do not want to change the electoral body or to extend the suffrage, but simply to ask that the electors should have the power of voting by proxy. These electors are now scattered all over the United Kingdom, and unless they have the power of voting by proxy they are really a disfranchised body. That is the main change required. There is one other change asked for—namely, that instead of men who are eligible as candidates having to reside within 10 miles of Liverpool, that distance shall be extended, and they shall be able to elect candidates residing within 50 miles of Liverpool. These are the two propositions which we wish the Committee to consider and deal with, and with regard
  690
  to them the Committee could take their own course The Port of Liverpool, as everyone knows, is maintained mainly by manufacturing and commercial interests. At a considerable distance from Liverpool, where interests have no voice in the Harbour Board, it is sought to give them that voice. We wish to throw a little light on to a somewhat close body, and to have better management. We believe that the management we propose would be to the advantage and also to the commercial interests not only of the district, but of Liverpool itself.
  MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire): I was one of the Members of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce when they came to Parliament to construct this Trust, and, therefore, I wish to say a few words as to the reasons which guided Parliament in framing the Trust. Originally the Corporation of Liverpool was an exclusive Conservative body, and they had shown a greater foresight than the Corporation of any other town in the country in maintaining the Port of Liverpool as a National Trust, without any beneficial interest whatever. But, although they showed this foresight, the time came when those who used the Docks thought that the Trust should be placed on a wider basis, and that those who owned them should have the management of them. Parliament accordingly, in 1857, established the existing Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The Board received no payment for direction, and the Docks and Harbour have been managed hitherto without any suspicion of corrupt motives. When it was proposed to introduce the system of voting by proxy I saw some of my friends in Manchester, and pointed out the very great danger there would be in inducing people who were living all over the country to watch the management of the Docks and take an interest in them. There is a fear that such individuals might be got at by persons with private interests of their own to serve, and might be persuaded to use proxies against those who are in the actual management of the Trust. One strong reason why the Government and the House of Commons should be cautious in this matter now is that there has been a large undertaking set on foot for private profit, called the Manchester Ship Canal, and my hon. Friend

  691
  opposite largely represents those who are interested in that Canal. Now, if the Canal is to be of benefit to the country, it must be kept entirely distinct from the Railways and the Harbour Trust, because the three bodies ought to be in competition, or the public will get no advantage from the new undertaking. If those who are in favour of this Instruction can show any way by which this National Trust can be made more national and more beneficial to the country at large nobody will be more glad to see it than the people of Liverpool, whose prosperity is so extensively bound up with it. Their desire is that the Dock rates should be kept as low as possible. Nobody is interested in having them high. If it is considered necessary to make a change, it ought only to be done by a carefully drawn Bill regularly laid before the House, instead of being dealt with by a side wind in this manner.
  *MR. COURTNEY: Although there are numerous Members representing Liverpool and Manchester and the adjacent towns, not to speak of others like the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Sinclair), who are more or less connected with Liverpool, I trust I may be allowed to intervene early in the debate, as I would wish the question at issue to be settled without raising too keenly those local jealousies that seem to lurk about it. It has been truly said that this Bill is in itself a comparatively moderate measure, but the Instruction which has been moved is one which raises a very important principle. Moderate as the Bill is, there are in it some alterations—not, I admit, of a very important character—but still alterations which do affect the mode of electing the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Therefore the Instruction, as far as it relates to the mode of election, is not out of order. The Instruction, however, goes further, and it expresses a desire that the conditions of the qualification upon which persons may be elected shall also be inquired into. That is a somewhat large question, which is not directly raised by the Bill itself. The Instruction, therefore, is an expansion of the provisions of the Bill, and an expansion such as I think the House ought to be slow to entertain. I believe
  692
  that many Members will regard with jealousy any proposals to raise in Committee with Bills, simple and restricted in their scope, large questions not involved in them as submitted to Parliament. I gave expression to that jealousy last year in reference to the Aire and Calder Bill, but on that occasion the House showed itself so bent on having its own way in the Instruction then moved that it was carried without a division. It did not result in anything, because the Bill was afterwards dropped, but still the House insisted on carrying it. In this case the opponents of the Instruction are willing that there should be inquiry, but they are of opinion that the Committee should not be entrusted with the power of making a provision to carry into effect any change which they may deem necessary. That, I think, would be a lame and impotent conclusion. It amounts to this—that we are to entrust a Committee with the power of inquiry, but not to entrust them with any further power which may result in a particular course of action; and I therefore feel that those who are opposed to any alteration are practically adopting an inconsistent position when they say that inquiry may be made, but that it shall not be followed by revision. The issues raised are of a most important character, and I agree with the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) that the Trust may be exposed to risk if any undefined alteration is made in the constitution of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, who are charged with important functions in connection with interests which make the Mersey Board a National Trust. It must not be forgotten that we may be exposing to risk the interests of persons who have lent the Board between £14,000,000 and £16,000,000, seeing that the credit of the Trust rests entirely upon the good management of the Board. I would therefore suggest as the best way out of the difficulty, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the bondholders, that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, and that, in addition to four Members appointed by the House, there should be three Members added by the Committee of Selection. You would then have a Committee of weight and authority. If that suggestion is adopted it will be necessary as a matter

  693
  of form to withdraw the Instruction altogether, and to move that the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee.
  *MR. HOYLE: When the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board come here for additional powers, surely it is not unreasonable that the Committee to whom their Bill is referred should look all round the question, and have power to make such Amendments in the Bill as circumstances require; that, as I understand it, is what the Motion of the hon. Baronet comes to. There is a population of some millions of people residing within 40 or 50 miles of the Port of Liverpool, and the Mersey is the chief inlet for the food of that population, as well as the chief outlet for the products of their industry. They have certainly a right to some share in the management of the port. Take one trade alone—the cotton trade. The imports and exports of that trade amount to something like £100,000,000 sterling a-year, the greater part of which goes through the Mersey. What do those who are intimately connected with that trade want? First, sufficient accommodation for the traffic they send; and, secondly, that the management of it should be economical, so as to ensure reasonable charges. They think that those two objects would be best secured by giving those who pay the dues a larger share in the administration. It is objected that persons elected from a wider radius than 10 miles from the centre of Liverpool would rarely attend the meeting; but that objection answers itself, for, if so, the people of Liverpool, in the absence of Members from a distance, will have matters all their own way. It must not be forgotten that Manchester is only 40 or 45 minutes from Liverpool, and so, practically, as near the docks as persons living in the suburbs of Liverpool. For these reasons I heartily support the Instruction moved by the hon. Baronet.
  *MR. NEVILLE: I represent those who would be most affected by this Instruction, but I do not ask the House to come to any decision upon the merits of the question on this occasion. It is not a question as to whether the constitution of the Dock Board is the best that could be obtained, or whether any alteration might improve it. But it is a matter of such great importance, affecting such varied interests,
  694
  that I think it would be wrong for the House to take a course which would enable those who are opposing the Bill of the Dock Board in an indirect and irregular way to effect a reconstruction of the Board. The persons who are advocating this proposal to-day are the persons who are most interested in the Manchester Ship Canal, and the owners of a rival port. You are, therefore, asked to put into the hands of a rival port the administration of the Liverpool Docks. ["Oh!"] It is all very well to say "Oh,! oh" but I would ask hon. Members to wait and see. If you give the right to vote by proxy to all traders who pay £10 a-year in goods or tonnage, and the right of selecting their candidates within a radius of 50 miles of Liverpool, you will virtually take away from Liverpool the management of her own Docks, and make alterations so extreme as to be utterly indefensible. Liverpool, which is so much affected by the action of the Dock Board, does not wish to exclude investigation into the way in which the Docks are managed. At the same time, I do say this—that if so important a change is to be made it ought to be made in a regular way. Why, in a Bill of this kind, should issues be raised which are totally outside the subjects with which it at present deals? I should like to point out that the only alterations which are to be made by the Bill in the method of voting are the increase by one hour of the time during which votes may be given and the prolongation of the notice which is to be issued. I would ask the House to bear in mind that these alterations were inserted in the Bill at the request of Manchester men themselves. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were asked to make these changes in the method of voting, and now they have done so their concession is used as a peg on which to hang the Instruction which has been moved in the House to-night. This is a matter of immense importance to Liverpool, and I contend that hon. Members ought not to use the omnipotence of this House for the purpose of denying to the people of that city what I submit are their ordinary rights.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I do not suppose that the House will think of hearing all the Members who

  695
  are interested in this question on one side or the other, but I wish to point out that the immediate question before the House is the Amendment last submitted, which would have the effect, if carried, of debarring the Select Committee from giving any effect to the decision they come to upon the Instruction. The result would therefore be to nullify the reference. Hon. Members have said that great interests are at stake in this matter. Well, I do not think the House has so little confidence in its Committees as to doubt that any proposal of this kind will be considered with all the care which it deserves. I do not see why it should be thought that the Select Committee will not be thoroughly competent to do justice to both sides of the question, and nothing is more common than, when a Corporation asks for additional powers, the occasion should be seized to propose changes in its constitution which experience has prompted. No doubt the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will have no objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, that the Select Committee should be strengthened by the addition of Members to be chosen by the Committee of Selection. I do not think anyone who desires the Select Committee to come to a fair conclusion can oppose that suggestion. It has been said that the object of this proposal is to give rival ports the right to interfere with the Port of Liverpool. I should like to point out that there are a great many more large centres of industry concerned than merely the City of Manchester. Liverpool is surrounded by a network of railways connecting many towns which are concerned in the management of its port. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
  *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: If I understand the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees to be merely that this Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee, I have no hesitation in saying that I will accept it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is the proposal standing in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. W. P. Sinclair). Does the hon. Member accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees?
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I propose, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the Debate, in order that those whose interests I represent may have an opportunity of considering it.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, but will accept the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees. There is no doubt this is a very large and important question, which goes far beyond the mere management and control of one harbour. There are bondholders to the extent of £16,000,000, who have no voice whatever in the action of the Board. The bonds are renewable on short terms of from three to five years, and it is, therefore, undesirable for the House to do anything which will in the least disturb the minds of the holders. I think that such a strong Committee as was indicated by the Chairman is the best body to which to refer this question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Falkirk accept the suggestion?
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: Before accepting it I will ask whether those who introduced the Instruction will not be at least fair enough to allow those of whom I am the only representative in this House to consider it? On behalf of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board I would request that the debate be adjourned.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I do not think the hon. Member and his Friends would be in any way injured if he withdrew his Amendment; because, as has been pointed out, the Instruction of the hon. Member for Manchester will in any case have to be withdrawn for the present; and if there are any objections to the course which is suggested they can be urged when the reference to a Hybrid Committee is formally moved.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: After that explanation I will consent to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. COURTNEY: I beg to give notice that I will move to refer this Bill to a Hybrid Committee.

QUESTIONS.

  THE SLUICE GATES AT KILLALOE.
  MR. COXasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to the proceedings at a meeting of the Board of Conservators of the Lower Shannon, held in Limerick, on 7th February, at which a resolution was passed calling attention to the great injury constantly done to the fishery of the Shannon by the injudicious and reckless raising and lowering of the sluice gates at Killaloe; and what action, if any, the Board of Works had taken in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): From all the inquiries the Board of Works have made they have no reason to believe that any injury has been done to the fishery by the raising and lowering of the sluices at Killaloe; but, in accordance with the resolution passed at the meeting of the Conservators of 7th February referred to in the question, Mr. Reeves, the Chairman of the meeting, waited on this Board, who arranged with him that one of their officers, in conjunction with anyone appointed by him at any time he wished, would make experiments in raising and lowering the sluices, to ascertain whether there was any foundation whatever for the allegations.
  MR. COX: I must ask the hon. Gentleman another question. The Board of Conservators must be aware that great damage was done by the raising and lowering of the sluices. I would ask whether they did not in that resolution state that thousands of fry were left high and dry?
  MR. JACKSON: I have given the hon. Member the information which has been supplied to me. I am told it is absolutely impossible that the damage can have been done in the way described. Arrangements have, however, been made to test the matter, so as to satisfy all persons concerned.

  EEL FISHERIES AT CASTLE CONNELL.
  MR. COXasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish Board
  698
  of Works let in the year 1884, for a term of five years, the eel fisheries at Castle Connell; and, whether, on the expiration of this term, the fisheries were relet; if so, were they put up to public competition; to whom were they relet; for what term of yeras; and at what rent per annum?
  MR. JACKSON: The eel fisheries at Castle Connell were let in May 1884, after public advertisement, for the usual term of five years, which has now expired, and the Board have again advertised in Irish, English, and Scotch newspapers for tenders for the season commencing 1st July next. The tenders are not due until 1st June next.

  THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT AT MERTHYR.
  MR. DAVID THOMASasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he had reason to believe that Colonel Lindsay, the Chief Constable for Glamorganshire, was unable to discover among the police of the county any man qualified to discharge the duties of Superintendent of Police at Merthyr efficiently; whether, in the event of any dereliction of duty on the part of Superintendent Lindsay, there was any independent authority to whom appeal might be made, outside the Chief Constable, his father; and whether, he was now in a position to state the results of his inquiry as to the public feeling at Merthyr and Aberdare at the appointment of Captain Lindsay, a young man with no previous experience in English police duty, over the heads of those who had spent a lifetime in the force, and who might naturally have looked for promotion had not the hitherto invariable practice been in this case departed from?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have no doubt that there were other men in the Force qualified to fill the office of Superintendent. Any complaint against a Superintendent would be addressed in the first instance to the Chief Constable; but if there is any reason to suppose that proper cognizance is not taken of the complaint, an appeal lies from the Chief Constable to the Court of Quarter Sessions; I have made no inquiry as to the state of public feeling in the

  699
  locality; and do not conceive it to be a part of my duty to do so.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not promise my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that he would make such an inquiry.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I made no such promise.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works whether Mr. Pearson, R. A., was responsible for the designs of the two new staircases and the southwest stone parapet which had lately been erected in Westminster Hall; whether these designs were considered and approved by the Select Committee on Westminster Hall; and, if so, why plans and elevations adequately representing them did not appear in the appendix to the Committee's report; whether the view of Westminster Hall, No. 22, in the appendix to the report, was the view referred to by Mr. Pearson in his answer, No. 158, to the chairman, or to what other view he referred, and why the principal staircase on the west side of the hall had not been made symmetrical with Sir Charles Barry's entrance to St. Stephen's Cloisters; whether the design for the stone parapet which had been placed at the southwest corner of the hall was approved by the Committee, and for what reason it had been substituted for the iron railing which formerly stood there, and which was in harmony with the iron railing leading to the members' south-east entrance to St. Stephen's Cloisters; and whether he was now able to fix a time when the public would be re-admitted to Westminster Hall?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am informed by Mr. Pearson that the designs of the staircases and of the south-west stone parapet in Westminster Hall are his; that the arrangement of the staircases was submitted to and approved by the Committee on Westminster Hall, and that they are adequately represented on plans 5A, 6A, and 8; that the plan No. 22 was referred to him, and that his (Mr. Pearson's) answer No. 158 pointed out that communication existed originally from the hall by
  700
  means of staircases, and that a similar method was now proposed; that the arrangement of the plan did not admit of the entrances being placed symmetrically with that on the other side, even if it had been desirable that they should be so placed, and that they are, besides, of a totally different character, and on different levels; that a stone wall was necessary to carry the steps and landing giving access to the new rooms at that end, and that this stone wall could only be properly finished by a stone parapet as shown on plans 5A and 6A. The existence of an iron railing similar to that leading to the Members' south-east entrance to St. Stephen's Cloisters would obviously be inconsistent with the steps, landing, and parapet referred to. As to the last paragraph of the question, I am in communication with the Secretary for the Home Department on the subject.

  SUNDAY DRINKING.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he could state why the Return No. 391, of September, 1888, entitled "Drunkenness on Sunday (Convictions)," for the first time included drunkenness associated with more serious and flagrant crimes, whereas previous Returns of this nature were confined to cases of a simple nature; and whether the discrepancy in the Returns from some of the Welsh counties was to be attributed to a misapprehension on the part of those whose duty it was to supply the information of the questions submitted to them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): It is not correct to say that the Return No. 391 of 1888 includes for the first time cases of drunkenness associated with more serious crimes, whereas previous Returns of this kind were confined to cases of a simple nature. The Return of 1888 included all cases of simple drunkenness, unaccompanied by disorderly conduct. Many of such cases were not included by the majority of the local authorities who made returns in obedience to the orders of the House in former years. The Returns granted annually in many Sessions prior to that of 1888 are, I regret to say, valueless. A reference to that of 1884

  701
  shows that it purports to give information as to the number of convictions of persons arrested for drunkenness on Sunday. The request for information addressed to the local authorities was, unfortunately, ambiguous, since it left it doubtful whether cases of simple drunkenness (for which nobody can be arrested) ought to be included, as well as cases in which the delinquents could be and had been arrested. Some local authorities reported (in accordance with the exact terms of the Order of the House) those cases only in which persons were arrested and then proceeded against to conviction, while some included all cases of convictions for drunkenness. In granting the Return for 1888 it was thought well to state clearly the Acts under which Returns were asked for, and by the wording of the address to make it clear that all convictions were to be included, not only in cases where the law allows arrest, but also in those where it does not; also to make the Return include the years 1885, 1886, and 1887. In the case of Wales the total of convictions for Sunday drunkenness for 1885 and 1886 are considerably larger in the return of 1888 than in the Returns made for those years. This is due to the later Return being framed on a wider basis, and invariably including all Returns of convictions for simple drunkenness.

  MONTE CARLO.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to a statement which had appeared in a Genoa newspaper, stating that about 50,000 visitors had resorted to the gambling tables at Monte Carlo during Carnival, among whom there had taken place 15 duels and 16 suicides; and whether the English Government could see its way to communicate with Foreign Powers with a view to the suppression of these tables?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I have not seen the statement in question, and if I had I could not judge of its accuracy. It is quite beyond the functions and duties of Her Majesty's Government to interfere in respect of such matters in foreign countries.

  CARRYING A GUN WITHOUT A LICENCE.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the case of a man named Joseph Clarke, who was lately sent to prison, with 14 days' hard labour, by the Bench of Magistrates at Newark Divisional Petty Sessions, for carrying a gun without a licence; whether Clarke's offence consisted in firing a gun loaded only with powder for the purpose of scaring birds off his employer's crops; and whether Clarke was subsequently released after three days' imprisonment, and by whose authority and for what reasons was his sentence remitted?
  *MR. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Justices that this man was convicted of the offence named and was sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment to 14 days' imprisonment without hard labour. I am informed by the Justices that the man pleaded guilty, but before passing sentence the Chairman inquired whether there was any excuse for him on the ground of his having used the gun for scaring birds, and was answered in the negative. On the facts being reported to the Board of Inland Revenue, they ascertained that the gun was loaded and used in the manner stated in the question, and that the employer was under the erroneous impression that he could authorize Clarke to use the gun in this manner without taking out a licence. The Board thereupon made an order for Clarke's release forthwith, after he had been in prison for three days.

  THE STATE OF GWALIOR.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary for India whether he was aware that, during the period Sir Lepel Griffin was agent to the Governor General for the Central Indian States, the civil establishment in the State of Gwalior was greatly augmented and the salaries of certain officers increased, in one case from Rs.100 per month to Rs.1,200, in another from Rs.400 to Rs.2,000, and in a third from Rs.500 to Rs.1,500, and whether these instances were samples of a great number of like character;

  703
  whether, prior to the appointment of Sir Lepel Griffin as agent in Central India, and before his interference in the affairs of Gwalior, the annual revenue of that state was 1 crore and 10 laths, and the expenditure 99 lakhs, showing an annual surplus of 11 lakhs; whether, at the present time, although the revenue had been increased by 11 lakhs, being the interest on 3½ crores of the late Ruler's savings invested after his death in Indian Government stock, there was an annual deficit of 7 lakhs, the revenue being 1 crore and 21 lakhs, and the expenditure 1 crore and 28 lakhs; and whether the Secretary of State would make inquiries as to the circumstances under which this state of things had occurred, and would lay upon the Table the result of such inquiries?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The official information in the possession of the Secretary of State does not contradict the facts suggested in the question; but the Secretary of State does not perceive in them any evidence of maladministration, and he sees no reason to suggest to the Government of India any interference with the present Council of Regency in the Gwalior State.

  INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will recommend the Government of India to make permanent promotions in the Telegraph Department as vacancies occur, and not only on 1st April and 1st October?
  *SIR J. GORST: The dates for making promotions in the Telegraph Department are fixed by the Government of India, and the Secretary of State is not disposed to interfere in the matter.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked how many officers of the Telegraph Department had more than 30 years' service; and if, in the interests of the public service, whether as regards the efficiency of the department or economy in the matter of pensions, the hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of retiring those officers, many of whom had already been superseded by officers many years their juniors, on special pensions, rather than allow men in the
  704
  prime of life, and who were specially trained for the Department under the reorganization scheme of 1886, to leave the Service in disgust?
  *SIR J. GORST: In answer to the hon. Member's first inquiry I have to state that the number of such officers is ten. In answer to the second inquiry I have to state that the Secretary of State sees no necessity for altering the rules as to the retirement of officers in the Telegraph Department.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. J. F. O'BRIENasked the Secretary for the Home Department what visits had been made to James Mullett during his detention in Millbank Prison; whether he would give the names of those visitors and the dates of the visits; and whether he would state on whose application each visit was permitted and by what authority permitted?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mullett has been twice visited while in Millbank Prison—on the 3rd of January by his wife, an ordinary visit on her own application, and on the 4th of February by Mr. Thomson, on behalf of Mr. Soames, and on his application. Both visits were allowed by permission of the Prison Commissioners.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether, as Mr. Thomson is not a solicitor, the latter interview was held, in accordance with the prison rules, in the presence of an official; and whether a record was kept of what passed at such interview.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information on the subject. If the hon. Member wishes for an answer to his question, I must ask him to give me notice.
  MR. J. F. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Sergeant Mullin, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, had endeavoured to obtain evidence in favour of the Times, from one Patrick Lavan, late of Ballyhaunis, but now living in Washington Territory, United States, and wrote in the following, terms:—
  "I guarantee your name will never be mentioned, and I further guarantee that it will be the means of putting you on your feet;"
  and whether Sergeant Mullin's action in this matter was an independent

  705
  private inquiry or was instigated by some one in authority over him?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed that Lavan, before leaving Ireland, had shown the sergeant a letter which Lavan represented as being important. The sergeant did write to Lavan, with whom he had had previous relations, for this document. The inquiry was, I am informed, made by the sergeant with the sanction of his superior officer.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary force is entitled in a case between the Times and the Irish Members to offer Lavan money to give certain evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no case between the Times and the Irish Members.
  MR. J. F. O'BRIEN: My question was whether Sergeant Mullin had endeavoured to procure evidence for the Times. The right hon. Gentleman has said "Yes."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  TENANTS ON THE OLPHERTS ESTATE.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that all the tenants on the property of Mr. Wybrants Olpherts in Glahercoon and Curransport, in the parish of Gweedore, had been served with ejectment processes, to be heard at Quarter Sessions, which would be held at Falcarragh on March 26; whether it was a fact that, owing to the failure of the potato crop, these tenants had no potato seed of any kind to crop the lands; and whether the Government would take any, and, if so, what steps to provide work for the people who were in want of food and money, and were threatened with eviction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is not the case that all the tenants on the to wnlands of the estate named have been served with ejectment processes to be heard at Quarter Sessions at Falcarragh, nor, as a matter of fact, are Quarter Sessions held there. But it is the case that some of these tenants have been summoned to Petty Sessions to give up possession of their holdings. It also appears that, in some instances, the tenants on these townlands are without
  706
  potato seed. It is not considered that any case can possibly arise which cannot be dealt with under the provisions of the ordinary Poor Law.

  THE SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  SIR H. ROSCOEasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies on what principle he included glucose in a Convention in regard to sugar bounties; and whether he was aware that glucose was not a sugar extracted either from beet or cane, but was a manufactured product derived from potato, starch, or other like bodies, by the action of sulphuric acid, and was now largely used by farmers, brewers, and other industries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (BARON H. DE WORMS,): In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that glucose is a product which now enters into competition with cane and beet sugar in certain industries. It was, accordingly, included in the Convention of August 30, 1888, on the suggestion of the technical advisers of the Powers represented at the recent conferences, on the ground that commodities which are used as substitutes for sugar should be included in the prohibition to obtain bounties.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN SELWYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many firms were last year invited to tender for the supply of large guns, and whether Messrs. Vickers, Messrs. Brown, and Messrs. Cammell were among the number; whether these firms were gunmakers; whether it is a fact that the only information the firms invited to tender could get was contained in a set of drawings of different sized guns; whether it is a fact that there was no specification, except that the steel was to be subjected to certain tests; whether, on application to the War Office, the firms were told that there "was no further specification," and that they must make their tenders upon the drawings only; whether it is a fact that no instructions as to the amount of shrinkage, hardening, or tempering were given; whether there was any stipulation as to the test the guns had to go through after completion; whether the whole order for guns, with the exception of a small number of small calibre, was given to

  707
  Messrs. Vickers; and, whether Messrs. Vickers had ever made guns; and, if so, how many?
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Before my right hon. Friend answers this question, I should like to ask him if the War Office has not been thoroughly satisfied that Messrs. Vickers have every possible appliance for the manufacture of finished guns, and if the high reputation of their steel forgings and those of Messrs. Cammell and Brown does not justify the full confidence of Her Majesty's Government in their endeavours to stimulate Home Industry?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Selwyn) who has put the first question, I have to say that I am informed that all the firms which had expressed a wish to entertain the question of the manufacture of guns were invited to tender. Messrs. Brown and Messrs. Cammell were not among the number. It is understood that these firms and Messrs. Vickers had made forgings for guns, but not guns themselves. The information upon which tenders were invited was not complete, but it was sufficient for the firms which had been invited, all of whom tendered. The principal share of the order fell to Messrs. Vickers, the remainder, including some heavy guns, went to Sir W. Armstrong and Co., and of course neither Messrs. Vickers nor any other firm which had not previously made heavy guns would have gone to the expense of setting up plant without a substantial order. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Mr. Howard Vincent), I may state that most ample inquiries were made before intrusting Messrs. Vickers with this order, as to their means of production; and the Director of Army Contracts was satisfied that they could place themselves in a position to execute the orders within reasonable time. There is no reason to be dissatisfied with the progress already made.

  THE IRISH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION AND THE NAVAL SURVEYS.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is his intention to carry into
  708
  effect the recommendation embodied in paragraphs 7 and 25 of the second Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works, that the Commissioners of the Admiralty should appoint one of the surveying ships of Her Majesty's Navy to make soundings and observations with special reference to the fishing grounds, and that some person practically acquainted with the requirements of deep-sea fishing should be placed on board the vessel so assigned in order to advise and assist the surveying officers, and to collect information which might be useful to the fishing industry?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The recommendations of the Royal Commission are in very general terms. The Admiralty would be glad to consider on its merits any specific proposal made to them on this subject; but they cannot at the present time undertake to divert a surveying ship from the far more important work of correcting the charts used for general purposes of navigation for any less important object.

  THE INDIAN AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I have to ask the Postmaster General why mails from Australia by the long sea route are taken to the Plymouth Post Office to be sorted instead of being dealt with in the travelling post office, Plymouth viâ Bristol; whether this is an exceptional delay, which does not occur in the case of letters which arrive by sea from America, Cape of Good Hope, West Indies, and New Zealand; whether he will cause inquiry to be made why 5,000 letters from India and Australia for Scotland and Ireland were not forwarded by the down Irish day mail of the 18th instant; by what despatch were they ultimately forwarded; and how many hours' delay were these letters subjected to?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The mails from Australia, brought to Plymouth by the long sea route at reduced postage rates, average only about 3,000 letters, and they are easily disposed of at the Plymouth Post Office—a plan which does not generally involve delay. To forward them by special train, as is done sometimes with the large and important mails from the Cape, the

  709
  West Indies, and New Zealand, would cost about £46 per mail, an expense far greater than would be warranted by the importance of the correspondence, which the senders have designedly forwarded for economy's sake by the long sea route in preference to the dearer but quicker route of Brindisi. As regards the second question, I may explain that it was through a combination of untoward circumstances that some 5,000 letters for the country districts of Scotland and Ireland lost the first despatch on the 18th of March, and were delayed from four to twelve hours. These letters formed part of about 35,000 letters for the provinces, which reached London a short time before the despatch of the down Irish day mail, and had to be dealt with at the same time as two American mails. Nevertheless, 30,000 of the Indian and Australian letters were despatched by the outgoing mails, including all those for England, and nearly all for Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin. The Scotch and Irish provincial letters generally take longer to sort than the rest of the correspondence, owing to the intricacy of the sorting. I have again to apologize to the House for occupying its time with trivial details of this description.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to give notice that, in consequence of this answer, I will move, on going into Committee of Supply, that the salary of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General be reduced by £2,499 19s. 11¾d.—that is to ¼d.; and I will call attention to the answer to show that the statement just made is not in accordance with facts.

  CARDIFF ASSIZES—CASE OF JAS. TAYLOR.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five years' penal servitude passed by Mr. Justice Grantham upon James Taylor at the Cardiff Assize, as reported in the South Wales Echo of Friday, 14th March, for an indecent assault; whether in the morning papers of the following day the sentence is stated to be 18 months' penal servitude; which of the two periods the convicted man is undergoing; and, whether he can account for the discrepancy?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has been called to this case. The original sentence of penal servitude was passed by inadvertence, and was corrected the same day by the learned Judge, who imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the dates respectively upon which District Inspector Seddall left his duties in Ireland, on subpoena from the Times, to attend the Royal Commission Court, and returned thereto; and whether, as he was not examined and was not in daily attendance at Court, he can say if he was engaged in preparing evidence for the Times; and, if so, whether he can give the names of the police officers or other witnesses with whom he was so engaged?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that District Inspector Seddall continued in London throughout November. He was not engaged in preparing any evidence for the Times, but merely waiting in obedience to the subpoena to be called before the Court.

  IRELAND—THE CASE. OF MR. STACK.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I desire to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland to state what was the legal offence of which Mr. Stack was convicted at Tralee on 12th February last; what was the conduct for which he was convicted; and whether there was any evidence affecting Mr. Stack personally, other than the deposition of Mr. Cecil Roche, R. M.?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Mr. Stack was ordered by Captain Welsh, Resident Magistrate, to find sureties for his good behaviour, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in his answer to a former question. He was so ordered because, in the opinion of the Magistrate, the conduct of which he was guilty was calculated to lead to a serious breach of the peace. He was not convicted of any offence, but was sentenced in the ordinary way to imprisonment in default of bail. The case was dealt with by the

  711
  Magistrate in this summary way on the strong application of Mr. Stack and his solicitor, who stated that Mr. Stack was of delicate health and offered any bail that might be required. I am informed that the required bail was given. The offence was committed in the presence of Captain Welsh, who, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, was, under such circumstances, fully competent to exercise the jurisdiction to which I have referred without the further evidence of the deposition referred to in the question.
  SIR H. DAVEY: May I ask whether the House is to understand that all that Mr. Stack did was to take off his hat?
  MR. MADDEN: The House is not to understand anything of the kind. The actual offence for which Mr. Stack was ordered to find sureties for good behaviour was that of heading an excited mob in the town in circumstances which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, were calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
  SIR H. DAVEY: Was there any evidence before the Resident Magistrate affecting Mr. Stack personally other than the deposition of Mr. Roche himself?
  MR. MADDEN: The Magistrate witnessed the action of Mr. Stack in the town, and under the circumstances was fully entitled, upon what he himself had seen, to bind him over in sureties to keep the peace.

  THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND THEIR LIVERPOOL OFFICERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, since the dispute between the Board of Customs and their officials at Liverpool has now been settled, the censure on the officers and the interdict on their association for the redress of grievances has been cancelled; and, if so, whether any intimation to that effect has been conveyed to the officers interested?
  MR. JACKSON: As I have already stated more than once, the question at issue between the Board of Customs and their officers at Liverpool has been settled fairly and satisfactorily by the Board without reference to the Treasury, and I have no desire or intention to intervene in the matter.

  THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. ISAACSasked the hon. Member for Dundee, as Deputy Chairman of the London County Council, whether, having regard to the unhealthy area lying between the Law Courts on the east and Drury Lane on the west, generally known as Clare Market, and to the opportunity that would be afforded, if such area were cleared, of obtaining suitable sites for the erection of artizans' dwellings, and, at the same time, of widening the Strand between the churches of St. Clement Danes and St. Mary-le-Strand, the County Council for London will take into their immediate consideration the desirability of introducing the necessary measure for effecting these two objects?
  MR. HALSEY: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to a point of order. This is the first time, I believe, a question has been addressed in this House to any hon. Member representing the new body, the London County Council, and I think it is not improper that the question should be raised before you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to put a question of that sort. Referring to that book which we all go to when in doubt as to the proceedings of the House, I find that questions may be put to particular Members who may have charge of a Bill, or who have given notice to amend, or who are otherwise concerned in some business of the House, but the question which is now put does not come in any way under that category. Now, I know that of late years questions have been put to the Chairman and Members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who were concerned in the administration of the Metropolis, and I have no doubt that it is in consideration of the London County Council having succeeded the Metropolitan Board of Works that the question has been put. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me—
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is hardly necessary for the hon. Member to argue the point. When the London County Council was first instituted, I came to the conclusion that it would not be proper to continue the privilege of allowing questions to be put to members of that body who may be in this House, as was done in the case of representatives

  713
  of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and for this, among other reasons: that it would be impossible to draw the line between the Deputy-Chairman or any other Member of the London County Council and the representatives of the County Councils who might have seats in this House.
  MR. FIRTH: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to say that I believe the London County Council will be well satisfied with your ruling.
  MR. ISAACS: I would respectfully point out, Sir, by way of explanation, that it was a great convenience to the five millions of inhabitants of London that questions affecting them should be asked and answered in the House by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to which body the London County Council had succeeded.

  THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention had been called to the following paragraph, concerning the enforcement of the Plan of Campaign on the Kenmare Estate, in the Irish Times of the 21st instant—
  "Recently the estate bailiffs, accompanied by police, visited some of the tenants' houses and farms. Having seized one man's cows, they called at his house, and found him in bed unwell. He professed himself, in the presence of the police, as being glad that they came, as he was quite ready and willing as ever to pay his rent, but was not allowed. He handed the men £7 in notes, as being all he had at the time, but owing to one of them being a £5 note the £7 amounted to £11. On being pressed for more, his rent being £30, he produced, as he said, a small bank deposit receipt for £20. On examination it turned out to be for £100. Another which he had was for £40, and finally the receipt for £20 was found, and handed to them without the slightest hesitation;"
  and, whether the police were present on the occasion referred to; and, if so, have they made any Report on the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: On the the 7th inst. Lord Kenmare's bailiff seized three head of cattle from Jeremiah Mahony for rent due, amounting to £31. Mahony expressed himself willing to pay as much as he could, and he handed the bailiff £11 in notes. The bailiff said that was not enough
  714
  and he must seize the corn. Mahony then produced a deposit receipt which he said was for £20, but it turned out that it was for £100. He then produced another deposit receipt for £40, and finally one for £20, which the bailiff accepted. The police were present.

  PROCEEDINGS IN THE CAITHNESS SHERIFF COURT—THE CASE OF WEIR V. WEIR.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of Weir against Weir, in the Sheriff Court of Caithness, the Sheriff Substitute decided in favour of the defender in respect of facts brought out in the portion of the written evidence in the case which is amissing; whether Sheriff Depute Thorns, when the case was before him on appeal, reversed the decision of the Sheriff Substitute, decided in favour of the pursuer, and cut out and abstracted from the process the evidence, or portion of the evidence, on which the Sheriff Substitute relied in support of his decision in the case; whether, in Scotland, the Judge of an inferior Court, in a case subject to the review of a superior Court, has any right whatever to cut out and abstract from the process, or to cancel beyond recognition, any portion of the written evidence taken in the cause by the Judge of the first instance, and upon which the decision of the Judge of the first instance rested; whether he will cause Sheriff Thorns to restore to the process the evidence, or at least an authentic copy of the evidence, cut out and abstracted by him, and which he (Sheriff Thorns) states "was not destroyed but is amissing;" and whether he will institute an independent investigation with the view of ascertaining the true facts as to the number of pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted, as to whether the same were or were not torn up by Sheriff Thorns, and as to what he did with, or what became of, the pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): There has not been time to obtain the requisite information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the question on the Paper on Thursday.

  PROBATE DUTIES AND LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what time the proportion of Probate Duties granted by Parliament in relief of local taxation will be applied in Ireland; and if it is possible to mention the probable sums that will be so annually distributed?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. J. G. GOSCHEN,): With regard to the great bulk of the Probate Duty grant, which goes in equal moieties to the relief of county cess and of poor rate, I understand that the Lord Lieutenant's regulations provide that the Local Government Board shall submit to the Lord Lieutenant, as soon after the 31st of March as may be practicable, a statement showing the amount of the grant to which each Board of Guardians and road authority is entitled in respect of the financial year ending on that day; and, on receiving the Lord Lieutenant's approval of such grants, the Local Government Board shall cause payment thereof to be made by means of orders on the Paymaster General. With regard to the £5,000 payable to the Royal Dublin Society, I understand that the Lord Lieutenant has made regulations by which this sum shall be paid to that society as soon after the 1st of January in each year as his Excellency shall direct. It is impossible to state the exact amount of the Probate Duty grant to Ireland, as it depends on the yield of the Probate Duty in any given year. This year Ireland receives 9 per cent of one-third of the Probate Duty, and this grant is expected to amount to something between £120,000 and £130,000. In future years Ireland will receive 9 per cent of half of the Probate Duty. If the Probate Duty during the coming year yields at the same rate as during the present year, Ireland will receive about £190,000.

  HER MAJESTY'S SHIP SULTAN.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information as to the prospects of raising H.M.S. Sultan; whether it is a fact that a very considerable amount of dead weight had to be carried in this ship as
  716
  ballast; if so, what was the amount of such dead weight so carried; when and by whom was the Sultan designed?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The latest telegram from the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean speaks very discouragingly of any hopes of raising the Sultan. The Admiralty have requested a salvage company, who have special experience in work of this sort, to examine and report on the subject. The Sultan carries 460 tons of iron and cement ballast equivalent to about one foot of increased draught. She was designed by Mr. Reed, now Sir E. J. Reed, when Chief Constructor of the Navy in 1868. The ballast was added after Mr. Reed left the Admiralty, on the recommendation of the Constructive Department, in order to give the stability that was considered necessary.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Does the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty know whether the Vanguard also carried a large amount of dead weight, and that at this moment there are other ships carrying dead weight?
  SIR E. J. REED: I wish to ask whether the designer of the Sultan was consulted before the ballast was put into her?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Sultan was designed by the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. J. Reed), and with another deck battery the ballast was rendered necessary.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I beg to ask the noble Lord whether, in the event of the Salvage Company being able to raise the vessel, he will submit the proposal to the House before accepting it? I should regard it as a waste of money.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Of course the expense will be a serious matter for consideration.

  RECOVERY OF LAND IN IRELAND.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he can state the cause of the delay in the Return to an Order of the House of the 25th February of the Civil Bills in Ejectment and Writs for Recovery of Land in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: The Return is an exceedingly difficult one. There are some 200,000 documents to examine, and that investigation will take a month or more to complete.

  THE REPRESENTATION OF ROCHESTER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received an application for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds from the Member for Rochester (Colonel Hughes-Hallett; and, if so, has it been granted?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: No application has been received.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the rule with regard to a Member vacating his seat by being absent without leave; and whether any communication has passed between Colonel Hughes-Hallett and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I am unable to answer the question. The general rule with regard to the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds is laid down in "May's Parliamentary Practice."

  THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. PENWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to a report in the Labour Tribune touching the death of the 20 colliers at Pendwell Colliery, in North Wales; whether it is true that William Parry, fireman, stated in his evidence "that, on the morning of the explosion, when he visited the spot where it took place, he heard gas blowing or singing at the top end of the back brow;" and whether any mention of this fact appears in the Report Book, as provided for in Rule 4, Section 1, of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a report of the inquest. William Parry gave evidence as quoted; but he also stated that he tried for gas with his lamp and found none, and for that reason did not report the presence of gas in the Report Book. The inspector has personally examined the back brow in question, and informs me that he heard the singing noise, but that there was no gas present, and the noise was due principally to water. The back brow had been standing for the last three years, and in the opinion of the inspector it is
  718
  impossible that gas of any importance would be given off after such a lapse of time.
  MR. FENWICK: Is the Home Secretary aware that Parry, in his evidence in answer to the Coroner, said that he had made no report as to finding gas?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot answer as to the exact words, but the substance of the evidence was that he had made no report, because, having searched for gas, he found none.
  MR. FENWICK: Is the Home Secretary aware that no report of the examination was made in the book in accordance with Rule 50 of the Mines Regulation Act, 1887?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I read the whole section to be that a report is to be made if gas is found. Parry, rightly or wrongly, although he heard a noise, came to the conclusion that there was no gas. He searched, but found no gas, and, therefore, we need no report.
  MR. FENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that a report ought not to be made in every case, either as to the presence of gas or the condition of the roof?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. Member will look at Rule 4 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, he will find the words there.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to give notice that I will put a further question on this subject.

  BURIALS IN WALES.
  MR. FENWICK: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report in the Labour Tribune of March 23, that the Vicar of Llanarvon refused to inter the body of Thomas Williams, one of the victims of the late explosion in North Wales, on Sunday, March 17, "upon the grounds that it was immoral to bury the dead upon the Lord's Day;" and if this report was true, what steps the Government intended to take to put a stop to such proceedings in the future?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have seen the statement in question. The vicar informs me that it has no foundation whatever in truth. He has buried people on Sundays, and is ready to do so again.

  SURCHARGES ON TELEGRAMS.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Postmaster General whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending various surcharges made upon Mr. William Lukes, of Saint Austell upon telegrams sent by him to the United States and Canada; whether he is aware that Mr. Lukes's telegrams were accepted on the 1st and 3rd of September 1888 at the rate of 6d. a word without demur; that later on in the day, the 3rd September, Mr. Lukes was informed that the rates had been raised, and that he must pay the further charge of £1 2s. 6d. upon his three telegrams; whether he is also aware that when Mr. Lukes paid this in the case of one telegram, but refused to pay on the other two, the Post Office authorities refused to return the money for the two telegrams for which Mr. Lukes declined to pay the extra amount levied, and issued an execution against him for the total amount of the extra charge for the three telegrams; and why the Post Office authorities, having been duly paid under their execution for the full amount of the three messages, refused to return Mr. Lukes the extra amount which he had already paid upon the first message.
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that Mr. Lukes handed in at the St. Austell Office three telegrams, two addressed to Quebec and the other to Ohio. The charge for telegrams to Quebec had been raised by the companies concerned to 1s. per word, and the charge for telegrams to Ohio to 1s. 3d. per word, the rate in each case having previously been 6d. per word. The old rate of 6d. was charged in error at the St. Austell office, and Mr. Lukes, therefore, paid £1 instead of £2 2s. 6d. Application was made to him for the amount undercharged, and it was fully explained to him that by law he was responsible, a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a similar case being furnished for his information. Mr. Lukes declined to pay the amount due, and there was no alternative but to enforce the claim; the full charges, less the Department's share of 1s. 10d., having been credited to the Telegraph Company concerned. It is regretted that the telegraphist made an incorrect charge in the first instance;
  720
  and suitable notice has been taken of her carelessness. I do not find that Mr. Lukes had already paid the extra amount on the first message, or that he applied for the return of such payment.

  TITHES IN WALES.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Chief Constable of Cardiganshire made any earnest attempt to come to an understanding with the peasants in Penbryn, Cardiganshire, who were about to be distrained for tithe, or with their leaders, which would obviate the necessity of bringing large contingents of police from Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, Glamorganshire, and mounted police from the county borough of Swansea; whether, during the distraints on 19th March, three responsible persons offered to give the Chief Constable a guarantee that if the police contingents were removed from the locality the distraints and sales would go on peacefully and that the peasantry would make but a peaceful protest; and whether he will advise the Chief Constable not to employ these contingents of police, which entail heavy expenditure and cause great irritation, till an endeavour has been made to come to a frank understanding with the people such as was repeatedly secured by the Chief Constable of Montgomeryshire?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that previous to the day fixed for the distraints—viz., the 19th inst.—he made careful inquiry as to the intention of the tithe payers in this parish, and was given to understand that they had unanimously resolved to refuse payment, and were determined to resist and illuse the bailiffs. He thereupon took with him as small a force of men as he thought would suffice to protect the bailiffs, and he often appealed in Welsh to the leaders of the peasants to assist him in keeping order. He denies that at any time to his knowledge three persons collectively offered the guarantee in question; but at different times some one or two persons asked him to withdraw the police. This he conceived he could not do without risk to the lives of the bailiffs. I wrote on Saturday last to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions asking whether an arrangement could not be made similar to that made in Montgomeryshire, whereby these regrettable

  721
  collisions could be avoided. I have had an interview with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions this morning, and have expressed my earnest hope that this suggestion may be acted upon.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was the officer in command of the Carmarthenshire contingent of police employed on 19th March at Penbryn, Cardiganshire, in connection with the levying of tithe distraints; when, and by whom, was he appointed to his office; what was his age at the date of his appointment; and what experience in the police force had he gained prior to his appointment?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that Mr. Superintendent William Philipps was the officer in command on the occasion named. He was recently appointed to this office by the present Chief Constable, his father. Previously to that he had been chief clerk in the Chief Constable's office since 1883, and had, therefore, had five years' experience of police work.
  MR. ELLIS: About what age was the young man when he was appointed? Is there another son of the Chief Constable in his office, and paid for by the county?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that he was appointed in 1883, and that Mr. Philipps was 17 years of age.

  CARDIGAN BAY.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contemplated re-survey of Cardigan Bay may be delayed till the formation of the Cardigan Bay Fisheries Committee, so that it may be afforded facilities to present the points on which information useful to the development of the fishing industry might be supplied by the officers engaged in the survey; and whether he will allow a person duly appointed by the Sea Fisheries Committee, and acquainted with the local conditions of sea fishing, to be placed on board the surveying ship?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I regret being unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member. The object of the survey is in Imperial interests and for the safety of navigation, which must
  722
  not be subordinated to fishery or local interests. The surveying officers will be glad to consider the requirements of the Fisheries Committee if they can do so without delaying their primary duties, but I cannot consent to an alteration of plans or the placing of a nominee of the Committee on board the surveying vessel.

  IRELAND—BALLYHALBERT PIER.
  COLONEL WARINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the 12th day of December, 1885, the Secretary of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission wrote to Mr. John Warnock, solicitor for the promoters of the Ballyhalbert Pier, to the following effect—
  "That the Commissioners were now prepared to recommend a free grant of three-fourths of the sum of £7,000, which the work is estimated to cost, on the remaining one-fourth being provided from local sources";
  and that the said one-fourth was so provided, £1,400 being presented by the Grand Jury of the County of Down on the county at large, and £350 being locally subscribed and lodged with the Board of Works; whether the grant of £7,000 was thereupon sanctioned by the Treasury; whether the amount of the contract now completed was £5,700; whether representations have been made by those best acquainted with the locality that the work as executed is insufficient to afford the accommodation intended and required, and that the expenditure of the balance of £1,300 on works which have been suggested would remedy this defect; and, whether, in fulfilment of the assurance given on 14th March that Bally-halbert Pier should not suffer in consequence of works elsewhere having proved more expensive than was anticipated, he is prepared to order this expenditure during the coming summer; or should that be out of his power, whether he will direct the sum of £325, one-fourth of the unexpended surplus, to be refunded to the Grand Jury of the County of Down and the subscribers in proportion to their original contributions?
  MR. JACKSON: The facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question. I am advised that it is doubtful whether further expenditure would be justified by results. I admit that there are special circumstances in

  723
  this case, and some apparent hardship on the locality, and I am considering whether any relief can be afforded without raising a dangerous precedent.

  MARINE INSURANCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been called to the article in the Nineteenth Century Magazine, by Mr. Samuel Plimsoll, entitled "Twelve Millions Wasted in The Sea"; and if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, prohibiting the insurance of vessels and their cargoes in material excess of their value?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes, Sir, I have read this article. It is well that public opinion should be directed to this most important subject, but I fear that I cannot promise legislation this year.

  IRELAND—THE IMPRISONMENT OF MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, M. P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has ascertained that at the instance of "suspects" confined in Dundalk Gaol in 1881 a Prisons Board Inquiry was held, and the prisoners were permitted to be present at the examination of the officials and to cross-examine them; and whether this precedent will be applied to the case of the inquiry into the prison treatment of Mr. William O'Brien?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that an inquiry was held at Dundalk Prison in December, 1881, into various complaints made by "suspect" prisoners, and that certain of these prisoners were permitted to be present and to cross-examine, but that this would not form a precedent in the case of the inquiry into the prison treatment of Mr. William O'Brien, inasmuch as he was neither the person complained against nor complaining.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether this so-called inquiry was closed last Wednesday without calling Dr. Ryan, the Mayor of Clonmel, or any of the Visiting Justices; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary that Mr. O'Brien would
  724
  be called, the opportunity will be given?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. O'Brien has been examined. With regard to the other gentlemen, if they can show that they could give any direct evidence bearing on the matter, no doubt they will be examined. As to the Mayor of Clonmel, he has stated in this House that his information has been derived from Mr. O'Brien.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether, as the hon. Member the Mayor of Clonmel and Dr. Ryan could give important direct evidence as to the condition in which they found Mr. O'Brien, they will be heard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am desirous of following precedent; but I am not aware of what the precedent is. If these gentlemen have direct evidence to give, I suppose the Inspector conducting the inquiry will have no objection to hearing it.

  THE ANCKETILL ESTATE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland if he has ascertained by whom the order, purporting to be the Judgment of Judge Flanagan, was entered in the books of the Land Judges Court (Ireland), under date 3rd August 1881, in the case of the Scottish Provident Institution, petitioners, v. Hugh Gill Patterson, tenant on the Ancketill Estate, county Monaghan, and which was subsequently discharged by Judge Flanagan on 3rd June, 1882; and, if so, what steps the Government intend taking to deal with the person or persons by whom the entry was made, and the Registrar in whose custody the books are? I would also like to ask whether, considering that it has been alleged, and, I think, proved, that the order was forced against the tenant in the interest of the Insurance Company, he will not direct an investigation in order to ascertain by whom the order was enforced. Further, I would like to know if the Judgment was enforced at the instance of Mr. Scott, the solicitor to the Scotch Provident Institution, and whether he thinks it advisable—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of these questions in the usual way.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I must respectfully submit to your ruling, Sir, but I included

  725
  these questions in the notice which I handed in at the Table.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! They were struck out because they were not in order.
  MR. O'BRIEN: But Sir—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'BRIEN: Then, as I am not allowed to put my questions in this way, I will bring the matter up on the Estimates.

  THE NEW NAVY. PROGRAMME.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the actual net increase on the Shipbuilding Vote, as proposed for the next five years, is as a matter of fact only £9,635,000, arrived at by the following calculation:—New Programme, as stated, £21,500,000; less Armaments, £2,850,000; total, £18,650,000; wastage, as described in page 16 of Statement, Naval Estimates 1887, allowing for five years, £9,015,000; actual increase on Shipbuilding Vote, £9,635,000?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The amount of new construction, excluding cost of armament and incidental charges, for which provision is made under our scheme during the next five years, is as follows:—Ships in hand, £1,550,000; New Programme, £16,150,000; provision for fresh work as New Programme approaches completion in 1893–4, £3,000,000; total, £20,700,000; abate wastage on the Fleet calculated on same basis, £9,200,000; total, £11,500,000. It must be remembered that naval shipbuilding is a going concern. We have to associate the completion of ships in hand with the commencement of a New Programme, and as the New Programme approaches completion to combine its finish with the laying down of new ships for the future. Our New Programme is therefore only part of the work of new construction for which provision has been made during the next five years.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Arising out of the answer to the question, may I ask the noble Lord if the £21,000,000 includes the sum to be expended on ships not yet completed?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, I stated that the amount of money necessary to complete the ships so far as construction is concerned was £1,550,000.

  THE IMMIGRATION OF FOREIGNERS
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the continuous stream of able-bodied British and Irish emigrants to trans-oceanic lands, where their labour and wages will be adequately protected from foreign competition and depreciation, while the immigration into the United Kingdom of considerable numbers of expatriated pauper foreigners continues unchecked; and if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps in the matter, or to re-constitute the Select Committee of last Session on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), with a view to speedy and definite proposals being made on the subject?
  MR. J. T. BRUNNER: May I ask whether the passage in the hon. Member's question which says that "their labour and wages would be adequately protected from foreign competition and depreciation" is not argumentative, and therefore inadmissible as a question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would be better if that portion of the hon. Member's question had been omitted.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the evidence taken, and reported by the Select Committee last year, did not negative the allegation that any considerable immigration of expatriated foreign paupers took place?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the last question, I have not been able myself to refer to the evidence given before the Select Committee; but that evidence is still incomplete, and it would be quite out of the question to arrive at a conclusion upon it one way or the other. In answer to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Howard Vincent), he will see that there is a Motion down on to-day's Paper for the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration of Foreigners.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now fix the date for the discussion of the Motion disagreeing with the Treasury Minute on Perpetual Pensions?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It depends solely on the progress made with the Civil Service Estimates. I hope to find an early opportunity.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman says he hopes to find time. Does he intend to do so?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir, as soon as possible.

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUES.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has noticed that, at a recent meeting of the London County Council, that Council declared its opinion by a majority of 76 votes to 34, "that it was inexpedient to renew the London Coal and Wine Duties Act," which expires on July 1889; and whether Her Majesty's Government are still of opinion that that Act should not be renewed?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government adhere to the view which they have repeatedly expressed, that this is a question primarily for the decision of the Metropolis itself, and they will not, therefore, take any steps to bring about a renewal of the Act in question.

  PENSIONS TO LORDS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to the issue of the Return showing the names of all present Lords of Parliament who are in receipt of public moneys from the National Exchequer (presented to the House of Lords in November last), in order that it may be distributed amongst Members of the House of Commons before the discussions on the Estimates for the coming financial year are entered upon?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have ascertained that there are a sufficient number of the Returns in stock to meet ordinary requirements, and in order, therefore, to save the expense of reprinting I have arranged that copies can be obtained by application at the Vote Office.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing the large
  728
  amount of interest on both sides of the House taken in the Motion which has the first place on 2nd April, he can give an assurance that the Government will not move the suspension of the Standing Orders on that date?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not at present aware of any necessity for asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders on Tuesday, the 2nd of April, and I have personally the strongest wish that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (referring to the condition of the poor in large towns) shall be discussed; but he will see that it is impossible for me to come under any positive engagement which would tie my hands against any conceivable emergency.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON NAVAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true that Captain Hall (Royal Navy) has been appointed to command a ship of war at sea, thereby causing a vacancy for the post of Naval Secretary to the Royal Commission on the System of Administration for the Naval and Military Services; if so, whether the vacancy is filled up by another Naval Officer; and, if not, whether it is intended to fill it up?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It is the case that Captain Hall has recently been appointed to the command of a ship, and has therefore withdrawn from the post of one of the Secretaries to the Royal Commission; but as the Commission has very nearly completed its labours, it has not been thought necessary to appoint another Naval Officer.

  PORTRUSH NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National School of Marsh Street, Port-rush, county Antrim, was entitled by the numbers of its scholars to have a second monitor appointed in the month of June last; whether the name of a female monitor, one Annie Scott, was supplied six or eight weeks prior to 9th June to the District Inspector; whether the District Inspector failed to forward such name to the National Board, and thereby the school has been deprived of the assistance of a monitor, and has had its

  729
  teaching staff weakened for a whole year, it being stated that no monitor can be appointed till June next; whether the Board is, through a mistake of its clerk, responsible for ten weeks' delay in dealing with the managers' complaint in this matter, and then failed to remedy it; and whether the Board will, without further delay, allow the appointment of the suggested female monitor, and so stop further injury to the school, especially in the next yearly examination?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that no school is entitled to have a monitor on the ground of numbers alone. The name of the candidate monitor referred to, was not brought under the notice of the Inspector until the 4th of June. He thereupon declined to recommend the proposed appointment, as the school already possessed one female monitor. The manager of the school wrote some three months afterwards to the Commissioners on the subject. The fact that their reply to this communication went to the wrong address in no way prejudiced the question, the Board being of the opinion that the Inspector acted properly in the matter. The Board is unable to hold out any hope that the candidate will be appointed as second female monitor in this school when monitors throughout Ireland are being next appointed in July.

  THE TRAFFIC IN ETHER IN IRELAND
  MR. MACARTNEYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at the last meeting of the Synod of the Church of Ireland a petition was adopted praying Parliament to regulate the traffic in ether in Ireland; whether there is reason to believe that ether is used extensively as an intoxicant in certain portions of the counties of Londonderry and Tyrone; whether attention has been drawn to this by coroners, medical officers, the police, and the officials of county lunatic asylums in Ireland; and if he will consider whether anything can be done to stop this great and increasing evil?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The petition referred to appears to have been adopted as stated. The constabulary authorities report, as regards parts of Londonderry, that it is the case that ether is constantly
  730
  used as an intoxicant, and the resident physician of the asylum reports that insanity in his district is produced in many instances by an indulgence in this pernicious habit, combined with other causes. The constabulary report, with respect to county Tyrone, that the habit of ether drinking exists in two localities, but in a limited degree. The resident physician of the asylum states that he cannot refer to any particular cases where insanity has been attributable to the habit in his district, but that such has been the case is the general opinion there.

  MILITIA PERMANENT STAFF.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that paymaster sergeants and orderly room sergeants serving with Militia on army engagements, and who have attained the highest non-commissioned rank, are to be deprived of such rank in order to become assistants to paymaster sergeants and orderly room sergeants of regimental depots, who are in almost every case junior to the former by service, rank, and clerical experience; and whether it is in contemplation at once to discharge such members of the permanent staff of Militia with the rate of pension to which they would be entitled on attaining the age for compulsory retirement?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There is no intention of altering the status of paymaster-sergeants or orderly-room sergeants appointed to the permanent staff of the Militia before the 1st of March 1888, and therefore it is unnecessary to discharge, for that reason, any of them. Those appointed after that date will be styled assistant paymaster-sergeants and assistant orderly-room sergeants.

  CUSTOMS STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended that the seven hours' scheme shall be applied to the Upper Division section of clerks in the Statistical Department of Her Majesty's Customs, or whether the forthcoming reorganization, and consequent reduction of the staff, will affect the Lower Division only; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that the three Upper Division vacancies in that Department

  731
  be at once allotted to the redundant clerks, who are entitled to them by a specific arrangement sanctioned by Treasury Minute of 12th May, 1880?
  MR. JACKSON: The application of the seven hours' system to the Upper Division of the Statistical Department is suspended for the present. There is only one vacancy at present to which the redundant clerks can claim to be promoted, and I must await further information before deciding what is to be done about it.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I wish to know if it is true that the Board of Customs are making arrangements to fix the time for the higher officers in that establishment at 11 o'clock instead of 10?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of that.

  THE MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report and General Orders of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs relating to "The Merchandize Marks Act, 1887," and contained in the Thirty-second Report on the Customs, convey the impression that in the opinion of the Commissioners the Act applies exclusively to imported manufactured articles, and not to domestic manufactures; and whether the Commissioners purpose to administer the Act in relation only to imported manufactured articles?
  MR. JACKSON: There was no intention of conveying the impression referred to. The Commissioners of Customs are only concerned with that part of the Act which refers to imported goods, and, therefore, their Report and General Orders are restricted to the sections of the Act that are administered by them.

  THE CHILIAN NITRATE LOAN.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the following question which was placed on the Paper on August 30th, 1887,
  "Whether his attention has been drawn to a new Chilian Nitrate Loan for £1,113,781 which has been negotiated with the firm of Messrs, Rothschild, and is to be issued on the 1st of next month. And whether, taking into consideration
  732
  that the nitrate deposits of Tarapaca, hypothecated for this loan, have already, by a decree of the Executive Government of Peru, dated 11th July 1871, been specially and absolutely hypothecated for the Loan of 1872 for £3,600,000, the Government will draw the attention of the Chilian Government and Messrs. Rothschild to this fact, with the view that the claims of the creditors on the revenues of Tarapaca will be recognized to the fullest extent warranted by justice and International Law,"
  and which was withdrawn on the understanding that the Chilian Government intended to recognize the claims of the creditors on the revenues of Tarapaca, whether the Chilian Government intend to carry out their promise; and when?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Governnment are not aware of any such understanding as is mentioned by the hon. Member—namely, that the Chilian Government intended to recognize the claims of the Peruvian creditors on the revenues of Tarapaca. What Her Majesty's Government understood was that the Chilian Government were prepared to negotiate for the settlement of those claims, and communications have passed between the two Governments on the subject, but they have not led as yet to any practical result.

  THE MUSSEL COMMITTEE.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the Report of the Mussel Committee has not yet been distributed?
  *SIR J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Report was laid on the Table of the House on 15th March. The matter is, therefore, in the hands of the printer. I am informed that they hope to issue it before the end of this week.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: May I ask the Vice President of the Council for Education when the new Code will be issued?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It will be distributed to hon. Members to-morrow.

  ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise Sir, to ask you whether the Attorney General was entitled to vote on the Motion in Committee of Supply last Friday to reduce his salary, it having been laid down in "Erskine May" that no Member who has a direct pecuniary

  733
  interest in the question should be allowed to vote upon it; but that in order to operate as a disqualification that interest must be an immediate pecuniary interest, and not of a general or remote character? I wish to ask whether the vote of the Attorney General in reference to his own salary was admissible according to the Orders of the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Motion to reduce the salary was merely made in this case to raise the question as to the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is a very different thing from a question in which the hon. and learned gentleman would have a "direct pecuniary interest."

  IRELAND—THE GWEEDORE PRISONERS.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MAC NEILL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary if it is true that the Governor of Derry Gaol has again refused to allow the female prisoners from Gweedore to use the dress provided for them by their friends, and that they have again been obliged to go bare-headed and badly clothed a long journey, although sufficient clothing was sent to the prison for them? I wish to know if the Governor of Derry Gaol has been guilty of such conduct in distinct violation of the pledge given to me last Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: AS I have only received notice of this question since I entered the House, I have not been able to inquire into the matter, but I think the hon. Member has put the question under some misapprehension. There has been no such hardship as he has indicated.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
  MR. S. BUXTON: Does the First Lord of the Treasury intend to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow; and, if so, will he infringe upon the rights of private Members at the Evening Sitting?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Is it intended to take the Civil Service Estimates in the ordinary order?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be a Morning Sitting to-morrow for the Civil Service Estimates, which, however,
  734
  will not be taken in the evening. The usual order will be followed with regard to the Estimates, except in the case of the Vote for the Submarine Telegraph. That is a new Vote, and may have to be taken out of the ordinary course. I hope that Friday will be a private Member's day, but I cannot, of course, foresee contingencies on the Opposition side of the House.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is intended to hand over all the land in Western Australia suitable for European Colonization to a handful of Colonists, and to take it away from Imperial control?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; the Government have no such intention. I have previously answered several questions put by the hon. Member on exactly the same subject; and I can only repeat that it is absolutely impossible for me to enter into the details of a scheme which has not yet been decided upon, and which, before it is definitely adopted, must come before Parliament in a special Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I shall draw attention to the subject in Committee of Supply.

  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES.
  Address for—
  "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the number of Electors on the Register now in force (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 144, of Session, 1888)."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered—
  "Arranged according to Counties, showing the number of Accounts of Depositors in Post Office Savings Banks in the United Kingdom remaining open on the 31st day of December, 1888, together with the amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those Accounts (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 201, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Whitley.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolution [20th March] reported:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,729,203, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards

  735
  defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, viz.:—
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION—THE CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL—PERSONAL EXPLANATION—SIR CHARLES RUSSELL.
  *SIR C. RUSSELL: Before rising, I paused for a moment or two in order to see whether the Attorney General would desire first to address the House by way of explanation or other wise. I ask permission of the House to make an explanation with reference to a certain assertion of fact made by the Attorney General in the debate on Friday night, with which my name was prominently associated. I shall best put the House in possession of the matter in controversy if I read some letters which have passed between the Attorney General and myself. On Saturday evening—unfortunately the latter was forwarded after the Attorney General had left town—I wrote the following letter—
  "10 New Court, Lincoln's-inn, March 23.
  Dear Attorney General,—I have read with complete astonishment your statement last night in answer to Harcourt. I can hardly believe that you are correctly reported. It is absolutely incorrect to say, or in any form of words to convey, that before Pigott's examination, or indeed before his flight, I had called for, or indeed been referred to, or had had the slightest intimation, direct or indirect, that Pigott had, in letters to Mr. Soames or to Mr. Houston, discredited the value of his testimony.
  This is a grave matter, and must be set right.
  Pray let me have an answer promptly.
  Faithfully
  C. RUSSELL.
  The Attorney General, M. P."
  The Attorney General received my letter, as he informed me, at 10 o'clock on Sunday night. His reply is as follows:—
  "Hornton Lodge, Kensington, March 24.
  10.30 p.m.
  Dear Russell,—I found your note on my return home an hour ago.
  I only wish I had received it yesterday before I left town, as I would have gone through the shorthand notes.
  I spoke from recollection on Friday, and if I have made a mistake I will frankly correct it, but my recollection is that you called for all
  736
  Pigott's letters during Soames's cross-examination, and I undertook to produce them. One or two days afterwards I handed you the printed bundle of letters. I think, but I speak only from recollection, that Soames's letter of November 15 refers to Pigott's letter to Houston of the 11th. I know that I twice tried to read that letter of the 15th before Pigott was called, and you requested me to postpone doing so.
  Having regard to Harcourt's attack, and the grounds of it, the point is not, in my opinion, of importance. But I believe my recollection to be accurate.
  I have written a brief statement of my recollection to The Times. I hope it will appear to-morrow.
  I send this reply within an hour of my return, so I think you will agree that I have been prompt.
  I am very truly yours,
  RICHARD WEBSTER.
  Sir Charles Russell, Q. C., M. P."
  That letter I received this morning. I at once dictated the letter I am about to read to my clerk, but it did not reach the Attorney General until half-past 1 o'clock—
  "10, New Court, Lincoln's Inn, Monday.
  Dear Attorney General,—I thank you for your letter received a few minutes ago.
  I am sorry my letter of Saturday did not reach you before you left town. I wrote to you immediately on my leaving Court on Saturday, and as soon as I read your statement in the House.
  That statement was understood to convey that five days before Pigott was in the box you had put into my possession evidence in a specific letter under Pigott's hand tending to discredit his testimony—in other words, that you had thus furnished me with valuable materials for cross-examination to his credit.
  I am confident you will see that in this you are absolutely mistaken. Neither are you correct in saying that I called for any letter between Mr. Soames and Pigott, except the 'arrangement letter' of Mr. Soames. I do not understand your reference to a printed bundle of letters. You offered to produce that letter of Mr. Soames, i.e., of November 15, after Pigott had actually been called and immediately before he was examined, and you will see from your own observation made at the time that that letter had not been produced, much less handed to me, previously, for you then say that I had complained of its not having been forthcoming before, and this letter had been alluded to as the Times' arrangement with Pigott, both by you and by me. But more. I never knew the contents of Mr. Soames's letter of November 15 to Pigott until after the flight of the latter; and indeed that letter would not have told me that Pigott had, in any letter to Mr. Soames, discredited himself, for, although it acknowledges Pigott's letter of the 11th, it is not in any way conversant with the value of Pigott's testimony, but relates to the 'arrangement in writing,' as you call it, of the Times that Pigott should not come to harm. I assure you most

  737
  positively that Pigott's discrediting letters came upon my colleagues and myself after Pigott's disappearance as a complete revelation I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing Asquith, but I know he agrees with the view I have expressed, for he telegraphed to me on Saturday—'I do not understand the Attorney General's statement.' I wish to add that while I did, more than once to you, and openly in Court, complain of your conduct of the case and still do complain of it, I have not imputed to you, and do not impute to you, dishonourable conduct, and I shall say so in the House. I thought, and I think, that you were led away by the political character of the case into a course of conduct which, on cooler reflection, and in less exciting circumstances, you would not have pursued.
  Faithfully,
  C. RUSSELL.
  Excuse my dictating to my clerk, but I am pressed."
  I was absent from the House on Friday, and the reason of my absence, I did hope, would have been understood and appreciated on both sides of the House. I wish in this relation to make a few observations in reference to my absence on Friday. My reason for being absent I thought would have been appreciated on both sides of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) made an allusion to me, an allusion—kindly meant, as I understand—but the effect of that allusion, the impression it conveyed on this Bench, was that my absence from the discussion was due to the fact that I approved of, or was not prepared to condemn, the conduct of the Attorney General. Now, I wish to express exactly what was the state of the case. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. A. Morley) that I desired to be completely dissociated from the matter. My hon. Friend then said that my absence would be misconstrued—that hon. Members might get up and point to my absence as a proof that I was not, in point of fact, ready to say here what I have said elsewhere. I then authorized my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham to say—
  Several hon. MEMBERS: Member for Newcastle.
  *SIR C. RUSSELL: No; my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. I had no communication with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle. I gave my hon. Friend authority in case my absence should be referred to in any such fashion, to explain distinctly
  738
  to the House what is correctly expressed in the letter I have just read—that I did think—I do think; I regret to say I still think—that the conduct of the case has been practically unfair to the defendants in the case; but I do draw—and I am very glad to be able to say so much—a broad line of distinction between conduct of which I feel bound to hold the opinions I entertain, and the imputation of dishonourable conduct to the Attorney General. I have nothing to withdraw from the opinion I expressed in the letter. Now, I do not know whether I should supplement my statement and correspondence—which gives, at least, the pith of the matter—by a reference to the evidence? I am prepared to do so if the House will bear with me. In order to understand the matter it is necessary to refer to what took place in the debate on Friday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby in the course of his speech said—
  "I wish to know when the Attorney General was made acquainted with the letter of November 17 in which Pigott declared his own infamy and informed Mr. Houston and Mr. Soames that if he went into the witness-box his character would be made known, with the result that the case for the prosecution would be destroyed? I should have thought that it was the first duty of those concerned to ascertain the character and the credibility of a witness upon whose evidence this foul and monstrous charge alone rested."
  In reference to and in answer to that, the Attorney General, who had previously stated that he was prepared to give chapter and verse, is reported to have spoken as follows:—
  "Will the Committee listen to this statement of simple dates? I have told the House that I knew of this letter in the middle of December. Before Pigott went into the box—five days before—I put that letter into the hands of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney."
  The earlier part of the Attorney General's speech shows that he was referring not to the letter of November 15th but to the letter of 11th November. That is so?
  SIR E. WEBSTER: Of the 11th.
  *SIR C. RUSSELL: Then the Attorney General goes on—
  "So if it was desirable that the other side should know—if they ought to know—that the man's character was discredited, I myself had given that information. ["Withdraw!"] Hon. Members who have cheered me do not want the charges withdrawn. They have been refuted by evidence which cannot be disputed. In the

  739
  course of Mr. Soames's evidence, which was given some days before the 20th of February, the letter was called for, and I produced it and handed it to the hon. and learned Member for Hackney before Pigott went into the box.
  "Sir W. HARCOURT: Two months afterwards.
  "The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman says two months afterwards."
  Then the Attorney General went on to say that was not the pith of the accusation, and so on. I think I can make the case pretty clear by referring to the occasion on which the matter came before the Court. Mr. Soames has been repeatedly in the box, and so far as this matter is concerned I may begin with his examination, or his cross-examination, on the 15th of February. On page 2903 of the proceedings I call for the memorandum of Pigott's evidence. Mr. Soames said it was taken from Pigott on 19th October, and in order that the House may follow the bearing of these circumstances let me remind the House that there are three letters in question. On the 11th of November Pigott wrote a letter, called a discrediting letter, to Houston, and Houston destroyed that letter; but fortunately Pigott sent a copy of that letter under cover of another letter to Mr. Soames. The letter of the 11th of November is acknowledged by Mr. Soames on the 15th of November that is the "arrangement letter." It is followed by a further discrediting letter of Pigott's own on the 17th of November. Now, the next point is this. On the same date, 15th February, pages 2918 and 2919, I called for the Pigott-Houston letters. It is rather important that I should call the attention of the House to this, for the Attorney General may possibly be misled on this point. On page 2918, I asked, in cross-examination, "Have letters passed between Richard Pigott and Mr. Houston?—Yes. When did you get them?—About a week or ten days ago. From whom?—From Mr. Macdonald." That is, Mr. Macdonald of the Times. So it is obvious that the answers do not refer to the letter in question, the letter of 11th November, because that letter was sent to Mr. Soames himself. Then a little lower down in the Report it will be seen I call for the Pigott-Labouchere correspondence, and the Memorandum sent by Labouchere to Pigott. Then I asked a question as to the statement which was
  740
  put into writing almost immediately, and put into the form of a Statutory Declaration. That does not touch the letter in question. Then, on 2922—I think it will be convenient to the Attorney General that I should give these references—the letter of arrangement, as it has been called, is referred to, but that letter is neither produced nor called for at that time. On page 2923, Pigott's statement of further evidence he was prepared to give is also referred to; it was neither called for nor produced; but there was produced the Statutory Declaration given by Pigott to Houston. Up to this time, neither directly nor indirectly, was there any reference to any letter of the 11th of November, or of any other date, having been written by Pigott to Mr. Soames. At the end of Mr. Soames' cross-examination, at page 2931, the papers which had been previously referred to, and which did not include any letters, were asked for and produced. Then came Mr. Macdonald, and after his evidence came the attempt to anticipate Pigott's evidence by calling experts. I will not discuss that now. I am sorry to have had to allude to it even so far, but it was necessary to do it, because we are rapidly approaching the examination of Mr. Houston on the 19th of February. At page 2983 the Statutory Declaration is produced, and a memorandum of conversation with Eugene Davis is asked for at page 2995. On the 20th of November Houston is still under cross-examination, and it was on that day that Pigott made his first appearance in the box. Up to this time there was not a shadow of ground for the suggestion that the letters of Pigott to Mr. Houston and Mr. Soames of the 11th of November and 17th November, and Mr. Soames' letter of the 15th November were referred to in any way. I was cross-examining Houston (seepage 3016) when a noticeable circumstance occurred. I was cross-examining Houston, and I asked him whether he still believed in Pigott, and he said that up to that time he bad had no reason to doubt him, and still anticipated that he would do what he had promised to do, although he did not like Pigott's interview with Mr. Labouchere. I ask the House is it possible, supposing I had had at that time any information as to the existence of the letter which Pigott himself had written to the witness in the box, and

  741
  which the witness had destroyed, and in which letter Pigott had discredited himself, I should not have put a question about it to Houston. On the same occasion, in page 3031 of the shorthand notes, the arrangement in writing is referred to as not having been up to then produced. At the bottom of page 3035 the Attorney General's re-examination proceeds—
  "Before Mr. Pigott comes I will put in a letter Sir C. Russell has called for of November 15th, but which has not been produced—the arrangement in writing."
  This is the Attorney General's description of it. It was a letter in which Mr. Soames acknowledged the letter of the 11th, and made no reference whatever to its discrediting character so far as Pigott's evidence was concerned. Then I said I would wish that put in when Mr. Pigott was in the box.
  "The Attorney General: As a matter of fact you did not. If you say so now it is another matter. I give it to my learned friend now.
  "Sir C. Russell: I said so at the end of my cross-examination.
  "The Attorney General: When you called for it Mr. Soames was in the box, and you asked for it, and rather complained of our not having it at the time.
  "Sir C. Russell: No.
  "The Attorney General: It is not worth discussing, however, my Lords. I tender it at any time."
  Though Pigott had been called he was not actually in the box, and I did not even then get the letter (though the Attorney General did offer to put it in) of the 15th November. But even if I had got that letter it could not have shown that Pigott was a discreditable witness. I wish to make this matter perfectly plain. On February 26 Pigott had disappeared, never to re-appear in the witness-box, and Houston was recalled. On page 3209 of the shorthand notes appears the following—
  "The Attorney General: There is one matter I submit to your Lordships should come first in fairness and justice. Your Lordships will remember in the course of Mr. Soames being in the box Sir Charles Russell called for a communication between Mr. Pigott and Mr. Soames, and Mr. Soames at once said he would produce it.
  Sir C. Russell: I do not object to it.
  The Attorney General: On my offering that it should be put in, Sir Charles Russell asked me to postpone it until Mr. Pigott was in the box. I have no doubt Sir Charles would have read it at some time or other, but I ask to be allowed to put Mr. Soames in the box before anything else is done, and your Lordships will
  742
  get from him the communications that he had with Pigott on the subject. I venture to think that my learned friend will agree this is a right course.
  Sir C. Russell: I have no objection at all, provided I am at liberty to call Mr. George Lewis.
  The Attorney General: That is no condition at all.
  The President: We will adjourn.
  The Court adjourned."
  Up to this time it is clear that the letter of the 15th of November had not been put in; that is perfectly obvious. What then takes place? After the adjournment the Attorney General said—
  "I was about to read a letter from Pigott to Mr. Soames; but I will take the course at present suggested, and will read the letter of the 15th of November and the letter of the 11th, which is referred to in it, which were those which were called for by Sir Charles Russell."
  I ask the Attorney General to refer to any syllable or line, or to any suggestion, great or small, direct or indirect, where I ever referred to the letter of the 11th of November. I could not have done it, because I did not know of its existence. The Attorney General goes on to say—
  "Your Lordships will afterwards judge whether the other should be read or not. I read the 15th of November—first, I had better read the 11th of November, 1888, from Mr. Pigott to Mr. Soames:—'I enclose you a copy of a letter I am sending Mr. Harrison by this post, to which I must earnestly request your earliest attention'—that is, the 11th of November from Dublin. The letter enclosed is in these terms—'8th November, from Pigott to Houston. Dear Sir,—Enclosed completes story of the negotiations.'
  The witness: No; that is not the letter, I think.
  The 8th of November, I think?—No, that is not the enclosure.
  How does it begin?—The enclosure is the 11th of November, 1888.
  Have you got it?—I have.
  Just read it, please.
  The President: Is this the letter which was enclosed in the letter of the 11th?—It is a letter written to me, my Lord, by Mr. Pigott, enclosing a copy of a letter that he had written the same day addressed to Mr. Houston.
  Not, then, of the 8th of November?—No; that is another letter."
  Now, again, I ask the Attorney General either to admit that he has made a mistake—we may differ as to the importance of the mistake—or to point out any passage in the whole of the evidence to show there was, from the beginning to the end, any reference to any letter of November 11th. Now, this remarkable passage occurs. According to the statement

  743
  of the Attorney General, I am supposed to have had this letter in my possession since February 20th, five days before February 26th. On the occasion in question, what happened? I asked—
  "Have you got any copy of this?
  The Attorney General: Read it, please.
  Sir Charles Russell Kindly give me a copy.
  The Attorney General: I have not got a copy."
  Yet it is said that that document, of which I was asking for a copy, had been in my possession for five days. I do not know that there is any other matter to which I desire to call attention. I can assure the House—and I hope that those on both sides of the House who know me will believe me when I say it—it is no pleasure to me—far from it—to have to say one word in reference to this matter, and if it had not been for the mistaken kindness on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury, I certainly should not have intervened to-night. But I feel called upon to give an explanation on a matter of fact, and though it may give pain to the Attorney General—which I greatly regret—to express my honest feeling and opinion as to the mode, which I do not think a fair one, in which the case has been conducted.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes. If I have made any mistake I shall frankly admit it. I will merely state my belief in the matter in the same way as my hon. and learned Friend has stated his, and if I am in error I do not know whether the difference between us will ever be solved, but I will state to the House exactly the material on which I form my judgment. I respect my hon. and learned Friend's recollection, and I ask him to give the same credit to my recollection. I must ask to be allowed to make one or two preliminary remarks, which I shall do without the slightest feeling. I only regret that my hon. and learned Friend was not in the House when the attack was made upon me, because I think he would have shared with me the feelings of indignation at the imputations which were made upon me by the right hon. Member for Derby It is all very well for my hon. and learned Friend to say that he makes no
  744
  imputation upon my honour, but it is hardly possible for any one who heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby to think that he made none. That right hon. Gentleman brought eight or nine charges against me, every one of which I answered. I undertake to say that I have answered every one of them, though I will not undertake to say I satisfied every hon. Member on the other side. The suggestion now made is that in respect of one part of one of those charges I am mistaken in fact. I do not believe that I made any mistake; but if I did say that, it is upon an almost immaterial point. ["Oh!"] I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will deal fairly with me; it is of no use for the right hon. Member for Derby to-express silent signs of contempt. The charge made against me is that I kept back—and this is the sting of the charge—from the Court all knowledge of the letters of the 11th and of the 17th of November. I admit at once that I was under some misapprehension as to the date. I had no notice at the time of the particular details of the charges—of that I do not complain; but, as a matter of fact, I had no notice of them. I had to rely entirely upon my memory. I had not the shorthand notes to refer to, and I made a mistake as to a date, as I did last night when I wrote my letter. I thought that the letter so much commented on by the right hon. Member for Derby was the letter of Soames to Pigott of November 15. I did not apply my mind to the letter of the 17th of November. What I had in my mind was the letter of the 11th, which I thought was the letter of the 15th. That letter was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as being a letter in which Pigott declared his own infamy, and informed Mr. Houston and Mr. Soames that if he went into the witness-box his character would be known, with the result the case for the prosecution would be destroyed. I said in the House that that was an absolutely incorrect representation of what Pigott's letter was. I said there was no word in Pigott's letter, be it that letter of the 11th, 15th, or 17th, which justified any such statement. But the charge was that I kept that letter back from the Court. Now, I am not complaining to my hon. and learned Friend, who conducted the case with great

  745
  forensic ability; but will any barrister kindly consider what the real facts are? I will put the case worse against myself. I agree that I was wrong about the five days I quoted from memory. I believe I should have said two days. I will explain exactly how the error arose. I had nothing to go by except my recollection of the actual course of events. On February 20 last I specifically asked to be allowed to put in the letter of November 15, 1888. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will be good enough to follow me upon a question of my bonâ fides in this matter. I offered to put in the letter of November 15, 1888. How does that letter commence, and the House will then see whether this argument of my hon. and learned Friend is really possible. The letter of November 15 begins—
  "I am in receipt of yours of the 11th, enclosing a copy of a letter you have addressed to Mr. Houston."
  Is there any barrister, or anybody who ever practised at all, who will suggest that if I had been allowed to read that letter of November 15 I could have declined to put in the enclosure referred to of November 11? The mistake has arisen entirely from my not having the shorthand notes with me. Thinking that the letter to which reference has been made was under date the 15th, I referred to it as the letter of that date. It must be remembered that although I knew more than a month ago the debate was to be raised, I received not the slightest idea from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby of the nature of the charges he was going to bring against me. All I can say is that I meant to put in before the Court, and I offered to put in, a letter of November 15; and if that letter had been read the result would have been this—that then the letter of November 11 must also have been read. Let me tell the House exactly how the matter stands. My hon. and learned Friend desires to discuss here a matter which he may afterwards desire to discuss before the Court.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I assure you I do not.
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: My hon. and learned Friend cannot make an attack upon me without my being allowed to make a reply. He has said he is
  746
  going to attack me in the Commission. I am perfectly aware of it, and I said before the Commission that I would bear with resignation the attacks to be subsequently made by my hon. and learned Friend. It is before the Commission that my conduct in reference to the case will have to be discussed. But this debate is raised upon this, comparatively speaking, minor point, because my hon. and learned Friend elected that no single part of the Pigott correspondence should be read until Pigott went into the box. My hon. and learned Friend will not differ from me on that point; but I was bound to produce it all. I ask my hon. and learned Friend just to let me tell what my recollection is. I do not agree with his very minute criticism of the shorthand writer's notes, but I will tell the House how I understood the particular answer to which he attached so much importance. I do not at all agree that when he asked for the Pigott and Houston correspondence he simply meant to ask for the letters which came from Mr. Macdonald. It is perfectly plain he did not; for, in the same breath, he asked for the Pigott and Labouchere, the Houston and Pigott, and the Pigott and George Lewis correspondence. Now, I assert that not one of these latter ever was in the hands of Mr. Macdonald; and I assert that the correspondence of Pigott and Labouchere and of George Lewis and Pigott was never in any hands except those of Mr. Houston and Mr. Soames. Therefore, so far from only intending to call for the letters in the hands of Mr. Macdonald, my hon. and learned Friend asked distinctly for all correspondence and the Statutory declaration. My hon. and learned Friend's memory misleads him. He asked for the letters which had come from Mr. Macdonald, and then made a general request for the letters Mr. Soames had. But he did not stop there. Before the adjournment on that day my hon. and learned Friend asked Mr. Soames whether he had got the papers. Mr. Soames said he had not been able to get them, but would get them after the adjournment of the Court. The 15th of February, I wish the House to remember, was a Friday, which is the reason I came to make the mistake about the five days. I have endeavoured to ascertain the accuracy of my recollection by asking Mr. Soames distinctly as to

  747
  what was done; and I will state to the House the result of my conversation with Mr. Soames. On the Friday, or the Saturday following, printed copies of the correspondence were prepared to be handed to counsel in different bundles. My recollection is distinct that on the following Tuesday morning I handed to my hon. and learned Friend the Pigott and Soames bundle of letters. He says "No." Has he searched his papers? Is he sure the bundle is not among his papers? It really is immaterial on the merits of the matter; but I believe there will be found among the papers the very bundle that I handed to him. It may be that he handed it back to Mr. Soames; he very often did hand back bundles if they were not going to be put in. But my recollection is distinct that I handed it to my hon. and learned Friend, and I asked him to let me then read the letter of November 15, which, if there was any cat to be let out of the bag, would have let out the cat with respect to the letter of November 11. I repeat, although it is almost childish to argue it, that if I put in a letter of the 15th I could not decline to put in a letter of the 11th referred to in it. My hon. and learned Friend is not only a most astute man in all these matters, but he was assisted by juniors who are rapidly following in his steps. And they would immediately have called for that letter, and I should have had to produce it. I can only say I believe I handed a bundle to my hon. and learned Friend on Tuesday, February 19. I may be mistaken. I can only state what I stated in a letter written last night, and which appears in the Times this morning. I do not say that my hon. and learned Friend ever read the letter. I have never suggested anything of the kind. It may be that, inasmuch as he was not going to deal with the matter until Pigott went into the box, he did not consider it of sufficient importance to look the bundle through. But Mr. Soames informs me, quite independently of my own statement, that his recollection is distinct that the bundle was handed to my hon. and learned Friend. Have the papers been looked through to see whether that bundle is in existence or not? It is perfectly clear from Mr. Soames's examination of February 20 that I handed some document to my hon and learned Friend, and
  748
  that he said he did not wish it read until Pigott was in the box. I say again, my hon. and learned Friend must not and will not misrepresent me in what I have not stated. I had not the slightest communication with anybody last night when I wrote my letter. I wrote from recollection, and without any reference to shorthand notes at all. I ask the House to allow me to read from that letter, because I cannot put the matter more distinctly. I wrote that "In the course of Mr. Soames's cross-examination Sir Charles Russell asked for all letters which had passed between Mr. Soames and Pigott, and I undertook to produce them; that the next day or the next day but one "—of course I meant by that the next day when the Court assembled—" I handed Sir Charles Russell a printed bundle of the correspondence containing, as I believe, copies of Pigott's letter, of November 15 and November 17." Now, the House will judge whether I meant to mislead anyone. What did I say:—" As far as my memory serves me, the copy of Pigott's letter to Mr. Houston of the 11th of November was not in the bundle, but as to this my recollection is not distinct." I admit that, in so far as the other night I referred to the Pigott letter as a separate and distinct document of November 15th, I was wrong. I ought really to have referred to it as a document of November 11th which was referred to in Mr. Soames' letter. I only wish to read one concluding sentence, and to ask whether it does not represent my position fairly. The charge made against me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was that I had kept these matters back from the Court; that I had vouched Pigott as a witness of truth, and had not told the Court that there was this letter in my possession. That letter would have been read just before Pigott was produced, but that my hon. and learned Friend elected that the correspondence should not be read until Pigott was in the box. I do not believe that any one will deny that after reading the letter of the 15th, the letter of the 11th of November must have come out, and, of course, I intended that it should come out. May I remind the House that on the 26th of February I actually mentioned the letter of the 11th of November as one which had been called for by my hon. and learned Friend?

  749
  Accordingly, this is the position. The charge of the right hon. Gentleman was this—that I had kept back those letters and put Pigott into the box without disclosing them. I state again that I wished that correspondence to be read before Pigott went into the box. I state again, as I stated on Friday with warmth—I do not apologize for that warmth—that when I tendered that letter of the 15th of November I tendered it as part of the correspondence, and I meant to produce the letter of the 11th. The whole of this debate has been raised for the purpose of justifying the conduct of my hon. and learned Friend, because he thought fit not to put in these letters before Pigott was called. ["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may say "Oh!" as much as he likes. How is the position of Friday night altered from that of to-night? Is there any honest person who will suggest that I kept back the letter of the 15th of November? ["Yes."] Is there any one to suggest that I tried to keep back the letter of the 15th of November? ["Yes."] I repeat again if my hon. and learned Friend says he never saw these letters, I believe that he never did see them, or has no recollection of it. But I ask him to respect my recollection, which is, that when I handed him the bundle, my hon. and learned Friend did not wish the letter read until Pigott was in the box. The charge against me on Friday night is without foundation. I disclosed, and ordered to be prepared and put in, all the letters that passed on Tuesday morning, the 19th. I repeat my recollections and strong belief that if the papers are searched it will be found, and that the only reason they were not put in when produced was because my hon. and learned Friend desired to keep them back. I do not think the attempt to prove me in the wrong is worth the amount of discussion which has taken place. It has necessitated my going into the matter at some length. I have shown no warmth, I have simply dealt with the question as one of fact. It is only one of the many charges, and one part of many charges, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby thought it right to bring against me, and it is some satisfaction that it is upon this point only that the Party opposite have been able
  750
  to find the slightest rift in the joints of my armour.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I can assure the House it is with reluctance that I rise to intervene in this debate. Like my hon. and learned Friend (Sir C. Russell) I took no part in the discussion or the division on Friday night. I abstained for reasons which I should have thought would have been free from the misconception of the most unscrupulous partisans, but the matter has now reached a stage when, in the interest of historical accuracy, if upon no other grounds, I must endeavour to make perfectly clear the actual state of the case. The Attorney General says this point is of very minor importance. That is a matter of opinion. I was not present in the House during the debate on Friday, but we read in the papers that no part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was received with such tumultuous applause as the declaration that he had spontaneously volunteered, five days before Pigott went into the box, to furnish to the other side materials for testing this witness of truth whom he was about to produce.
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: I have corrected five days. I said I was wrong about that.
  *MR. ASQUITH: Quite so; but I am dealing with the importance of the point. Now, what are the facts as they have been elucidated from the shorthand notes, and the statement of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir C. Russell)? Instead of this letter of the 11th of November being produced voluntarily—if it ever was produced at all—it was produced in response to a call in cross-examination, which had to be responded to. Instead of the letter being produced, upon the Attorney General's own admission, five days before, it was tendered on the 20th of February, just as Pigott was about to enter the box. Now, that is common ground between us. As to the letter itself, I assert—and I have as clear a recollection of the matter as I have of anything that ever took place in my life—I assert that neither my hon. and learned Friend nor myself—and I need not say we were in the closest communication in this matter—had the ghost of a glimmering of a notion that there was a letter from Pigott in which he announced that his testimony could not be relied upon. When Pigott went into the box, although

  751
  we knew something about his antecedents, we believed that he was being put forward as a witness of truth, just as informer after informer had been put forward in the earlier stages of the case. That being so, let me call attention to one remarkable statement made by the Attorney General. His statement the other night was that he had communicated to us the incriminating letters in which Pigott admits he would be discredited on cross-examination. What is his statement to-day? That he had tendered in evidence the letter of the 15th of November, not from Pigott to Soames, but from Soames to Pigott, which contained a reference to the letter of the 11th of November from Pigott to Soames, and that if that letter had been put in then there would have been an opportunity of calling for the letter of the 11th of November. Does he really mean to say that these two statements amount to the same thing? I will not comment upon that statement; the facts are before the House. The shorthand notes bear out in every particular the recollection of my hon. Friend which tallies with my own; and I leave the matter to the honest judgment of any fair-minded and impartial man who reads the statements on both sides.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have no desire to aggravate the position of the Attorney General, which must be somewhat painful to him. He has said that this is a matter of no importance. It is wonderful how the importance of things varies according to their issues. We are told now that the forged letter is a matter of no importance. It was not considered a matter of no importance when it was published in the Times on the morning of the Second Reading of the Coercion Bill. Now, we are told that this point is of no importance; but the House on Friday night thought it was of importance, as every one will remember. The Attorney General said that he had no notice that he was expected to refer to this matter. I am surprised at that, as I referred to it at Derby and Lambeth, and warned him that he would be asked in this House as to the letter of the 11th of November.
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word in his speeches about my keeping the letters back.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That was my object in challenging him. I asked him when he knew of them. I never supposed he could have known of them and not communicate them. The Attorney General has spoken of my charge against him. What was my charge against him? I said before, and I repeat now, that the Attorney General two months and a half before Pigott came into the box knew that he was a discreditable and discredited witness. I say upon that that it was the duty of any public prosecutor to make inquiry—I do not mean personally, but to instruct his solicitor to inquire into the character of that man. I said that he ought not in a criminal prosecution to produce a man of that character without giving some notice to the accused. This is altogether a foolish attempt to raise a side issue. The real issue is whether Pigott should have been called or not. What I said was that a man who knew what the Attorney General knew in December ought not to lie by and endeavour to keep alive until the last moment the charge involved in the forged letters against the hon. Member for Cork, and to encourage the Times, knowing what he knew, to publish what it did publish every morning. The Attorney General, I said, had kept back his knowledge until the last moment, and only revealed it when driven to the last extremity. It is quite certain that to the defence that letter was never known until the 26th of February, when Pigott had left the country, and if he had not left it would have only postponed the knowledge for another week in order to keep the calumny alive. What answer is there to that? There is no answer; it is confirmed like the rest—like the apology—out of the mouth of the Attorney General. There is one circumstance which is conclusive against the version which the Attorney General has offered to the House. He says that he gave the letters—
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: I did give them.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is an extraordinary thing, if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney and my hon. and learned Friend for Dumbarton received letters of that kind, that they did not understand them. Does anybody believe that for a single moment? I say they were not given. There is another circumstance deserving

  753
  of observation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney referred to the cross-examination of Houston. That cross-examination took place in the presence of the Attorney General, the Attorney General knew that Houston had been informed by Pigott that he was a discredited and discreditable witness, and yet the witness said, "I had complete confidence in Pigott and had no reason to doubt him." The Attorney General knew that was a false statement, and yet he sat by while he heard a statement made to the Court which he knew to be false. The hon. and learned Gentleman sits by and allows that evidence to be presented as truth. I think that such a thing is altogether unknown in the criminal jurisprudence of this country. ["Oh!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Then you approve of it. That is worthy of you. When documents have been proved to be forgeries you assert they are true; when such proceedings as this in a criminal prosecution are brought before you you say that is what you wished your Attorney General to do, and you admire him for having done it. Here this witness states in the presence of the Attorney General that which the Attorney General knows to be false. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, he did know it. Houston had stated to him that he had no confidence in Pigott's evidence.
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: I am most unwilling to interpose, but I say distinctly that there is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the statement that I either knew or had any reason to know that the answer of Mr. Houston was not true.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Houston was called in February. On the 17th of February Pigott had written a letter. There were two letters, one on the 11th of November by Pigott to Houston, the other on the 17th of November by Pigott to Soames. The purport of both was exactly the same, though the expressions are different. The letter to Soames said:—
  "I am bound again to warn you that my testimony will be certain to be so sensibly weakened in cross-examination as to be seriously injured."
  Yet the Attorney General considers that consistent with Houston swearing that he had confidence in Pigott Does he think it worth while to let that
  754
  statement go to the House; aye, and to the country? Look how this case has been dealt with. Soames knew the case of the Times to be rotten. Certainly in November when he received that letter, he knew that Pigott was not to be trusted; the Attorney General knew about the letter on the 12th of December, and he, therefore, also knew the case to be rotten; and yet we have all these combined to keep alive the charge against the hon. Member for Cork. They called the experts first, and this is the only explanation the Attorney General has to give. If there was any doubt about the matter, they ought to have brought it forward and disposed of it at the earliest moment. If they had any reason to doubt the evidence of Pigott, they ought to have called him in November or December, so that the matter might have been investigated and dealt with, and if the evidence, as they had every reason to believe, was not to be depended upon, then the hon. Member for Cork would at least have been discharged from this odious imputation. You may spin cobwebs of miserable professional etiquette. The common sense of the country will see that they are a pretence. It will see that a number of men having reason to suspect that the charges were false and the evidence insufficient combined to keep those charges alive until the very last moment. And why? Because they knew the moment they were brought forward, they would break down and their falsehood would be detected, that was the reason they kept them alive. It was one of the most deliberate acts of professional cruelty and injustice which could be inflicted by an Attorney General or a Public Prosecutor. That is the reason why I thought it my duty, knowing the opinion of counsel in the case, to use the words "deliberate unfairness" or the word "unfairness" which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney has used. The Attorney General has imputed to me that I charged him with dishonourable conduct. I never used the word. People's ideas of honour differ. Your ideas of honour may be that unfairness is honourable. That is the charge, mark you—unfairness to the accused under such an accusation as the hon. Member for Cork laboured under, unfairness by

  755
  a man in the position of the Queen's Attorney General commanding all the influence and all the power of the Crown. Unfairness is charged against him by the counsel to whom he was opposed, and he says, "Oh, that is a very different thing from a charge of dishonour." That I will not enter into. My charge against the Attorney General was and is in this House, and shall be out of this House—[Ministerial laughter.] Oh, yes, you are not going to determine this question now. You are very much mistaken if you think so. This case, which lies at the very root of the administration of justice, and which shows how the principles you have introduced into Irish Justice are poisoning the administration, will go before the judgment of the country. I say that a more lamentable example of the degradation of the principles which have hitherto governed and distinguished the Bar was never brought under the final judgment of the country.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): There is not much "miserable etiquette" about the right hon. Gentleman, either professional or otherwise. With a just admiration for his own speeches, he has taken advantage of the opportunity of the conversation which has arisen this afternoon for repeating, with somewhat livelier tones and with additional declamation, the speech which he made last Friday evening. I am not going to re-open the whole controversy. I do not think the House wishes at length to discuss the whole matter again. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney have both made statements to the House this evening with regard to a matter of fact upon which their memories do not agree. ["Oh," and laughter.] I should deserve to be smiled at if I said their memories did agree. Each has appealed to the shorthand notes. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he did not charge my hon. and learned Friend with dishonourable conduct. Does he charge him with dishonourable conduct now?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will tell the Solicitor General what I charge the Attorney General with. I charge him with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) has charged him with
  756
  —the unfair conduct of a criminal prosecution.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Now, Mr. Speaker, the House shall be witness and judge. The right hon. Gentleman does not answer with a "yes" my question whether he charges my hon. Friend with dishonourable conduct or not. He says that standards of honour are different. I hope there is no one in the House who will listen to the words I am about to read, taken down from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and then doubt whether he has made a charge of dishonourable conduct against my hon. and learned Friend. He said of my hon. and learned Friend that "on Friday night he thought it worth while to make this statement to influence the judgment of the House." The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in saying that a man has thought it worth while to make a statement, the accuracy and truthfulness of which he knew could not be sustained, you are charging him with as clear an act of dishonour as it is possible to conceive.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The words "worth while" were used in relation to the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that it was not a matter of importance.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: No, Sir, I cannot accept that statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. and learned Friend thought it worth while to make the statement in order to influence the judgment of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman means to say that a gentleman of honour can have such an accusation made against him without repelling it with indignation, then certainly the canons of honourable conduct with which he is acquainted are hardly those which will be accepted by the majority of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has made another charge against my hon. and learned Friend, and it is one of a very serious character—that he sat silent while Houston gave evidence which he knew to be false, and that it was his duty to have interposed. Now, in the evidence of Houston, in the passage to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney referred, there was no duty whatever on the part of Counsel to interpose. There was no statement there made by Houston as to a matter

  757
  of fact upon which any counsel in the case knew he was telling an untruth. What Houston said was that until Pigott had made a declaration on oath his mind was not easy, as he knew that a large bribe had been offered to him. On November 11, Pigott wrote his letter expressing his unwillingness to come forward, and warning those acting for the Times that his cross-examination would most certainly tend to discredit his evidence in chief. There was a perfectly obvious reason for which Pigott was then trying to escape the necessity of going into the witness box, and he states that reason quite clearly in his letter of the 17th. He says: "May I suggest as an alternative that I should not be asked to come forward, but be provided with means to leave the country—at least, for a long period." He goes on to add that the effect of his evidence might be neutralized by cross-examination. ["Hear, hear!" from the Front Opposition Bench] The right hon. Gentleman who sits open mouthed to cheer every comma is not a Member of the Bar. Does he mean to suggest that because a witness fears that his evidence may be neutralized by cross-examination, that that makes him a discreditable witness. As I have said already there was an obvious reason why Pigott should try to escape the necessity of going into the witness-box. I am not going to break through the rule which I observed on Friday, and which I intend to observe, namely, that, until the Commissioners have pronounced a judgment on this part of the case I will not discuss the conduct of the case or what has taken place before the Commissioners except so far as may be absolutely necessary in regard to debate in this House; but I say, after reading the passages in the letters I have referred to, and seeing the statements which were made by Houston in cross-examination, it is idle to suggest that any sort of duty called on the counsel appearing for the Times at that investigation to interfere and make any statement with regard to Houston. I spoke of this incident as a conversation. It really is. I expected it to be a personal statement on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, who desired to clear up his relation to the debate on Friday, and on the part of my hon. and learned Friend, whose recollection
  758
  as expressed on Friday had been challenged in the public papers. There was not, I think, any necessity for the area of the debate being widened by the recurrence of the right hon. Gentleman to his attack on Friday. I do not understand how there can be a doubt in his own mind as to the tenour and purport of the language which he used in this House. At all events, I hold that here again there has been an absolute and entire failure to attach to my hon. and learned Friend that stigma which, in the heat and vigour of Party antagonism, it was attempted to throw upon him on Friday.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think that if the wishes of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were consulted the area of the debate would be exceedingly small. Let me tell the House the reason Pigott gave me why he did not wish to appear in the witness box. It was because he had forged the letters. The Solicitor General has asked whether we charge the Attorney General with dishonourable conduct. We have specified and proved what the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, and we leave it to others outside this House to decide whether he has acted honourably or dishonourably. We do not assert the one or the other, but we leave it to the constituencies of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the constituencies of all of us, to decide. One point with which the Solicitor General was exceedingly indignant was that the right hon. Member for Derby should have said that the Attorney General sat still while Houston made statements in the witness box which he must have known to be false. Why, Houston must have known his statement to be false when he said he still believed in Pigott. It did not depend on any interview Pigott had with me, although that might have shaken Houston's confidence in his own witness. It depended on his statement made, not on November 11, but in a letter referred to in the letter of November 11, which was written by Pigott to Houston in May, 1887. I say no one could have received a letter like that, in regard to a witness of the importance of Pigott, without having grave doubts about him. What did Houston do? Why, when he was over in Dublin, where the reputation of Pigott was notorious, he absolutely

  759
  did not ask anybody what they knew of him. Why, Sir, it is clear that Houston knew perfectly well that Pigott was a notorious scoundrel at that time. But he took uncommon good care not to ask anyone; Mr. Soames took very good care not to ask Houston, and the Attorney General took very good care not to ask Soames or anybody else. That is the real truth of the matter. But, Sir, I was really asking myself just now what it is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to cheer? I was complaining that certain letters written by Pigott to Mr. Soames, the solicitor, were not produced in Court. On Friday night the Attorney General said, "I did disclose them," and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House cheered rapturously. To-day he gets up and says, "I did not disclose them," and hon. Gentlemen opposite still cheer. No matter what the Attorney General may assert—he may say to-day black is white, and to-morrow white is black—he will still command the subservient cheers of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. The Attorney General asserts that he gave these letters in a bundle to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney; but of that there is not one vestige or tittle of confirmation in the shorthand notes, which are taken verbatim. He says to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell), "Look among your papers; you must surely find those letters in your papers. It may be," he says—and I point out this sort of special pleading, which we are becoming accustomed to—"that you did not read them, and that you gave them back to Mr. Soames." Has Mr. Soames looked among his papers? Are they in Mr. Soames' papers? Of course, they are not; how, then, could my learned Friend possibly have given them back to him? The Attorney General further told us that he had no copies in Court of the letters. Were these originals thrown about, and no copies made of them? Yet we are asked to believe that these original letters, which were about the most important matters, were thrown to gentlemen who were conducting the defence, that they did not pick them up, that Mr. Soames might have got them, but that he has not got them, that he does not know whether he got them, and
  760
  that they must have fallen down and disappeared somewhere. No, Sir; the Attorney General can hardly hope to better the most unfortunate position in which, I am sorry to say, he is at present in regard to public opinion in this House and out of it, by such utter and gross special pleading as we have heard from him this evening. The Attorney General observed that had the Member for South Hackney been in his place on Friday night, he would have been indignant at the charges made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member of Derby. Sir, it is time that we should have a clear and distinct understanding whether lawyers in this House are to be lawyers first and representatives afterwards, or Members first and lawyers afterwards. I do not complain of the Gentlemen who are engaged in this case on this side of the House, that they did not vote. I think it would have been far more decorous had the Attorney General not voted that he was an honourable man. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury distinguished himself by the tone of his speech on Friday, and walked out of the House and did not vote. But I want to know what became of the other lawyers who were not in the case? What became of the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on that Bench (the front Opposition Bench). We have had trouble enough to get that Gentleman into the House, and he does not add very much to our strength in debate. If he is not going to vote for us, what does he come here for? I find the Times defiant and boastful this morning because our lawyers did not vote against the Attorney General, whereas the lawyers on the other side voted rapturously in favour of him. The Times tells us that the action of these lawyers was a silent protest against the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. "This demonstration was not less significant because it was for the most part silent," but Mr. Osborne Morgan and Mr. Bryce "sank their professional character in that of partizans." Did hon. Gentlemen opposite sink their professional character in that of partizans when they voted for the Attorney General? All I say is this, are we to have this understanding in the House, that when a lawyer is accused of doing anything

  761
  out of the House, all the lawyers on one side are to vote for him and all the lawyers on the other side are to walk out? Let us understand. There is a letter in the Times from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, who says there is but one feeling among practising barristers holding the opinions of the hon. Gentleman himself—one of regret and shame that such charges should have been brought by a once law officer of the Crown. Is my right hon. Friend, because he was once a law officer of the Crown, never to bring an accusation against a lawyer? Those ideas are degrading and derogatory to the honour of this House, and they are entirely contrary to any sort of principle upon which representative Government is based. The Attorney General got up to-night and said perhaps he had made a little mistake, very trifling and unimportant. But, Sir, he did not answer one of the charges brought by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend asked him whether he had been consulted by the Government as to the Special Commission. His answer was, "I cannot disclose." He was then asked if the Government had given their assent. As I understood, the Government had given their assent, though I believe, as a matter of fact, they are obliged to give their assent, or certify, when a Queen's Counsel is engaged in a criminal matter. Then he was accused of giving no names of witnesses, and he replied, "I was not going to give the names, because of the fear of their being intimidated." But this is a public case, in which certain gentlemen are charged with being the aiders and abettors of assasination. Lord Justice Cockburn is precisely such an authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman would reverence. Many are old enough to remember what took place in 1856. Sir Alexander Cockburn, then Attorney General, prosecuted Palmer for murder. He not only gave the names of the witnesses, but he furnished pieces of the evidence which they were going to give, so anxious was he that justice should be done. But in these proceedings the Attorney General declined to give the proofs of witness after witness to those who were engaged for the defence. He made it doubly difficult for the defence. Sir, every resource in the category of chicanery has been exhausted in order
  762
  to blacken and defame gentlemen who are Members of this House. I say I am glad that this debate has taken place. I trust that again and again we shall recur to this point, until the country thoroughly and distinctly understands that we, at least, on this side of the House protest against this conduct, and openly and frankly express our opinion that it is base and scandalous.
  MR. WHITBREAD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to be allowed to say a few words. I must revert to the speech of the Solicitor General, who read a portion of the letters of the 11th and 17th November. Does the Solicitor General pretend to tell an assembly of this kind that those two letters contained nothing which would rouse the suspicion of any solicitor or any barrister that the man who wrote them was not a witness of truth, and could not stand to the testimony that he had undertaken to give? I do not think the Solicitor General would assert any such thing. The Prosecution were not satisfied even then that Pigott would do as Houston had said—fulfil his promises—until they had got from him a sworn undertaking. They thought they had him in the vice then. The Solicitor General has read! almost all the passages referring to Houston's evidence. What did Houston say? That his faith in Pigott was shaken, not, mark, by the letter of the 17th November, which he had in his pocket, or in his possession, but simply because Pigott paid a visit to the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere); so that all the while the Attorney General must have known that the reason which Houston gave for doubting the truthfulness of the witness was not the two letters in which Pigott admitted that he would be shaken in cross-examination, but the fact that Pigott had paid a visit to the hon. Member for Northampton. There is, however, a graver question than this to which no answer has been given. How comes it that, knowing as they must have known, and as they would admit that they knew, that Pigott was a doubtful witness to say the least of it—how came it, in Heaven's name, that they still kept the charge alive, ever since the day that they became possessed of that letter up to the time they put Pigott into the box? Not one word of justification has been urged for this course. This seems to me to be the

  763
  gravamen of the charge. The Attorney General allowed his client the Times, with its enormous circulation, to go on parading in the forefront of its broad sheet these charges and facsimiles and all the rest of it, and for two and a-half months he kept the hon. Member for Cork with this dreadful charge hanging over him, when he must have known that, not in generosity, but in the simplest and most elementary justice, he ought to have brought that charge to an issue. There has been no justification offered for this. We must draw our own conclusions, and the conclusion to which I am driven is that it was hoped that the tar of all the rest of the accusations might possibly stick to the surface, even if it were brightened and cleaned by this other dreadful charge. It seems to me that the connection of the Attorney General with this case has been most unfortunate from beginning to end. It was the Attorney General's connection with the case that really led to the creation of the Commission. When the Attorney General, sitting face to face with hon. Gentlemen from Ireland opposite, said that in open Court he would prove these charges, and especially the letters, I felt that the position of hon. Gentlemen sitting for Ireland on that side of the House was an intolerable one, and that they must accept almost any tribunal that was offered. If I had had a Bar training I might have drawn a distinction between what the Attorney General said as counsel and what he said as a Member of this House. What moved me was, that I thought, not that the hon. and learned Gentleman had pledged his personal word as to the truth of the charges, but that he did think that virtually they were true and that he could prove them. The Attorney General shakes his head, and in future I shall understand, when I am listening to counsel in this House, that I am to regard him as only speaking from instructions, even on such grave occasions as this. We were told when the Commission was formed that the Government desired to act with the strictest impartiality, and to give the hon. Member for Cork an opportunity of clearing his character. I want to know whether that desire was accompanied by an earnest wish that the hon. Member should succeed in clearing his character,
  764
  or was there a covert hope that he might fail in doing so? I must again draw my conclusions from events; and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether in all this long controversy, step by step as they have walked with the Times and the accuser in this matter, they can point to one, even the most halting, step that they have taken to help to vindicate the character of their Irish colleagues in this House?
  *MR. C. HALL: I regret I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) commenced the remarks in which he did me the honour to refer to me; but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, as I entered the House just now, that the letter I have written to one of the daily papers was a proceeding derogatory to the privileges of the House. Although I did not hear the whole of his speech, I make bold to say that, with the greatest respect to this House, I decline to withdraw a single word I wrote in that letter, and I am the more justified in so saying, as I have been fortified by the opinions of many of my professional brethren since I wrote it, I do not intend to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) whose speech would have been more appropriate to the debate of last Friday. He has dealt with topics that have not been referred to by any other Member to-day, and I will not be a party to enlarging the area of this discussion. I only wish to refer to one point which has been touched upon by most of the speakers this afternoon, and that is as to how far it was the duty of those who represented the Times, when they received the letters of the 11th and 17th of November, to immediately, or at any time before calling Pigott, communicate them to the other side. It seemed to be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), on Friday last, that there are different standards of honourable conduct in civil and criminal cases. Sir, I can admit of no such distinction. Of course, in ordinary criminal cases, where the mouth of the prisoner is closed, those who represent the Crown do not heavily press the case against him, but where both parties are represented, whether you choose to call

  765
  it a State prosecution, or a criminal prosecution, or a Special Commission, and where the accused can give evidence, no comparison can be made with an ordinary criminal prosecution. There is not a single hon. Member who practises at the bar who does not know that it is a common thing for counsel to find that witnesses in their brief have been tampered with by the other side, and have signed statements diametrically opposed to the former statements which they have given to the other side; but I am happy to say that it is not often the case that they are offered bribes of £1,000. It frequently happens that there are witnesses who, from the very nature of their occupation or employment, even if they are called, must be known to be hostile witnesses. Examples of this are frequent, for instance, in cases of collision at sea. A look out is a witness who must almost of necessity be called by those who represent the ship. He may have been tampered with by the other side, and frequently is, and the other side obtains a contradictory statement from him, a fact which comes to the knowledge of the opposing counsel. Does counsel, on learning this, withhold that witness? Certainly not. Does he do anything so ridiculous as to go to counsel on the other side and say "I find that one of my witnesses has given you a different statement from that which he has given me, and, therefore, I am bound to tell you what he has said"? The proposition has only to be stated to show its inherent absurdity. I have only one other observation to make. I wish to express the pleasure with which I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell) repudiate all participation in the charge of dishonourable conduct against the Attorney General. It is true that he says he has made complaints, and querulous complaints are frequently made by counsel as to the conduct of opponents during the progress and in the heat of a case; but that is far different to such charges as those brought by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. Sir, when my hon. and learned Friend said that he did not intend to bring any charge of dishonourable conduct against the Attorney General, the tight hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gave an approving
  766
  "hear, hear." But if he approved of the hon. and learned Gentleman for saying this, what excuse is there for the right hon. Gentleman's conduct on Friday evening? Why, he cheered the hon. Member for South Kilkenny to the echo when he spoke of the dishonourable, heartless, and shabby tactics of the Attorney General. Sir, it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby meant to bring a charge of dishonourable conduct, which he now attempts to withdraw, under cover of the explanation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney. Such conduct will commend itself neither to those who are outside nor inside this House. I may add that I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley), after having heard the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, will see fit to modify somewhat the language he used on Friday evening, when he said he had his hon. and learned Friend's permission to state that he approved of the action taken by the Opposition, and I trust that in common fairness he will do so. It is clear that my hon. and learned Friend did not approve of the changes made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, for he has so stated in explicit terms to the House this evening.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. and learned Member opposite has referred to me without, I think, any great necessity. I wish to tell the House, in reply to the challenge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I see no necessity whatever for modifying one word I said on Friday night. I will not now detain the House for more than half a moment. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney has told the House to-night he made a communication to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. A. J. Morley). That hon. Member came to me just before I rose, and said that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney authorized him to say that he concurred in our line of action. I took the words down from the lips of the hon. Member, I read them to him, and I said, "Are you quite sure that is what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney authorized you to say?" The hon. Member

  767
  replied, "That is exactly the case." What the hon. and learned Member for Hackney has said to-night exactly tallies with that declaration, and I have no word to withdraw.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I desire to address myself to one point, and one point only, and perhaps, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is unable to reply himself, he will instruct some other hon. and learned Gentleman to do so for him. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General very correctly put it, there is a conflict of statement on which the memories of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney disagree; and the Solicitor General further put it—and I entirely agree with him—that the shorthand notes are the only things we have to help us in reference to this disagreement. Now, I think I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say, some time prior to the examination of Pigott, he handed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney a bundle of printed copies, which included the letter from Soames to Pigott of the 15th November, and the letters of 11th November and 17th November.
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: Not of the 11th November.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: At any rate the letter of the 17th November from Pigott to Soames. Now, I listened with attention to the reading of the shorthand notes of what happened on the 26th February, and it is to that I would draw the attention of the Attorney General. If I am right, it was at the time Mr. Soames was in the box, and one of the two letters which has just been referred to was about to be produced in evidence through Mr. Soames. The Attorney General asked Mr. Soames to read the letter of November 15 from Pigott, enclosing the letter of November 11 from Pigott to Houston. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney asked for a copy of the letter, and the Attorney General did not say, "I handed it to you in a bundle some days ago," but he replied, "I have not got a copy."
  *SIR R. WEBSTER: The letter of the 11th November had not been copied.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: But some letters had been copied, and some copies had
  768
  been, according to the memory of the Attorney General, handed to the Member for South Hackney. It occurs tome that it requires some explanation why the Attorney General did not say to the Member for South Hackney, "I handed you a bundle of printed letters the other day, in which you will find copies of this and the other letters, as to which Mr. Soames is going to give evidence? "I understood the Attorney General to say that the letters of November 11 and 17 from Pigott to Soames were in the bundle of printed letters which, some time prior to the examination of Pigott, had been handed over by Mr. Soames to the hon. and learned Member; but it now appears that the letter of the 11th of November had not been printed, although the Attorney General stated that he knew of it in the middle of December. How did it happen that this letter was not printed with the rest? How could it have been excluded unless it had been omitted by Mr. Soames? If the Attorney General had been aware of the absence of the letter of the 11th of November from the bundle of printed letters alleged to have been given to Sir Charles Russell, he should have called the attention of Sir Charles Russell to it. The incident as to this letter certainly seems to support the memory of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney when he is in conflict with the Attorney General.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The hon. and learned Gentleman' the Attorney General, as well as other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, have, since the debate took place about this matter, found fault with Members sitting on these Benches for the attitude they have adopted. Well, I think if hon. Members will consider for a moment the position we have been placed in in this matter, they will come to the conclusion that instead of showing great excitement, or a warrantable amount of excitement, under all the circumstances we have been extremely and excessively calm. The whole Party representing the overwhelming bulk of the Irish nation have been charged with complicity with murder. Letters attributed to the hon. Member for Cork appeared in the Times; and when, for very sufficient reasons, the hon. Member for Cork did not go before a jury, over and over again upon the other side of

  769
  the House he was twitted with not doing so; and when the Special Commission was appointed, we were told that it was appointed for the express purpose of giving the hon. Member for Cork and his Party an opportunity of clearing their character from the charge of complicity with murder. And, though we found fault more than once with the composition of the Commission, when the Bill was rushed through we were told that it was forced on because the Government were most anxious, whether the hon. Member for Cork liked it or not, that that hon. Member should have an opportunity of clearing his character from these letters. Well, the Commission began to sit, and nobody can possibly doubt that the letters were the chief charge against the hon. Member for Cork and his Party. But for those letters the Commission would never have been appointed. Might we not have expected, under the circumstances, in view of the protests from the other side of the House, that they would have given us every opportunity of clearing our characters? Instead of that, however, what was our surprise to find that nothing whatever was said of the letters—the chief charges against us. The hon. Member for Cork waited in vain for a single thing to be tendered in support of the monstrous charges made in those letters. What we have to complain of as the Representatives of the Irish nation is not so much that the Attorney General has failed to give this letter or that, but that the Attorney General and Mr. Soames and all connected with the Times' case must have known from the first mention of Pigott's name that they had no case. In the very exceptional circumstances, it was the primary duty of the Attorney General to say to Mr. Soames, "But who is this Pigott?" and to insist on reasonable steps being taken to test his credibility. Richard Pigott was the one witness upon whose testimony the letters rested; and is it to be believed for a moment that the Attorney General did not ask Mr. Soames what manner of man he was? When the Attorney General ascertained the character of Pigott, it was his duty as an honourable man to have at once put Pigott into the box, and thus have relieved 85 hon. Members of this House from the frightful charge that had been
  770
  so long hanging over their heads. Instead of doing that, the hon. and learned Gentleman allowed the Commission to drag on for week after week, and only put Pigott into the box when he was absolutely compelled to do so by coming to the end of his case. Houston has been continually referred to as though he is a man of substance, whereas, in fact, he is, or was, nothing more than a reporter at so many shillings a week, on a Dublin Tory newspaper. In his position, however, as a reporter, he must have known all about Pigott. He must have known that Pigott was a man who lived by his wits. When the name of "Dick Pigott" was mentioned in such circles as those Houston moved in, every one knew "Oh, that is Pigott, the blackguard, the ruffian," and so on. And yet we are told that the Attorney General, in all the sweet simplicity of his character, knew nothing about the sort of man this Pigott was, and that Houston knew nothing about him. Sir, that will not go down with the Irish people, no, nor with the English people either. People when they hear this will say—"It was the business of the Attorney General, seeing the evidence was so slight, to at once bring the letters into Court and give the Irish Members an opportunity of proving them to be false and of vindicating their characters." I do not want to use un-Parliamentary language, but I say that such a conspiracy to keep alive a slander upon an honourable people and their Representatives the world has never before seen. A more cruel and unjust conspiracy was never entered into, and it is all the more cruel that the counsel engaged against us is not a private counsel, but a Member of the Government by whom the country is unfortunately ruled at the present time. I am not prepared to say that a great deal of the infamy of the proceedings does not attach to Mr. Soames, because it is impossible to suppose that neither he, nor Houston, nor Shannon knew the character of Pigott. Will the Attorney General get up in the House and say that he never heard a whisper against Pigott's character until he saw the letter of the 17th of November? Nothing that the Attorney General has yet said will relieve his name in history from the charge of having conducted this inquiry against 85 of his Parliamentary colleagues with

  771
  unfairness. I shall continue to denounce this foul conspiracy until the Attorney General resigns, which public opinion will soon force him to do.
  *MR. LANE: As we have been debarred up to the present from an opportunity of discussing a single matter relating to Ireland locally, in consequence of the general wish that these charges against the Attorney General should occupy the attention of the House, I now wish to call to the notice of hon. Members a matter of grave importance to my division and also to the whole of the people of the South of Ireland. I have to make a complaint against the Chief Secretary for Ireland in reference to the manner in which he has treated me on several recent days at question time. If the Chief Secretary attended to his duties in the way he ought to do it would be unnecessary for me to have to draw attention to this matter, which concerns a protracted struggle on one of the most noted estates in the South of Ireland. It appears that a syndicate of gentlemen has been formed in London, headed by the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire, to purchase a well-known estate in Munster, and to prevent a settlement which was almost concluded with the Ponsonby tenants. I gave the hon. Member for South Hunts full notice of my intention to bring his conduct before the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The subject which the hon. Member is bringing under the notice of the House has no connection with the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which is now under discussion.
  *MR. LANE: I wish to refer, Sir, to this mater—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The remarks the hon. Gentleman is making have no reference to the salary of the Chief Secretary.
  *MR. LANE: The question I want to discuss is the manner in which the Chief Secretary conducts the duties of his office in Ireland. I complain that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to appoint any official under him in Ireland to inquire into the circumstances under which a settlement between the tenants on the Ponsonby Estate and their landlord has been prevented by this London syndicate. I say that if he properly conducted the business of his office he would take steps to prevent this
  772
  grave crisis, which is calculated to lead to dangerous rioting and disturbances of a serious nature in the South of Ireland. Of course, if this is not in order I will bow to your ruling, Sir; but it is in his official capacity as administrator and guardian of the peace that I charge the Chief Secretary with neglect of his duty. I think it is quite pertinent to the vote for his salary, and I submit that he ought to have intervened.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of order. It is not a matter of which the Chief Secretary would be cognizant.
  *MR. J. P. GILL: May I point out our complaint of the Chief Secretary—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I have already said that the debate originated by the hon. Member is out of order.
  MR. GILL: What I wish to do, Sir, is to complain of what we hold to be the light and frivolous manner in which the Chief Secretary has treated our warnings upon this question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is distinctly out of order. The hon. Gentleman does not show the slightest connection between the salary of the Chief Secretary and the subject which the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring under the notice of the House.
  MR. GILL: Will you allow me, Sir, for one moment—
  *THE SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. A. BLANE: We contend that the Chief Secretary has interfered with the course of justice in Ireland. Last January there were a number of people committed for trial in the County of Donegal, and the Chief Secretary in the beginning of February met the Crown Prosecutor for the County in Dublin, and instructed him to get a change of venue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is no part of my function to be mixed up in any Crown prosecution, nor have I ever done as suggested by the hon. Member.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not in order.
  *MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
  MR. W. REDMOND: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to know whether on the Report stage

  773
  it is not in order to call attention to the conduct of the Chief Secretary?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  Question put "That the Question be mow put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 75. (Div. List, No. 39).
  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 76. (Div. List, No. 40).

  WAYS AND MEANS—REPORT.
  Attention called to the number of Members in the House, and 40 Members being found in their places,
  Resolution reported.
  "That, towards making good the Supply-granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, the sum of £3,729,203 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety."
  Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  NAVAL DEFENCE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorize (a) the expenditure of a sum not exceeding £21,500,000, for the purpose of building, arming, equipping, and completing for sea vessels for Her Majesty's Navy; of this expenditure a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund in the seven years ending on the 31st day of March 1896; and a sum not exceeding £11,500,000, to be issued out of moneys provided by Parliament for Naval Services during the five financial years ending on the 31st day of March 1894."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  *MR. CREMER: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, and I cannot help expressing my regret that this important duty should have been left to be discharged by such
  774
  a very humble Member of the House. Some of us had a right to expect that this very important proposal of Her Majesty's Government would have been met by sturdy opposition from above the Gangway on this side of the House. I cannot help expressing my deep regret that the Leaders of the Opposition have, as I conceive, neglected their duty towards the people of this country. On three grounds this proposal might very fairly be opposed—That no proof has been afforded to the country that any further expenditure is needed in this direction; that the country is afforded no guarantee that if this money is voted it will not be jobbed away and wasted as previous sums have been; and the third objection is the unconstitutional character of the proposal that has been submittted by Her Majesty's Government. On the last point, I do not presume to be capable of addressing the Committee. But that aspect of the subject will, I hope, be dealt with by some of our friends above the Gangway. Nor shall I ask the Committee to listen to any references from me to the second ground of opposition—namely, the waste and jobbery that takes place in Government Departments, and the manner in which large sums have been grossly misapplied, instead of being used as the House and the country intended they should be. I will confine myself to the absence of any necessity being shown for this expenditure. Let me briefly trace the growth of expenditure upon the Services for the last 30 or 40 years. Up to 1854, and for 40 years previous to that date, the expenditure upon the Army and Navy averaged something like £15,000,000 annually. Then we were, unfortunately, afflicted with the Crimean War, and I cannot help thinking that the statesmen who were responsible for having dragged this country into that terrible war incurred very heavy responsibility, not merely on account of the immediate cost, but for the terrible financial burdens which it has since entailed on this country. For 40 years previous to that war the expenditure on the Services was 15 millions annually, but in 1856 the expenditure went up from 15 millions to 52 millions, and, unfortunately, a great part of it remained. The expenditure never returned to what I would describe as its

  775
  normal condition. The result of that war was to make a permanent addition to the expenditure on the Services of 12 millions a-year, so that for 32 years, which is the period that has elapsed since the Crimean War, we have been paying 12 millions a-year more on the Army and Navy, and if we add those amounts together we have a round sum of 384 millions. But beside that, the war cost, I believe nearly 100 millions; consequently, the total expenditure incurred through that war amounts to 484 millions of money. And still the military and naval cormorants are not satisfied. Year by year they come down to the House, and I have heard the same words set to the same tune and from the same people three or four years in succession, with scarcely any variation in the remarks which they have addressed to the House whenever the Estimates have been under consideration. Last week the Government undertook to give another sop to Cerberus, and the House voted £600,000 as an addition to the expenditure on the Army, although the expenditure last year upon the two Services amounted to £30,492,533. Now we are asked to vote £21,000,000 more to be expended on the Navy. In 1874 the sum expended on the Navy was £10,063,351. In 1888 the sum expended was £12,325,357, or an increase during that interval of £2,262,006. The House has been profusely liberal in granting all the Supplies demanded by the Government for the fighting forces of the country. Last year, at the bidding of the Government, we voted £850,000 for fortifying our Australian Colonies, though nobody knew until Her Majesty's Government discovered it, that there was any danger to be apprehended in that quarter, but they told us there was a danger, and the faithful Commons voted the sum asked for. Then they came down a few weeks afterwards and asked for £2,600,000 more to fortify our coaling stations, and that sum also was granted. Then there was the £00,000 to which I have referred voted last week, and now, in addition, we are asked to vote 21 millions more for the purpose of placing the country in a state of complete defence. If, therefore, the sum now asked is granted the Government will within one year have committed the
  776
  country to an increased expenditure upon the Army, the Navy, and Fortifications of £25,050,000. The Vote, I have little doubt, will be obtained; but if I felt absolutely certain of it I should still think it my duty to register a solemn protest against it. It matters to me very little whether the majority supporting Her Majesty's Government is 50 or 500, as I conceive it my duty, in the interest of the toiling millions of the country, to register my protest against this expenditure. If hon. Members opposite, and those who sit on this side and so readily acquiesce in the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to waste the resources of the country in this fashion, had to work for the money instead of spending it, I think they would approach the consideration of these demands in a very different spirit than they do now, and we should very likely find them with us in the Lobby protesting against this shameful waste of the nation's resources. No doubt the Government are hard up for a good cry. I do not say they have raised this scare to throw dust in the eyes of the people, as has been done in former times, so as to divert attention from domestic, social, and political reforms, although I notice that we have not had the cry of Imperial interests-being jeopardized and the country being in danger trotted out on this occasion, I presume that is because those who have raised this scare have come to the conclusion that the cry has lost its force, and that the people are beginning to see through the fallacy of being frightened and led away by it. But another cry has been invented—I suppose it is considered a better cry—the demand is made, they say, to prevent danger to the food supplies of this country. The other day, last year, and the year before, when similar questions were being considered, hon. Members opposite posed, as they are now posing, as the champions of the best interests of the people, as so very regardful of the material wants of the nation and so fearful that the food supplies will be interfered with, that they ask for 21 millions to prevent somebody from stealing the food of the people in its transit across the ocean. This new-born zeal has to me a very suspicious appearance, especially as the Party opposite in the past did their best not to let in, but to keep out the

  777
  food of the people and make it dear. That is so, if I have read the history of our country aright, and I know something from bitter personal experience in my young days how dear food was through the legislation of the Party opposite, and it is rather too late in the day for that Party, some of whom even now, if we may judge from speeches to their constituents, are hungering and thirsting for the opportunity of taxing the food of the people, to pose as their champions. They do not come forward boldly with their proposals, because they know the people would not stand them, and they are restrained by their wiser leaders. I attach little importance, then, to the statement that this money is to be expended to insure a proper and cheap supply of food for the people. I do not know that, when this subject has been debated, any representatives of large shipowning interests have regarded this proposal as absolutely necessary for the protection of our Commercial Marine; but I do recollect that two of the largest shipowners in the Kingdom—perhaps in the world—the hon. Members for Hull and Jarrow, rose in their places and ridiculed the proposals of the Government, although they own a large number of ships traversing the ocean in all parts of the world. If there are any two men qualified to express an opinion upon the danger to our Commercial Marine, they are these men who have millions of capital locked up in commercial ventures; but they cast ridicule and scorn on the proposal to expend this enormous sum on an increase of our Naval Force against imaginary dangers. Sir, I do not think anything more need be said to dispel the cry, or to prove how abortive is—this new born zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that ghost was fully laid by the hon. Members for Hull and Jarrow. My Amendment has reference to statements made last year by the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I will quote from their speeches to show what their views then were. But there is another Member of the Government whom I will call as a witness to prove my case. I presume the Secretary to the Admiralty does know something about his business and the condition of the British
  778
  Fleet; for he is paid a good round sum by the nation to look after it. The Secretary to the Admiralty, addressing his constituents in April, 1887, said—
  "That a feeling of hopelessness, approaching sometimes to helplessness, came over him when he saw how matters were conducted at the Admiralty, and how money was expended, not to say wasted."
  The hon. Gentleman also said that—
  "He took pride to himself and his colleagues that they had placed the Naval Estimates at the lowest figure compatible with safety; they showed a substantial reduction on the previous year's expenditure, and yet this reduced amount was sufficient to keep the Navy in an efficient state."
  The hon. Gentleman had well considered his words; for though he was criticized severely for his utterances, he did not "climb down" from his position; but some time afterwards, speaking again, he went a great deal further. Addressing the London Chamber of Commerce on March 22, 1888, the hon. Gentleman said—
  "He feared that exaggerated statements had recently been made with regard to the Navy which might alarm the timid, but he believed that at no time was the Navy more ready or better organized for any work which it might be called upon to do than it was to-day."
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "If it were asked whether the British Navy was able to cope with any reasonable combination of Foreign Powers, it could be answered that England was more than equal in strength to two of the greatest nations in Europe—namely, France and Russia;"
  and this statement the hon. Gentleman backed up by figures.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): Has the hon. Member any objection to give the figures?
  *MR. CREMER: I have not got them here; but if I am misquoting the hon. Gentleman he will presently have the opportunity to correct me. Perhaps he will also tell the Committee what has induced his present change of front—why, if our expenditure was sufficient at that time to provide the country with an efficient Fleet, it is not sufficient now; why, if our Fleet was equal to the naval strength of two of the greatest European Powers, it is insufficient now? It is amusing to notice the remarkable discrepancies in the statements of Ministers and experts as to the capabilities of the Army and Navy. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that last year we had

  779
  a somewhat singular spectacle presented to us. Some of us were exceedingly gratified to find that the First Lord of the Admiralty displayed such an amount of common sense as to rebuke the utterances of Lord Wolseley, who tried to create a scare in the minds of our countrymen. It will be remembered that Lord Wolseley stated that 100,000 men could be landed on our shores with vessels of 150,000 tonnage. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) challenged this statement; and, after taking counsel with experts experienced in the transportation of troops, declared that vessels of 480,000 tonnage would be required—just a trifling difference of 320,000 tons between these two authorities. They differed also as to the amount of space required for the transportation of horses. The noble Lord said 2½ tons, while Lord Wolseley said 4 tons would be necessary. Lord Wolseley said 100,000 men could be landed on our shores in a day; the noble Lord (Hamilton) said it would take at least a week. Well, I think we are entitled to some clear and definite explanation before we allow ourselves to be frightened by statements so contradictory on the face of them. Both the statements of the First Lord and of Lord Wolseley were based on the assumption that there would be no opposing force. Well, considering we have been expending enormous sums of money on the Navy, that we have the standing Army, a Volunteer Army, and the Militia, it is an envious assumption that we should offer no kind of opposition to an invading force. If the noble Lord is right, that it would take a week to land 100,000 men on our shores if we did not oppose them, it is reasonable to suppose that with opposition it would take them something like a month, even if they succeeded then. Then we have, besides, the assurance of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to which I have referred, another statement from him to which we listened with pleasure. Personally, I felt thankful to the noble Lord for the attitude he took up in rebuking those connected with the two Services for their continued clamour for more men and more money. The noble Lord, for some reason I hope he will explain, has however entirely changed his attitude on the matter, and I shall
  780
  await his explanation with some curiosity. I will refer briefly to the speech made by the noble Lord on July 5th, in which he expressed the opinion that Lord Wolseley's views were not to be sustained. The noble Lord, upholding his statement as to the landing of 100,000 men on our shores, said that, before expressing that view, he had consulted the experts at the Transport Department, so that the statement was based upon their authority as well as his own. Later on, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire, the noble Lord declared that the policy of the Admiralty was not to indulge in spasmodic shipbuilding, but to pursue a steady and continuous course. I do not know what interpretation the noble Lord now puts upon those words. I only take of them a plain, common-sense view. The proposal now before the Committee seems to me to be an entire departure from the declaration made by the noble Lord on the occasion to which I have referred. If all these statements were reliable, and Foreign Governments read them—and it is only fair to assume that they have been read by Foreign Governments—what will they say concerning the proposals that are now before the House? They will naturally argue, "If the British nation was in a state of security six or eight months ago, and now this extraordinary proposal is made for an expenditure of £21,000,000 to increase the Naval Forces of the country, the British Government, having already a sufficient force for defence, must intend to be aggressive." The result of such reasoning will be, that the Governments of Europe will become alarmed at the proposal now made to the country, and the evil will not diminish, but will be continued and aggravated. It is sometimes amusing to read what foreigners and foreign journals think and say of us. I saw the other day in the Univers a somewhat amusing account of the noble Lord's Naval Scheme. It said—
  "Every four or five years our excellent neighbours on the other side of the Channel are seized with a panic. They wake one day with a notion that their island is badly defended, and that a more thorough protection is needed. Meetings are organized "—
  almost exclusively attended by those belonging to the Services—

  781
  "at which generals and admirals make speeches, and the Government, he it Liberal or Conservative, readily yields to the pressure and brings out gigantic schemes that are never carried out in full. When a respectable number of millions have been spent, the English feel safe—that is, until another scare breaks out."
  Some hon. Members in this House know how these scares are manufactured. I will not say they are got up by "panic mongers" as that is an offensive term, but words of equal force may be applied to those who promote them. The journal from which I have quoted concluded the article to which I am drawing attention with these words—
  "England is suffering from such a scare at this moment, and a grand scheme is before Parliament to increase the number of ironclads. Somebody is safe to make a profit out of it."
  The concluding sentence is one which I hope our countrymen will make a note of—that "somebody is sure to make a profit out of it." Of course they are. There are contractors always ready to clamour for an increase of the Army and Navy, and there is a host of officials who are always waiting for a crumb or two from the official table. No one but those in office can for a moment understand the pack of howling wolves behind the Government, hounding them on to spend money on the Army and Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War have had to yield to the enormous pressure brought to bear behind and all round them. The Secretary for War, I remember, said, in a debate last year, he had listened to the speeches made by naval and military Members of the House, all advocating, from their different points of view, but in the kindest manner to himself, an enormous increase in the public expenditure of the country, and he rebuked Members behind him for their continuous and enormous demands for an increase of expenditure on the Army and Navy. On March 8th, last year, the right hon. Gentleman made another speech, in the course of which he said that good, honest work was being done to increase the military strength of the country, and efficiency was being gradually secured, without undue extravagance. He said—
  "The only danger we have to apprehend is the fluctuation of public opinion, and there is no more certain way of producing that fluctuation
  782
  than to give an exaggerated account of the money required, in order to put us in a satisfactory condition."
  The right hon. Gentleman has now changed his opinion, and now sanctions this enormous expenditure of money which, six months ago, he protested against. In addition to the testimony I have quoted of Members of the Government, we have that of the Commander-in-Chief, who is supposed to know something about the safety of the country. On May 11th, last year, he repudiated there being any danger of the kind to which reference has been so frequently made; and the Prime Minister, on the same date, rebuked Lord Wolseley for inflaming the public mind, and went on to say—
  "But what I do earnestly protest against is that panic-producing speeches should be made at public dinners by public men."
  The noble Lord pointed out the large addition which had been made to the Army since June, 1881, and, with regard to the Navy, reminded the House of Lords that, whereas the amount expended on it in 1884 was £4,445,000, in 1888 it was £6,711,000. These figures he quoted to prove that there was no ground for alarm, and that, at any rate, nine months ago the country was perfectly safe. I think I am justified in saying that, if the Secretary to the Admiralty, the Secretary for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Commander in-Chief, and the Prime Minister were satisfied nine or ten months ago that the country was in a perfect state of defence, and that our forces were then sufficient to defend us from invasion, that we are justified in demanding from Her Majesty's Government that they shall give us solid reasons for changing their opinions, and for the extraordinary proposals they are now making to extract from the pockets of the British taxpayer £21,000,000 to increase the Naval Forces of the country. I am willing to give Her Majesty's Government every credit for being honest in their intentions in this matter. My own conviction is that the proposals they have made are against their better judgment; that they have been simply overborne by the Representatives of the Services; that what the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty said in this House last year

  783
  they said believing their statements to be true, and being honestly desirous of continuing in the peaceful, economical path which they had marked out for themselves, but that since then the permanent officials and Representatives of the Services have been too strong for the Government. I do not wish to speak offensively; but I cannot help thinking that the Representatives of the Services have no business to be in this House at all. Perhaps the British public—the new electorate—may, at no distant day, have something to say with regard to the seemliness of men sitting in the House and practically voting their own salaries. It is clear to mo, from the few years' experience I have had here, that so long as we have so large a contingent of the two Services here hounding on the Government against their better judgment, and practically masters of the situation, we shall have to wait in vain for economies in either of the Services. And, with regard to the permanent officials, I should be prepared to apply a very drastic remedy. I cannot help thinking that the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War form two very good figure heads, but I very much doubt whether they are really much more than figure heads. It is the permanent officials who practically govern the country, and the only way to remedy this is to make a clean sweep of them, and to continue the sweeping process until the heads of the Departments are masters of the situation. I think I am warranted in repeating a statement made by a former Member of the House, who some years ago was connected with the Admiralty. The Government of that day made a serious effort in the direction of economy, and this Lord of the Admiralty earnestly joined the Government in the effort they were making to effect a retrenchment. Well, he declared on one occasion that he positively went into his office in bodily fear from the permanent officials because of the efforts he was making to effect a retrenchment. ["Name!"] There are Members in the House who know that statement is true. I do not know that the condition of things this gentleman found in the Department now obtains there,
  784
  but I know the permanent officials offer such a sturdy opposition to the attempts of the Heads of Departments to bring about a retrenchment that, however desirous a Member of the Government may be to effect economy, in the end he becomes worn out in his efforts, and, at last, sits down and enjoys himself, as his predecessors have done before him, and allows the permanent officials to have their own way. No doubt the votes of the gentlemen connected with the Services are very important to the Government, and the influence of these persons, together with that brought to bear by the permanent officials, have, no doubt, weighed with the Government in the course they have adopted. I think I am justified in repeating a question which I have asked before, and which, if I have the honour to continue a Member of this House, I shall probably ask again. Last year when a proposal was made to increase the expenditure—which I cannot help thinking increases the danger—I asked a common sense question, which millions of people outside ask themselves—namely, "Where is the danger?" I want to know where the foe is to be found who is desirous of invading our shores? The only Member of this House, so far as I know, who has made an effort to discover and unearth the bogey is the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), and he says it is General Boulanger. Well, I believe the noble Lord to be one of the really honest men on the other side of the House. I believe him to be mistaken, but I accredit him with every sincerity, and I am told that he regards himself as the best friend of peace to be found in this distinguished Assembly, although I take, an opposite view of his policy. The noble Lord believes that General Boulanger will very likely undertake an invasion of this country.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: No, no!
  *MR. CREMER: I am glad to hear the noble Lord is not frightened by General Boulanger; but if he fears no danger in that direction, perhaps he will be good enough to tell us where the danger really is? I thought the noble Lord was under the impression that there was some danger of General Boulanger organizing an expedition against us in consequence of our continued

  785
  occupation of Egypt. Well, Sir, in regard to this continued occupation, I pointed out nearly three years ago that it was a source of danger to us, that it was a sore point, if not among the French people, at any rate amongst the governing classes of France, and I am glad to see that other people in England are coming round to the same common-sense view. If this feeling of soreness does exist, the best thing we can do to cure it, is to clear out of Egypt, not because we are threatened by General Boulanger, but because we have no business there. The sooner, therefore, we clear out of it the sooner shall we deprive General Boulanger of any plea for invading England—if he has any idea of invading us. In the autumn the General Election will take place in France, and we shall then know whether General Boulanger is to be in power or not. You cannot build new ships before next autumn, nor in less than three years, and if the danger be imminent we ought to have all the force you say is needed at our disposal immediately, while if the danger be remote I do not see the use of the present proposal. The French Marine Department are already proposing to increase the French Navy, on the ground that at present it is inferior to the English Navy; and a few weeks ago a Special Commission reported to the French Chamber of Deputies, recommending the building of more ironclads, the reason assigned being that we have done the same. They also recommended that a number of cruisers should be built, and that 20 more torpedo boats should be constructed, on the ground that we are also building cruisers and multiplying our torpedo boats. It is quite clear that every increase of our Naval Force leads to an increase of the Naval Forces on the other side of the Channel; it does not put an end to, but continues and magnifies, the evil. And in Germany the same state of things is going on. Only a fortnight ago it was said that 16 ocean-going torpedo boats were being built for the German Navy, to be armed with all the modern appliances, and to have a speed of 23 knots. If the proposals of the Government are agreed to, and this enormous sum of money is placed at their disposal, a large proportion of it—allowing
  786
  for waste and extravagance such as we know of in the past—will be expended in the increase of our Fleet, and then we shall find that further proposals will will be made by France and Germany and Russia in the same direction, and when they have increased their forces because we have increased ours, another demand will in a few years be made upon us for further additions to our Navy. Lord Salisbury, speaking at the Lord Mayor's Dinner last November in regard to the armed condition of Europe, asked a very pertinent question, which I venture to repeat—namely, "When is this rivalry to end?" We are continually talking about being compelled to imitate the example of other nations, and I have no hesitation in doing so when the example is worth imitating; but I would ask why we do not set a good example ourselves? Why we do not make an effort to induce the nations abroad not to increase, but to reduce their armaments, and so diminish the danger? You may tell me they would not acquiesce in such a proposal. How do you know? You have never invited them. It is not worth an effort to see whether the time has not come when the public opinion of the world is not sufficiently strong to induce the Governments of Europe to join in a movement in this direction. I believe that if Her Majesty's Government were seriously to propose a Conference of the nations of the world, with the view of bringing about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of armaments, a shout of triumph would go up on the part of the people throughout the whole civilized world, and the Government who would undertake a task of that kind would cover themselves with everlasting glory. I hope Her Majesty's Government may see their way to take such a step. I am afraid that few Members of this House, particularly on the other side, have yet learned to understand that the old order of things has greatly changed, and that the democracy, not merely here, but throughout the world, or nearly so, has now entered into the possession of political power, and that that democracy is peaceful. The one man on the other side of the House who seems to me to understand the changed order of things, and the aspirations of

  787
  the democracy, is the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington; and, if he continues in the spirit that has characterized his doings in regard to retrenchment and reform, I venture to say he will be assuring for himself the gratitude of the people and imperishable renown. I hope the Government will remember that monarchs and statesmen, still powerful—too powerful for mischief—have already had their power seriously diminished; that the power they wielded in the past has been and still is being more and more transferred to the people; and that the people are everywhere desirious of living in peace. I hope the Government will take in a kindly spirit the observations I have addressed to them; and will consider whether it is not worth while, instead of imitating a bad example, to set a good one, by asking the nations of the world, through their respective Governments, to join in a serious effort to reduce rather than to increase their armaments. Sir, I beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out all the words after the first word "That," in order to add the words "having regard to the statements made during the last Session of Parliament by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, as to the efficiency of the armaments of the Country for the purpose of Defence, and seeing that the Nation was assured, in the recent Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty's relations with Foreign Powers, which were of the most peaceful character last year, remain in the same satisfactory condition, this Committee deems it expedient to authorise the expenditure asked for by the Government,"—(Mr. Cremer,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I fully acknowledge that the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down were made in a kindly spirit. No Member of the House can complain of the manner in which the hon. Member has brought this great and important question before the Committee, and I feel perfectly confident that the hon. Member has felt impelled to the course he has taken by an imperative sense of
  788
  duty, and that he is impressed with the extreme importance of asking from the Government explanations to which he and the rest of the Committee are most fully entitled. I shall leave to my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of the Admiralty the task of replying to the personal allusions which have been made to them, and to the more technical part of the question which refers to the Administration of the Admiralty and to the comparative force of the British Navy. But the hon. Member has alluded to some general considerations, with regard to which I think it right to offer a few words in reply, because, although he has not referred to me, he would be fully entitled to ask how, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I could consent to the great burden which is placed upon the people by these proposals of the Government unless I was absolutely convinced of the extreme necessity of voting these sums. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a heavy responsibility in this matter, which I do not wish for one moment to disclaim. The hon. Member, in his concluding observations, spoke of the change of attitude in Europe generally, since the accession of democracy to power. I wish to agree with the hon. Gentleman as far as I can and I will admit that the desire of most democracies, not of all, but certainly of the British democracy, is peace. But there is one other demand which the British democracy will make, and it is that besides peace there shall be absolute security. The hon. Member spoke of the toiling millions and of their interest in this question. But I speak with as sincere a conviction as that which animated him when I say that the toiling millions have as deep, if not a deeper, interest in the security of these islands and in the security of our commerce and of our Colonial Possessions as any other portion of Her Majesty's subjects. I would undertake to argue this question before any meeting of trade unionists, or before audiences composed exclusively of toiling artizans. I would put it to them what their fate would be if for three or four months only, or even for a shorter period, the importations and exportation of this country were seriously imperilled? We all remember the fate of Lancashire during the cotton famine.

  789
  The hon. Member and his friends will agree with me in this—that we are practically unanimous as to the necessity of being secure, and that, therefore, the only point on which this discussion can fairly turn is whether or not we are secure. We may be sure that any Parliament which, foreseeing the possibility of such a combination of circumstances as might place this country in peril, did not take measures adequate to provide against such a contingency would be justly held up to odium, obloquy, and the reproach of the nation. I admit that the democracy is for peace. What I say here is known to every statesman in Europe, and I affirm that no Government in this country—Conservative, Liberal, or Radical—would venture on a policy of aggression. There is no corner of the earth we covet or wish to take from any other Power. We have no aggressive object of any kind in view. Nothing could be more remote from the wish of every Member of the Administration than that by our proposals we should indicate to Europe that we have any different policy from that which has been pursued continuously by several successive Governments—namely, a policy of continued peace. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington said the other day that if it were flashed through Europe that we had embarked on an expenditure of £20,000,000 there would be an alarm throughout the Continent; but I am confident of the opposite, and that nothing can produce a more powerful influence in favour of peace than the knowledge that Great Britain is strong. No doubt the nations of the Continent are suffering under a terrible burden of armaments which the hon. Member properly denounced; but if there is one thing they look to as likely to exercise an influence for peace, it is a strong England. I say here with absolute conviction that no statesman in Europe holds the opposite view. They all hold that a strong England is an element of peace. I agree that if it could be done it would be a work worthy of any Government to bring nations into conference and induce them to disarm; but I am afraid that in these days it would be a Utopian attempt. But the moment when we should be most able to influence Europe in this direction would be the moment when it was universally
  790
  acknowledged that by our strength we could exercise a very considerable influence upon Powers that might desire to go to war. No doubt in this country the democracy largely influences the policy of the Government, but I doubt whether in some of the most powerful States of Europe the masses have influence enough to affect the decisions of statesmen and Emperors. We have to look to circumstances with regard to which we are obliged to be extremely reticent, but which we cannot ignore. The hon. Member quoted the Marquess of Salisbury as asking—
  "How long is this to last? We may well ask ourselves how long is Europe to bear this strain?"
  It is in this feeling that danger lies The hon. Member may think that if the cloud which has so long hung over Europe were to burst, the interests of this country might be unaffected, and we might look on with unconcern; but a nation cannot always look on when it wishes, though it may do so if it has fleets and armies to prevent its hand being forced by others. If we survey the whole situation; if we look at the changes that have taken place; at the combinations of the forces of Europe that are possible; at the currents that are still running, I confess we do not see any such change as should make for peace, for permanent peace. There is no immediate anxiety; we are on the best of terms with other countries; but at the same time we have no right to depend upon the continuance of these cordial relations. We shall all agree that we must run no risks. It is true that for a long time we have been undisturbed, and, when it is asked where is attack to come from, it cannot be expected that a responsible Minister should in a time of peace point to any particular nation; but still a desperate nation might gain some considerable advantage for itself if it could attack, not necessarily these islands, but at all events the interests of Great Britain. We have no business to build upon any immunity we have enjoyed in the past, for changing circumstances may deprive us of that immunity. And when it is said that we have wasted money in the past, are we quite sure that we have not had an equivalent for our expenditure in the security we have enjoyed? Have we

  791
  not escaped wars such as other countries lave been engaged in, and has not our powerful Fleet been one cause of our immunity? In spite of the complaints of sailors, who are historically and habitually professional grumblers, has it not been due to our Fleet that security has been enjoyed by our coasts, our commerce, and our Colonies? But for our Fleet we might have offered temptations to adventurers and invited other nations to embark upon dangerous enterprizes. I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance that our scheme it in no way due to the pressure of permanent officials at the Admiralty. The Government were themselves invited to look into the matter, to review all the circumstances of the case, to marshal our own forces, and to calculate the forces that might be brought against us. We were asked, as a Cabinet, to consider the matter, and the result is the proposal we submit. I admit that many of us, myself included, have been mainly influenced in the view that this expenditure ought to be undertaken by our opinions upon the position of foreign affairs. Hon. Members ask what changes there have taken place, but I trust hon. Members will not press us too much on the diplomatic side of the question. We do say that the general foreign situation, without being acute, is such that we should be blind to our duties if we did not take immediate measures to put ourselves in a proper state of defence. I hope hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we should run no risks, and that we ought not to rely upon the friendly disposition of other countries. If we study history, not only the history of the past, but contemporary history, I am sure we shall find the folly of building too much on any such amiable hope. Under the circumstances, the Government feel that it is their bounden duty to see that there is no possibility not only of successful invasion of our shores but of serious interruption to our commerce. If it is felt that the proposed addition to the Navy is not required, and that the forces of the country are already sufficient to effect these objects under all circumstances, then let the House reject our proposals, but do not reject them on Utopian considerations, or because you believe that this country has been so long unattacked that she will never be
  792
  attacked again. Turning to the next point, I wish to remind the House of the fact that hon. Members on both sides are continually urging the Government to send out forces to all parts of the globe for the purpose of maintaining British interests. It is not on the Conservative side alone that these demands are made, for I remember in the debate on Samoa a very stout Radical, the hon. Member for St. Austell (Mr. W. M'Arthur), urged that the Government ought to have taken action which might have involved us in war with Germany. It has been said that there is no danger of invasion, but a course of action has repeatedly been urged upon the Government which might have led to war, and which would only have been likely not to lead to war on account of the knowledge that this country was sufficiently powerful to make war with her a dangerous game. It is not, however, in Samoa only, but elsewhere, that we come into contact with other European Powers. In our Colonies, for instance, we now come much more freely into contact with our Continental neighbours than used to be the case. That is so in Africa, in Asia, in India, and in Polynesia, in all of which collisions might occur which might very easily give rise to European conflicts. Fortunately, these things are managed with temper, and there is a disposition on the part of all European Powers to act with prudence and with friendliness. It is, however, found that the Powers whom we now meet in all parts of the globe are increasing their armaments, and that some countries have fleets which never had them before. It is, therefore, not only invasion that we have to consider, because there is an increase, I will not say of danger or risk, but at any rate of contact with our European neighbours in distant parts of the world which has made it necessary to augment our forces so as to uphold our interests in those distant regions. I think that it will be recognized that I have not argued this question in any narrow or aggressive spirit, or with any undue desire for the augmentation of the fighting forces of the country. We may be wrong in the view we take. [Cheers and counter-cheers.] Yes; and you may be wrong too. If we are wrong we may have deeply to regret that we

  793
  have unnecessarily placed an extra burden of taxation upon the country; but if you are wrong you may be the means of imperilling interests compared with which all we now ask will be absolutely as nothing. In conclusion, I ask you to look at our proposals in a candid spirit, because, in our judgment, taking into consideration the position of Europe and of the world, if we wish for peace and the maintenance of British interests, it will be found indispensable to augment the forces of the Empire.
  *MR CALEB WRIGHT: I must protest against this proposal of the Government for a large increase in the Naval Estimates. In my opinion it is a great mistake. I fear that the Government have been influenced—like other Governments—by panic, and I believe this panic will end, like others, in extravagance and waste of public money. Had the Government directed their attention to the abuses, the in competency and extravagance in the Army, the Navy, and in the Civil Service, and had rooted out those abuses, they would have rendered greater service to the State than by increasing the Estimates for war purposes. Panic and preparations for war tend to bring on war, which checks social progress, interferes disastrously with trade and commerce, piles up enormous debts, increases taxation, causes jealousy and ill-feeling between nations, and violates one of the fundamental principles of Christianity. No class is so interested in this question as the working class. About three-quarters of the Army and Navy are drawn from that class, and in time of war they suffer from depression in trade, from want of employment, from reduced wages, and increased taxation. Since I became a Member of this House, I have noticed that when any attempt has been made to reduce the expenditure of the Army, it has always been opposed by the Army officials, who proclaim that we
  794
  have the worst armed and the worst equipped force in Europe, and the Admirals and Naval Officers tell us that the country is not sufficiently defended, and urge the Government to provide more forts, more warships, and more men. Although there has been a large increase in the naval expenditure during the last few years, still our shores are in danger, and the cry is for more war ships. Is the House on this subject to be guided in legislation by the conflicting statements of the Government and naval officials? Well, the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment gave some quotations from Members of the Government. Here is another. On July 10th, 1888 the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Secretary to the Admiralty), addressing a large meeting of the commercial community of Liverpool on the subject of the naval defences of the country, said that—
  "All were agreed that we required as a minimum a Navy sufficient in extent and power to overmatch the Naval Forces of any combination of hostile Foreign Powers that could he reasonably anticipated. Admiral Hornby, our foremost naval commander, had given details of the cruisers which, in his opinion we required, having regard to our Mercantile Navy. He suggesied 486 cruisers of 16 knots and over, and said that as we had only 42 of this class we were 144 short. Now to build 144 new cruisers would cost £33,500,000, and adding to this £4,000,000, the cost of five new ironclads, which another distinguished naval officer said were required, our building programme beyond that which was now before the country would involve an expenditure of £37,500,000. No one now would advocate laying down vessels, except with a view to speedy completion, and as cruisers could be built in about two years, we should have to provide from £12,000,000 to £15,000.000 per annum to meet these demands, in addition to our present Naval Budget, in each of the next two or three years."
  Well, the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes an increase of 70 war ships at the cost of £21,500,000, which he says is necessary for the protection of our shores and our commerce. Here are the views of the Secretary for War and some of our naval commanders as to the increase required in our Naval Forces;

  795
  on March 22nd, 1888, the Secretary to the Admiralty assured the country, in a speech addressed to the London Chamber of Commerce, that at no time was the Navy more ready or better organized for any work which it might be called upon to do than it was to-day. England was more than equal in strength to two of the greatest nations in Europe—France and Russia. Again, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, speaking of our naval defences at a public meeting held in London on the 23rd of last month is reported to have said—"Admiral Symonds estimates an expenditure of £40,000,000, Admiral Hornby of £80,000,000, and Lord Alcester of £30,000,000, to put the country in a state of proper defence." Another military commander, speaking upon our naval defences, said—"What we seem to require for the Navy is an organized reserve both of ships and of men, corresponding to the system of military reserves adopted on the Continent." That would seem to be the object of the Government in proposing an addition of 70 warships. We are at peace with Europe, and we are told that the best way to secure and protect our commerce is to be prepared for war. Well, I think we cannot too often expose that unsound and fallacious argument. What are the facts? Have not the nations of Europe been prepared for war for more than 50 years? And at the present time the Armies and Reserves—excluding the Navies—amount to over 20,000,000 men. And what has been the result? Has there been peace in Europe? During the 20 years ending 1873 there have been 5 or 6 of the most destructive wars on record. That has been the result of the nations of Europe being prepared for war to secure peace by increasing year by year their Armies and Navies. Well, Sir, we have no means of ascertaining the losses of trade and commerce sustained by the nations of
  796
  Europe by those wars, but they must have been enormous. But the number of lives sacrificed in those wars was 1,140,000, and the cost £1,013,000,000. Are there no better means for the safety of our commerce than providing more warships? With the vast amount of commerce between this country and America, does anybody believe that the two countries could be involved in war? Let me give the opinion of an eminent American statesman on this point. The Hon. William Elliott, speaking of the cotton trade some time ago, concluded with these words—
  "Few more acceptable contributions, it seems to me, can be made from one country to another, few stronger ties of interest can be interposed, few better securities for continued good-will can be devised, than those which America offers to Europe, in the mutual benefits of the cotton trade. It must be ever influential in preserving that state which, while it can be preserved with honour, is the true glory and interest of every nation to maintain. For it is just to believe that God has made the earth ample enough for the support of all His intelligent creatures; that we are under no obligation to destroy each other for self preservation; and that is the true mission of man—irrespective of the narrow and often arbitrary divisions of States and Nations—to contribute to the happiness of his fellow-being by throwing in his way all the inestimable blessings of civilization."
  I hope this House will not allow the Government to embark in this reckless and unnecessary expenditure to which they intend to bind future Governments. Well, I will just allude before I sit down to the Treaty of Paris. At the close of the Crimean War the Congress of Paris assembled—in 1856—and the Plenipotentiaries recognized the expediency of submitting international differences to arbitration, and of making changes in the public law of Europe as to the right of maritime capture, and to make trade as free in time of war as it is in time of peace; and I understand the Treaty of Paris is still binding. Are we bound by that Treaty? If not, why not?
  *SIR E. J. REED: With regard to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Democracy desires

  797
  peace and also desires security, I would point out the Democracy desires peace by means of the efficient expenditure of public money. I would not discourage the creation of a strong Navy, but I certainly would not encourage the waste of public money under the pretext of making our Navy strong. Both the Resolution and the Amendment, standing as they do at opposite extremes before the Committee, show the necessity of a closer examination into the nature of the proposals of the Government. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this even more requisite, as the whole of his observations appeared to me to be directed by the idea that we are called upon to enter upon an enormous expenditure of public money. On the other hand, the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch would have the effect, if carried, of practically closing the dockyards, and putting an end to shipbuilding after another million has been expended. I think the fact of the existence of these extreme views indicates the necessity of some one taking a little trouble to make the actual situation a little clearer. I can understand why the Government should propose a scheme of shipbuilding and of finance which would have the effect of enabling them to draw on the Consolidated Fund for the cost of ships to be built by contract. I know from my own experience that great difficulty arises towards the end of the financial year in connection with the contracts for shipbuilding, because the Government know that if the contractors are behind with their work, the money not earned will have to be re-voted. I can, therefore, understand that the Government should desire to relieve themselves of this difficulty. Nevertheless, taking all the circumstances into account, I cannot support the proposition they make on the subject. The effect of that proposition, if agreed to,
  798
  will be to throw great impediments in the way of getting ships built. Under the present system, every one concerned uses his best endeavours to get the money earned, and if the existing incentives to action are withdrawn, I am afraid that ships would not be built so readily by contract in the future. But I have a far greater objection to the proposal. I am at a loss to understand on what grounds the Admiralty, in a particular and limited case, is to be exempted from conditions which, if generally set aside, would produce the greatest financial disorder throughout the public service. I cannot think that this scheme has been well considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I go so far as to say that the principle involved in the Resolution unsettles one of the most important conditions of our national finance. Hitherto we have been able to have a strict debtor and creditor account kept by the State; but if we are to say to a Department, "Here is money for you to spend as you please for five years; the House of Commons will not inquire whether you have spent it or not, whether the contractors have kept time or not; all that we shall ask at the end of five years is—Have you done what we proposed?"—we shall thereby give our assent to a system which, if it be repeated and become general, will unhinge some of the most important elements of our control over finance. I know it is the fashion in official quarters to sneer and laugh at the control of the House of Commons; but the influence of the House, however it may fail on certain occasions, does assert itself in a general manner, and exercise a wholesome restraint upon the action of Government Departments. And now we are told that we are this Session to vote £10,000,000 sterling for the construction of ships by contract, and we shall find them finished at the end of five years; but in

  799
  the interval the House is to have nothing to do with them, and is not even to have a knowledge of the manner in which that large sum of public money is being expended. That appears to be a most extraordinary proposal. I am not now offering any opposition to the scheme of shipbuilding, but merely referring to the financial method of dealing with the subject. As to the ships to be built in Her Majesty's dockyards we are to be called upon to vote the money annually. If we pass this Resolution and a Bill founded upon it becomes an Act, the House will be binding itself, and calling in the assistance of the House of Lords to bind us, to lay down two or three years hence ships and to vote money for them, whatever we may think of the ships, of the necessity for them, or of the wisdom of building them. And we shall be asked to go through the farce of voting the sums necessary to carry out the obligation we have so indiscreetly and blindly undertaken. He could hardly imagine that so absurd a state of things could be seriously contemplated by the Admiralty; but if they could explain the matter to the satisfaction of the House it would be an immense relief to my mind. I hope these various points will receive the consideration of the Government. I come now to the question of the programme and the figures it involves. As far as I can see the figures are in accordance with the Parliamentary Paper sent round by the Parliamentary Secretary, and with the answers given by the First Lord to the questions addressed to him in this House. What the Government have done in this matter is to pose before the country as the originators of a great scheme for adding largely to the numbers of Her Majesty's ships. Now the total, the startling total named by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as about to be expended in the construction
  800
  of 70 additional ships was £21,500,000, including the cost of armaments. All the figures I am going to give are taken from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton). The aggregate expenditure was divided by the noble Lord into two parts—first, an expenditure of £16,150,000 upon new ships and engines; and, secondly, an expenditure of £5,350,000 upon armaments. The latter figure I will leave on one side for the present. The amount of £16,150,000 for new ships and engines was divided into two portions—namely, £8,650,000 to be expended in the dockyards, and £7,500,000 to be expended by contract. In response to the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that in addition to this expenditure, which is purely expenditure under the programme, there are to be found other sums. In the first place there is a sum of money requisite for the completion of the ships already in progress; and I find that the amount required for this purpose was, for 1889–90, £1,285,000, and for 1890–91, £250,000, making a total of £1,535,000 required for the completion of ships in progress, in addition to the amount spoken of as the new programme. Taking the amount of £16,150,000 allotted to new ships under the programme, and the £1,535,000 for the completion of ships, the aggregate amounts to £17,685,000. Then arises the question as to the period over which this expenditure is to be extended. In his speech the noble Lord repeatedly observed that four years and a-half was to be the period for carrying out the programme. But I noticed that the noble Lord spoke of that four and a-half years as being a period to be estimated from the laying down of the first ship. He also said:—
  "We propose to put them (the whole of the ships) in an Act of Parliament, in two Schedules, enacting that they shall be completed within the period I have mentioned—namely by April 1894."

  801
  I think therefore I shall be justified in taking the period contemplated for the full completion of the new programme as five years. The average expenditure in the five years would be £3,537,000 per annum for the construction of new ships without armaments, including those now upon the stocks. In order to show the magnitude of the proposed programme I will take the expenditure of the Government during the last five years and compare it with the proposed expenditure of the ensuing five years. The annual expenditure during the last five years upon ships built in the dockyards and by contract, I believe I am right in saying, excluding armaments, instead of £3,537,000 as it is to be, has been £3,303,000, or a difference of only £234,000. At the end of the ensuing five years the state of the Navy, as compared with what it would have been if the ordinary expenditure of the last five years had been continued through the next five, will be this:—We shall have added about £1,250,000 in value to the Navy, or, in other words, the price of about one ironclad and one cruiser. I commend this fact to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), who at some recent election meetings has spoken about the magnitude of the programme.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: No; read the Papers.
  *SIR E. J. REED: Well, at all events, in five years, if we live as long, there will have been added to the Navy one line-of-battle-ship and one cruiser over and above what would have been added if we had had no new programme and no great display on the part of the Government. It is fair that I should say I have not taken into account the amount that will be required to fill the Dockyards up to the average level when the new programme is working itself out. I was rather reluctant to accept the £3,000,000, which the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) mentioned the other night as the sum that would be required for the purpose, because I fancied that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) had, in his speech on March 7th, given us some encouragement to hope that there would be a reduction of expenditure in consequence of the production of this
  802
  great programme. This passage occurred in the noble Lord's speech—
  "There will be, as the Committee will recollect, a decrease in the Shipbuilding Vote four or five years hence, if the House were satisfied with the strength at which the Navy was maintained."
  I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to deny to the Admiralty the right to retreat from their position to the small extent it has been necessary for them to do in asking us to accept this £3,000,000. I have tested the matter by taking the period as four and a-half years, and I have obtained certain figures, but they differ so little from those obtained by taking the Admiralty's own modus operandi that I need not trouble the Committee with them. Using as a basis the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I find that in 1892–93, if we keep the expenditure up to the full amount given in the text of the programme, an outlay of £910,000 will be required on new ships, whilst in the following year the amount will be £1,820,000, making a total of £2,730,000. Taking the most favourable view that any fair-minded person can possibly take, we find ourselves in this position. Adding together the £17,685,000 to this £2,730,000, we get a total of £20,415,000, and dividing this by five we find that the annual expenditure for the next five years will be £4,083,000. This is as I have said upon ships with their expenses, exclusive of armament charges. If I am wrong, there are competent Gentlemen opposite to correct me; but the best result I can draw from the figures is that, taking the most enlarged and liberal view of their programme, the Admiralty propose to spend three quarters of a million a year extra on shipbuilding, or, in the aggregate, about £3,900,000, which would give the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone an addition of four line-of-battle ships, and if he got these he would get no extra cruisers over and above what would have been built under the normal shipbuilding programme. I ask whether it is wise, whether it is judicious, of the House to sanction this Resolution and the Bill founded upon it—to go through these elaborate and, probably, unconstitutional operations, for the simple purpose of adding £3,900,000 to the Navy in five years? The simple addition, so

  803
  far as ships and engines are concerned, of three-quarters of a million to the annual Estimates would accomplish all the objects which the Government have in view, with one single exception—namely, that under their scheme they might possibly quicken the getting of them; they might order all the ships to be built by contract at once. But there is this set-off, that they may also retard the building of the vessel; so, on the whole, we gain nothing whatever from all this elaborate and questionable machinery. Now, if I may not be suspected of harping too much on a favourite string of mine, I would say a few words on the ships proposed to be built. I see abroad some kind of a desire on the part of certain persons to take their revenge upon me for my persistent and systematic attempts to see that safe ships are built for the Navy, by trying to find out mistakes committed during the time I was at the Admiralty. It is not a subject to dwell upon, but I may say with confidence this—that no attempt of that kind will succeed in the slightest degree with me. You will prove nothing if you prove that I have made mistakes; and I am not so certain but that, if I lad made grave mistakes, that would the more justify me in endeavouring to prevent a repetition of those mistakes. I can understand perfectly well that a man should be annoyed with anybody who severely criticizes his proposals; but let me put this to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—my complaints and my criticisms of Her Majesty's ships and the building of them have been never of a narrow, small, and carping character. I have never criticized as to details; I have never complained of a ship being a little too big, or a little too costly, or a little too lofty, or anything of that kind. My complaint, and my only complaint, and which will continue to be my complaint as long as I am alive and have the means of influencing the matter, is that the British sailor should not be sent into action in a vessel which, under cover of being an armoured ship, will founder beneath him when attacked by the light guns of the enemy. The British sailor is entitled, when we send him into battle, to have beneath him a platform as secure as modern knowledge and skill can make it. Is it not an anomalous thing—is it not a very strange
  804
  thing in the history of this naval country that Admiralty officers should have been for 10 years past, without a single exception—I am sorry to see the noble Lord now repudiates the Nile and Trafalgar—that Admiralty officers should have been contending for what I call danger, and I, for what I, on the other hand, consider safety? I think anyone interested in construction ought to ask himself why it is that we are to be driven to the construction of vessels, the safety of which, for battle purposes, is called into question by competent persons. I have sat in this House for 15 years, and said, I dare say, many unpleasant things; but, at least, I think I may lay claim to impartiality, and I have had to make great personal sacrifices to call in question the construction of vessels. Now the First Lord does not propose to construct one single ship of the cruiser class, of all he proposes to build, with an armour belt to protect her. Now this means that for the sake of a small percentage in the cost, and that but a very small percentage, while you are going to enlarge the size of your battle ships without rhyme or reason—while you are lavish there with no good cause—for the sake of a trifling gain you deny to all the cruisers of the British Navy a belt of armour. You put all the armour in a deck, and you turn it down, leaving her side exposed to the enemy. Without engaging in a technical discussion, I may point out this—that if you injure a ship above the waterline, you may repair her while at sea with the resources you have on board, and keep her at service; but if you make her so weak and tender that she is liable to injury between wind and water, you cannot repair her at sea. You must take her away from her station, and send her, perhaps, thousands of miles before she can be repaired. Yet for some reason, inscrutable to me, this wretched system of denying to the cruisers the protecting belt is pursued, simply for the sake of a small percentage of economy in the cost. I do not know what explanation may be forthcoming from the First Lord, but I shall be interested to see if he can suggest any other reason. Observe, these ships are all called protected; but, in fact, they are not protected at all. They have no more armour protection

  805
  upon them than this book. But my principal object to-night was to make clear what careful reading brings to my knowledge of the programme of the Government. I have said and written, perhaps, some strong words, perhaps too strong sometimes; but I hope the noble Lord will rise above all personal feelings, and look only to the welfare of the Naval Service of the nation. I cannot understand—I cannot believe—that there is any good reason why we should have departed, in the proposed battle ships, from the type last laid down. I believe the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it is quite likely that other Members of the Board too, do not know what these ships are, or how they differ from the Nile and the Trafalgar. The noble Lord said, on March 7th, that the disposition of armour in the new Admiral class resembled that of the Nile and Trafalgar, but really there is no resemblance at all between the Nile and the Trafalgar and these new ships. The Nile and the Trafalgar are of the Dreadnought type, and their characteristic feature is that they are armoured throughout, all the central parts rising from the water to the upper deck. In the Admiral class this armour is taken away, and all that is left is a narrow ship of armour, hardly to be seen when the vessel is half-a mile off—just enough to swear by, if I may use that expression. In the new battle ships, that great wall of armour that fixes the type of the Nile and Trafalgar, is absolutely gone, and we have gone back to the narrow strip. As long as this is continued, I must maintain my criticism and my strenuous opposition to such construction; but go back to the Trafalgar type and all my criticisms will cease. If, in the exigencies of battle one of these proposed vessels is inclined four degrees the whole value of the armour is gone, and she becomes practically an unarmoured vessel. The Nile and Trafalgar could be inclined 17 degrees before this would occur. To show the perversity with which the Government proceed in this matter, I may refer to the terrible feeling that exists throughout the Navy about this Admiral class, and if the First Lord ventures to contradict that statement, I could undertake to put into affidavits and to produce
  806
  writings from many of the Lords who have been connected with the Admiralty, condemning these ships in most unqualified terms. When the First Lord and his colleagues went to the Admiralty, and when they produced the Nile and the Trafalgar, there was great satisfaction throughout all the Naval Service, and we thought there was no fear that we should revert to the doubtful type again. I approved the type, in so far as their defensive armour is concerned, and repeatedly defended these two ships in this House. It appears to me that to change from them is pure, unmitigated, injudicious, obstinate perversity, and I hope the House will agree to submit the proposal to a tribunal where the subject can be threshed out thoroughly, before we are held to the expenditure of eight millions upon ships with which certainly I can feel no satisfaction. In the Times to-day there is a letter from a gallant admiral, and he says many things of which I do not in the least know the meaning—they are quite beyond my knowledge; but after criticizing me somewhat, he declares that if he had the power, he would build ships of a totally different character, and he says that a great many officers in the Service agree with him. Will that letter have any effect on the noble Lord? Hitherto, I have evinced no disposition to attack the policy of the Government; I did not make a single complaint against the Nile and the Trafalgar. My only desire is to see the money expended in the preservation of our naval strength wisely and properly expended, to the satisfaction of those best able to form a judgment upon our requirements.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to move, Sir, that you now report Progress.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The noble Lord is aware we are rather pressed for time. Better go on until 12 o'clock.
  [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!]
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Lord Charles Beresford,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. There was no expectation this Bill would be reached to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Longford desires to raise some questions as to the conduct and employment of soldiers in Ireland, and I wish to refer to the action of an officer who disturbed the congregation in Clonmel Church during Divine Service.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member would not be in order in making a Motion to delay this—what is the usual Army Bill, to continue the Army Regulations for another year—for the purpose of alluding to events of the past year. They would not arise on the Bill, which is to continue Regulations for the coming year.
  MR. SEXTON: My observations would undoubtedly come within the Bill, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the right hon. Member will not press the Motion, which will have the effect of seriously delaying the Bill, in order to raise the particular points referred to. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the Second Reading?
  MR. SEXTON: I must persist in the Motion.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 164.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: On the question of order, Sir, if I correctly appreciated the force of your ruling, you said my remarks should be relevant to the Regulations for the discipline of the Army. My remarks would be directed to the disturbance of a congregation at Divine Service by the conduct of soldiers, and my desire is to obtain an assurance
  808
  that the Regulations should be so altered as to prevent a recurrence of such disturbance.
  *MR. SPEAKER: A discussion on the action of a particular officer of the Army would not be relevant to the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to alter any general Regulation, that could be discussed in Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: I give notice that in Committee on the Bill I will move an Amendment to the effect that no order should be given in church which would tend to disturb the peace of the congregation.
  Original Questions put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847)

  AMENDMENT BILL,—(No. 65).
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end to add the following sub-section:—"(2.) This Act shall be deemed to be incorporated with 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' by Section one hundred and seventy one of that Act."—(Mr. Picton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed—(Mr. Picton.)
  Page 1, line 17, leave out "gross or."
  Page 2, at end of Clause, add—
  "Any omnibus starting from outside the prescribed distance, and bringing passengers within the prescribed distance, but not standing or plying for hire within the prescribed distance."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 4.
  Amendments proposed—(Mr. Picton.)
  Page 2, line 9, leave out "forty-two," and insert "fifty-two."
  Page 2, at end, add the following subsection:—
  "(4.) For the purposes of sections fifty-four, fifty-eight, and sixty-six of the principal Act, the fare, according to the statement of fares exhibited on any omnibus, shall be deemed to-be the fare allowed by the principal Act or authorized by any bye-law under that Act."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clauses 5 and 6 and Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES PREVENTION) BILL (No. 158).

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I do not want to stop the progress of this Bill, for I believe there is a general wish that it should pass. The first thing that strikes me on reading the Bill through is the great distinction that is drawn between public bodies and private bodies, and I do not quite understand why there should be this distinction. Private bodies are equally open with public bodies to the evils of bribery and corruption, and, I should have thought, equally able to defend themselves. I am inclined to fear that their being fenced round with legislation will tend to the relaxation of vigilance and the decrease of integrity. Further, I submit with all deference that the general principle of legislation is directed against crime wherever it can be found, and not merely under particular circumstances. With one or two exceptions, perhaps, that is the general rule, which this Bill departs from. That principle has been violated in this Bill, and I do not think it ought to pass without some slight discussion. I say nothing of the penalties attached—I only now submit these two objections.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. and gallant Member speaks of objection to the Bill, but I suppose he does not seriously mean that, because it would be destructive of the measure at once. I do not wish to oppose the Bill on the present occasion. I believe it is the first bantling of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), and I have not the slightest wish to strangle it in its birth, and that the noble Lord should lose any advantage he may derive from the passing of the measure. But I would just like to mention two public bodies that the noble Lord has not taken into account, and which, perhaps, on subsequent consideration,
  810
  he may see his way to include. I refer to the Primrose League and Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BRUNNER: It would be well, I think, if the Bill were extended to private Corporations. A considerable amount of dishonesty arises out of the custom of giving tips to obtain business, and if we could declare it a crime to take a bribe in order to give orders, I believe it would have a beneficial, wholesome effect on the commercial habits of the country.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I fear that if the scope of the Bill were extended no progress would be made with any legislation on the subject. There is an essential difference between a private body and a public one. A private body has a direct interest in looking after its own servants, but in the case of a public body what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and thus public bodies become engaged in transactions which the members in their private capacity would not contemplate for a moment. At some time, perhaps, Parliament may take into consideration the mischievous practice of giving commissions and tips of all kinds; but it is too much to attempt now. The Bill is the direct offspring of the Commission to inquire into the Metropolitan Board. The Commission found that persons had been guilty of corrupt practices for which they could not be got hold of in any way. I may mention that I have received a large number of letters from Corporations and persons connected with public bodies approving the Bill, and these letters throw a lurid light upon the prevalence of practices which this Bill may do something to prevent in the future.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

PARTNERSHIP BILL (No. 151).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: In relation to this Bill I notice a Motion on the Paper to refer it after Second Reading to a Standing Committee. May I ask what course the Government have decided to adopt

  811
  in reference to sending Bills to a Standing Committee? It was, I believe, intended, when Standing Committees were first set up in 1882, that they should be reserved for Government Bills, so that Members who sacrificed their time to these Committees might know that they were dealing with measures for which the Government was responsible.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a conclusive answer, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the First Lord.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

MOTIONS.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION (FOREIGNERS).
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be re-appointed to inquire into the laws existing in the United States and elsewhere on the subject of the Immigration of destitute Aliens, and as to the extent and effect of such Immigration into the United Kingdom, and to report whether it is desirable to impose any, and, if so, what restrictions on such Immigration."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am sorry to interpose, but I must make a claim to have another Scotch Member appointed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That question arises on the nomination.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of 19 Members."
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I must now protest against the Committee being nominated until the claim of the Scotch Members is considered.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The Committee is constituted in the same way as last year, and there was then no question, and I did not understand from my hon. Friend who in these matters represents hon. Members on the other side, that there was any objection. There was a general consensus of opinion in favour of the names I have given notice of. Still, if an hon. Member wishes his name to be withdrawn the wishes of the hon. Member might be met.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I have heard smooth words before on various occasions; but still Scotland is not fairly represented. ["Order!"]
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his objection.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I must press it. The naming of the Committee consequently stood adjourned.

  DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move for Copy of all Official Correspondence relating to the appointment of Divisional Commissioners in Ireland to be Justices of the Peace for certain counties; and Return showing the Precedents, if any, for the appointment of salaried Officials by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the Commission of Justice of the Peace; the Counties for which each Divisional Commissioner has been appointed as Justice; the amount payable by each Commissioner on his appointment as Justice; the Date of Payment; the Date on which each Commissioner was appointed a Justice for each County; and the Date on which he ceased to be a Resident Magistrate.
  MR. BYRON REED: I object.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I was going to ask the hon. Member to postpone the resolution, as we cannot give him the Return in the exact form he asks; we must have further consultation.
  MR. SEXTON: This is the second time the Motion has been postponed. The Irish Office has never had the courtesy to make any communication to me on the subject, although the Chief Secretary promised last Friday to consider in what form the Return should be given. I do not think it is a businesslike proceeding. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, however, I will postpone the Motion till Thursday.
  Motion postponed till Thursday.

  SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum explanatory of the relations entered into with Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, as regards the working of the Submarine Telegraph Cables to those Countries,"—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock

LARCENY ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL. (NO. 30.)
A Bill for the further security of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from personal violence—Was presented by the Earl of Milltown read 1a; and to be printed.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, That the Earl Beauchamp be appointed to take the Chair in the Committee of the whole House this day, in the absence of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos from illness.—(The Marquess of Salisbury); agreed to.
Moved, That the Earl Beauchamp do take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills to-morrow in the absence of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos from illness, except where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(The Marquess of Salisbury); agreed to.

THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1887.
*LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to move "That, in the opinion of this House the Colonial Conference of 1887 has led to good results, and ought to be the basis of further measures tending to Imperial security," said: My Lords, the first thing to mention to the House is that some discussion on the proceedings of the Conference was not to be avoided. It seemed to me that it might take place in June or July with advantage. The Colonial Office were not of that opinion, and prevented it. The notice was adjourned to the 12th of November, on which day it was not the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government that the House should assemble. Nor could it be brought forward on any of the isolated Tuesdays, when Bills having precedence wholly occupied your
658
Lordships, and when the ocean travellers or former Viceroys whom the House would wish to hear, were generally absent. I do not touch at present on the circumstances which led me to approach the Blue Books or their theme, as I am anxious to avoid whatever looks like an exordium. It is better to go on at once to the first position of the notice—namely, that the results of the Conference in 1887 were satisfactory. Its main result has been to establish the scheme of naval defence in the Australian waters which had been well elaborated in the despatches of Admiral Tryon, a name well-known in connection with the topic. The local Parliaments have all, or nearly all, accepted the decisions of the Conference. Some minor changes, which relate to bankruptcy and to companies and postage, have been mooted, but have not reached, I think, an actual conclusion. On all of these the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies must be a far better expositor. By him the Conference was guided; by him the rather intricate agreements as to outlay were determined; by him the subsequent proceedings of the Colonial Parliaments have been habitually scrutinized with every advantage. Let me consider, therefore, the next and last position of the notice, a task to which I shall be painfully and consciously unequal, without the friendly aid and the remarkable indulgence of your Lordships. It is desirable at once to throw some light upon the origin of the movement which led on to the Conference at Westminster. The movement seems to have originated in the war of 1870 between France and Prussia. Soon after it, a publication in the same form as "The Battle of Dorking" came

659
out, to indicate a nearer union of Great Britain and the Colonies as the result of an invasion or disaster, the object being to show that it ought to precede and to prevent, not to repair and follow, a catastrophe of that kind. In 1871 a great discussion took place in the Westminster Palace Hotel, under the auspices of the Duke of Manchester, at which M. de Labilliere, an Australian, read a paper giving the whole argument in favour of what is termed Imperial Federation. M. de Labilliere and the Duke of Manchester may, therefore, be considered as the founders of the system. In 1875 the well-known address of the late Mr. Forster, at Edinburgh, gave uncommon circulation to the subject. It was applauded, and in some degree endorsed, for the time at least, by the noble Earl now sitting just beneath me (the Earl of Derby.) In 1876 Sir Frederick Young sent out a formal treatise in the same direction. But soon a most extraordinary reasoner appeared in a Canadian politician who contributed three articles in 1879 to a celebrated periodical, the Westminster Review, which placed on clear foundations and reduced to practical detail the kind of change which Mr. Forster recommended. There cannot be too strong a recognition of that admirable trilogy. Thence for ward, hardly any magazine has left the question unconsidered. Among the strong opponents of the project, Professor Gold win Smith ought to be mentioned. The voyage of Lord Rosebery round the world, the impressions he brought back, the language he has held, the public dinners he has guided, may be regarded as another stage in the transaction. But the most extraordinary power exerted on the public mind has been that of Mr. Froude and Baron Hubner, who have separately visited the distant regions of the Empire, and published striking views on Federation, without entirely ranking as its advocates. The financial classes were thus so much awakened and excited that the London Chamber of Commerce resolved in 1886 on what might seem at first a startling decision from so respectable and business-like a quarter. They offered a prize to essayists upon it, which was obtained by Mr. Gresswell, a distinguished author of South Africa, and which produced a volume from various contributors of greater value, as they are nearly all of them
660
colonial either by residence or origin. In that volume, which must have reached some Members of the Legislature, the whole subject may be easily investigated. In 1886 also the Colonial Exhibition drew the public gaze towards the problem. In August of that year, directly the present Government was formed, a deputation, led by Mr. (now Lord) Brassey, urged the noble Marquess the First Minister to act in some degree upon the movement. The noble Marquess did not give the deputation an ungenial reception. He did not seem to view it as deputations sometimes have been regarded like "a noun of multitude, which signifies many, but does not signify much." A few weeks after the Queen's Speech referred to the topic. The same autumn saw the famous and frequently alluded to despatch of Mr. Stanhope, the Colonial Secretary, by whom the Conference at Westminster was summoned, but under a restriction that what is termed Imperial Federation should not be debated in it. In 1887 the Conference assembled without Mr. Stanhope, who had reached another post, but with a Chairman in Sir Henry Holland, who is now amongst us by another designation. The proceedings of the Conference are recorded in the volumes now before us, which also contain an interesting speech of Mr. Hoffmeir, the delegate from the Cape of Good Hope, upon the method of arriving at an Imperial revenue. I recommend that speech in some degree—it is to be found at page 463 of the 1st volume—to the attention of your Lordships. It is not without an object I have presumed to touch upon these stages. The Conference proceeded from a movement which it, therefore, stamped with authenticity. But yet the Conference leaves unresolved the leading problem towards which the movement was directed. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the Conference is final.—Indeed, the language of the noble Marquess when he delivered the inaugurating speech, and the language of the noble Lord the Secretary of State in aid repudiated most distinctly all finality of that kind. According to one, it was to be but a starting point; according to the other it was to lead on to many similar proceedings. The Government are only now recalled to their original

661
intention. They are only asked to build on their exertions—not merely to enjoy success when it is possible to utilize it. It should be remembered also that if the movement was deprived of action, its leading object unattained, the Conference would be its sepulchre instead of its encouragement. It has been shown this very aututmn that the movement was not composed, or tranquillized, or satiated by the Conference. It has been loud and energetic since the Conference has terminated. In Glasgow, Edinburgh, Jed burgh, and other Scottish cities, considerable bodies have assembled in the autumn to demand some further measures of a nature to promote the union of the Empire, beyond the measure which the Conference arrived at. The leading Scottish journal has opened its columns widely to the subject. Again, the League whose members brought about this movement, the League, from which the Conference proceeded, the League, whose action led to the Queen's Speech and the despatch of Mr. Stanhope, survives, but ought to die if the proceedings of the Conference are satisfactory and final. However, it is easy to contend that the necessity for further action rests on grounds less technical and narrow. Apart from India and from the Colonies, who have a basis of their own, dependencies must gradually incline to separation from Great Britain. The experience of our country, of Spain, of Portugal, would point to this con-elusion. Adam Smith, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in their well known works, Viscount Bury in his Exodus of Nations, are all agreed on this inevitable tendency. You could not have three minds acquainted with the subject more remote from one another. Adam Smith, as your Lordships know, was a recluse who spent 10 years at Kirkcaldy in the preparation of his celebrated treatise. Sir George Lewis was an active politician well known to many here. He personally visited none of our dependencies but Malta. Viscount Bury, a much younger man, has had experience and ties upon the other side of the Atlantic. It is remarkable that thinkers placed so differently should all pronounce a similar conclusion on this matter. But not to urge too far the proposition, it may be granted that dependencies of that kind will not leave Great Britain except in the event of
662
war by which their coasts are threatened. When war arrives—as it may always do—the temptation to break off might then be irresistible. The Marquis de Beauvoir, the great French traveller in Australia, a few years back arrived at this conclusion. In Canada we sometimes hear of that which tends to separation. In Queensland the title of the Crown to appoint Governors has been loudly if not universally disputed. In South Africa, Majuba Hill, of which we heard so much from the late Lord Cairns, may be remembered. There is at least a germ which you may call centrifugal in the self-governing dependencies, except, perhaps, New Zealand. Since the Crimean War, there is no criterion to guide us as to the fear of similar contingencies. At that time the power of Great Britain to blockade all hostile ports was thoroughly relied on. We openly declare it ought not now to be so. In the Crimean War the operation against Petropaulouskie not having been remarkably successful, Petropaulouski still survives and menaces the harbours and coaling stations of the British Empire to the South of it. It is clear that in the event of war these great Dependencies may possibly escape us. It is no less clear, however, that Great Britain cannot acquiesce in any unredeemed and unconditional detachment of them. Some 20 years, according to Mr. Froude, who knows much of offices and statesmen, as well as history and philosophy, there was a disposition to do away with Colonies in a quarter where it could not be anticipated. It was an unorthodox, unwholesome mixture of red tape and revolution. But all that has evaporated, before the ill-omened alliance was in any way productive. Another fashion hassetin, which Government must recognize. The dominant opinion now amongst all classes is tenacious of every post from Hong Kong to Vancouver's Island. To be reduced to the United Kingdom would be a blow to systematic colonization, which in the days of Sir Robert Peel found an incomparable advocate in the late Mr. Charles Buller, as it has now a steady friend in a noble Earl who often sits on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Meath). To be reduced to the United Kingdom would be a loss of European prestige. By European prestige, I mean only the spirit which prevails against the matter which exceeds

663
it; the force which guards, although it may be latent and invisible; the arm which overcomes, although it still continues in its scabbard. Above all, to lose our transmarine possessions, would discredit us at Berlin, where support is often necessary. It would discredit us, because the German Empire has become a colonizing Power; and it would not find a natural connection with a Power abandoning its Colonies. The sacrifice alluded to is also wholly inconsistent with the line of reasoning which Canon Dalton and Professor Seeley had remarkably exhibited, one in a luminous discourse, the other in a celebrated volume, which may be thus imperfectly resumed—that the wars of the last century and this one, down to 1815, were only justified in principle, redeemed from loss and balanced as to outlay by colonial acquisitions which have followed them at all the European settlements from Utrecht to Vienna. If, therefore, the present status cannot be relied upon for a year, or even for a month, some new method of colonial policy is evidently needed. It is only in this manner, and not from vague ideas or from declamatory phrases, that we are forced to examine the now often-repeated term, Imperial Federation. If the noble Marquess the First Minister gave a favourable welcome to the deputation in 1886, he has been more recently inclined to hold up its project rather to derision. There is much, however, to entitle it to scrutiny. The whole subject of federation has been handled by Professor Freeman in a treatise of which the second volume is still impending on society. It is allowed to mean autonomy of parts subordinated to a centre. It is seen in public schools, where houses governing themselves are all connected by a general authority. It is known in Universities, where colleges of various pursuits and various foundations are all subjected to a body which confers degrees and chooses representatives. To come to practical detail, it may be said to exist whenever a superior assembly is added to the several assemblies of the country thrown together. There are many types of union, and only one of federation. Its proper use appears to be where certain groups can neither be entirely divided nor entirely amalgamated. At this moment we may contemplate
664
and study it in the United States, in Austro-Hungary, the German Empire, and Switzerland. There is no absolute impediment to its existence in regions intercepted by the ocean, if every coast and every port remains approachable by navies. It was by ships alone that Athens was enabled between the Peloponesian and the Persian Wars, to keep the sort of empire she had founded. But the defence of federation belongs more properly to the Chairman of the League established to support it. We have been told by one of our earliest instructors not to approach heroic themes, if some one else is bound and qualified to handle them. I go on therefore to admit that there are many grounds for hesitation with regard to it. It could not easily arise, except after great organic changes in Great Britain. It is not certain that the best Colonials would have leisure to transfer themselves to an Imperial Assembly. As they would be in a minority for a considerable time, it must not always be an easy or harmonious one. Above all, the central Power must make up its mind beforehand to preserve the system by force of arms when once it is arrived at. The Civil War of the United States still vividly impresses on us the fundamental lesson it embodied; that is, the melancholy consequence of leaving it ambiguous how far incorporated units retain the power to with draw themselves. None of the essayists or reasoners on Imperial federation appear to have made up their minds on this part of the subject. It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider whether any other kind of policy is open, as it is shown that we cannot stand still or give up every link with the colonial system. Sir John Macdonald, the Canadian Minister, in a speech which was reported about a year ago, adverted to the importance of transforming Colonies into auxiliary powers. It appears also from his recent correspondence that Sir Henry Taylor, the great colonial administrator, as well as author of "Philip van Artevelde," leant to the same solution. It might, no doubt, be plausibly defended. Our Colonies, like the vassal principalities of the Ottoman Empire, may still be under the Suzerainty of Great Britain. Or the acknowledgment of a Supreme

665
Court might still continue to unite them. A guarantee against external dangers would induce them to place their fleets and armies at the disposal of this country. As we adhere to many unproductive guarantees, a productive guarantee can hardly be objected to. It is generally seen in history that fleets and armies gain a quick and wonderful development in countries which are thrown in some degree upon their own responsibilities. Canada, South Africa, Australia, would have a greater number of armed men if they approached to independence than if a federal connection had united and submerged them. Besides, arrangements of that kind involve no revolution or transition in Great Britain. So much could hardly be affirmed of what is called Imperial federation. On the other hand, there would be a risk of such auxiliary powers escaping us. They might then be launched into the world without the institutions they require for their stability. The balance of power possibly would suffer. It is no light thing to form approximative nations, Tempests may arise as to a descending suffrage, an elective presidency, or a national religion. There must be therefore hesitation in adopting the idea of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Henry Taylor. There must also be hesitation in rejecting it. We are thrown into an abyss of doubt, not only between two systems, but between the views by which either may be recommended or resisted. In a perplexity of this kind it is not improper to turn to standard authors on colonial policy. Important as they are, they would be hardly able to direct us. Neither Gibbon Wakefield, the great master of colonial questions, who used to be consulted as an oracle by Members of both Houses, nor Lord Grey, who wrote with the immense authority the Colonial Office had imparted to him, nor Mr. Roebuck, for a long while a Canadian representative or agent, nor Lord Brougham, whose treatise on Colonial Policy at the beginning of the century first made him known to society, and still regards the student who goes back to it, is wholly equal to the function of directing us. But there is another class of leaders we might be more inclined to follow and rely upon with sanguine hope of being sufficiently enlightened.
666
They are such travellers as Mr. Froude, Baron Hubner, whom I have mentioned, Mr. Finch-Hatton, and the noble Earl who has come back, and once directed the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon). Their merit is beyond, indeed, my power to describe it. Mr. Froude has been charged with inaccuracy. There is more, however, to be gained from his inaccuracy than from the erudition of many other persons. Baron Hubner has so wonderful a power of grasping causes and elucidating difficulties that you would think he had held high office in all the countries which he traverses. Mr. Finch-Hatton is instructive on everything in Australia, whether the processes of a gold mine, the habits of a buck jumper, or the manœuvres of a faction. In graphic power, if I am not deceived, the noble Earl surpasses all of them together. But he and they are equally unwilling to arrive at or promulgate statesmanlike conclusions on the course to be adopted, while none deny a further course to be essential. It, therefore, becomes appropriate to look at further methods open to the Government. It is only on comparison they can be expected to adopt, or even to consider, the one which I should be disposed to recommend to them. The first method would be another Conference at Westminster. But you could not a second time exclude Imperial Federation from it. Delegates would come instructed to oppose or to support the measure. It is not thus that sound conclusions can be hoped for, as the instructions could not possibly be based on long consideration or perfect grasp of such a topic. Besides this, it might be difficult a second time to draw first-rate colonials to this country. It has been proposed that they should meet elsewhere—at Ottawa, for instance; but such a plan is, on the face of it, imprudent and impracticable from the jealousies which must arise around it. Another course would be to draw reports from every Colonial Governor on the dispositions which exist to closer union with Great Britain, and the manner of attaining it. About 20 years ago a process of this kind was resorted to in India, to gather popular opinion on the administration which exists. It had, no doubt, some interest and value; but a collection of Reports from Governors

667
would hardly satisfy the public that Imperial Federation was tenable or otherwise. An appeal would be demanded from their judgment. Sir Frederick Young, whose work I have alluded to, and who has been long known as a Colonial politician, maintains that one mission ought to go, under a well-chosen director, to all the regions where the system would be contemplated. There is much to recommend a course of that kind; but it appears to me that it would be too high and too laborious a function to confer on anyone, unless the Secretary for the Colonies himself resolved to undertake it. The Secretary of State may well derive from the late Sir Henry Holland, the curiosity and energy of travelling. Those who know him best would guarantee his going all round the world without ever saying or doing anything imprudent. In 1855 the Secretary for the Colonies at that time, Lord John Russell, went out on a mission to Vienna unconnected with his Office. It would, therefore, be within the bounds of precedent, at least, that the noble Lord should go out on a mission vitally affecting his Department. It is not probable, however, that he can be spared for so long a period from Ministerial and private obligations. In that event, a different method may suggest itself, and for rapidity in some degree a better one. A mission going successively to every point required would not complete its task for 3 years at the soonest. But long before that time the sort of chart and compass which we aim at may be necessary. On this ground alone, as well as others, simultaneous proceedings are desirable. If inquiring bodies were sent at once to Canada, South Africa, and Australia, it is quite possible that by a year from Easter their reports would be in our possession. There is no political contingency, of many which may strike us, in which it would not be desirable to have them. At first, and very properly, the Colonial Office may be led to feel some hesitation and aversion as to any course whatever. On one point they would go with me, however.—They would recognize the vast advantage of the official and responsible over the unofficial and irresponsible inquirer. It arises in this way. The former goes out with a staff to aid him, he remains as long as is found necessary,
668
he draws into activity all the able minds of the dependency he visits, he labours under great responsibility, his report is accurate and searching, as he is not bound to have his eye, like ordinary travellers, upon the literary market. But in Canada, at least, there is remarkable experience to guide and to encourage us; The mission of Lord Durham in 1838 can never be forgotten. It would stand out vividly from the transactions of the day, if it ever fell into the hands of any qualified historian who had gained the power to foreshorten and develop. The essence to be borne in mind is that while the mission was attended with every species of disaster and impediment, so much that the Earl of Durham gave it up and did not long survive it, the report was so luminous and solid that it served for many years as the basis of Colonial policy, while it was the immediate stepping-stone to the tranquility of Canada. Lord Durham was exposed to the intense hostility of an excited opposition in this country. The greatest orator of that, perhaps of any time, the first Lord Brougham, rendered him the object of brilliant and implacable invective. Some of his proceedings, justly or unjustly, were disavowed by those who had appointed him. His authority in Canada was therefore seriously compromised. But still, with the distinguished aid of Gibbon Wakefield and Charles Buller, who accompanied him, he was able in a few months to present to the Queen and the two Houses a State paper, which might justly be considered as immortal, and which, at least, was far from unproductive It would be absurd to imagine, however, now, when the union of Upper and Lower Canada, which it authorized, has passed away and merged in the Dominion, nothing more of the same kind is wanted to replace it. As to South Africa, the need of information more authoritative than any which exists, has been exhibited in nearly all the many controversies and embarrasments of which the country has been so fertile. It was seen in the exodus of the Boers, which led to the establishment of independent States on our frontiers. It was seen in the hurried measure of annexing the Transvaal, and still more in the precipitate conclusion to fly from battle fields which followed. It

669
was seen in the acquisition of the Diamond Fields, as some have reasoned, by encroachment on a treaty. It was seen in the war directed against Cetywayo by Sir Bartle Frere. You have only to refer to authors such as Francis Galton, Anthony Trollope, Mr. Greswell, Mr. Mackenzie, for evidence of our perplexity. But it would need a lifetime to become master of South African affairs. I therefore hurry over them. At this moment there is the greatest possible diversity of judgment as to whether the offices of Governor at the Cape of Good Hope and High Commissioner of Africa ought to be united in one person. There is a far stronger case as to Australia, based on estimates and facts, which do not bear on other parts of the Colonial world, and ought not to escape us. It is the most remote (if you include New Zealand) and, therefore, according to the beautiful and often cited passage of Mr. Burke, the most precarious of our dependencies. It is the most extensive in its area. It is the largest in exports, imports, and revenue. A variety of questions well known to Parliament, connected with New Caledonia, the New Hebrides, New Guinea, have in some degree impaired, although they have not shaken, its allegiance. Such men as Dr. Lang have done their utmost—it may not be very much—to excite the love of national existence. The poetry of the country—for poetry has occurred in Gordon, and in Kendal—breathes a kindred aspiration. It cannot be denied that there is a dominant idea of connecting with Australia all the islands which surround it, as New Zealand was connected by our action. It cannot be denied either that the British tie is not regarded as an aid to the eventual consummation. In 1850 the want of information on Australia was deeply felt in Parliament when the question of forming Upper Chambers was debated, although the critical return of Mr. Lowe (Lord Sherbrooke) did something to abate it. In 1856, when another and more vital Act of Parliament was carried, a greater knowledge of Australia would have been most important to the Legislature. It is hardly necessary to refer in detail to the transaction of New Guinea, which could not have pursued its dangerous course had proper light
670
existed. Last of all, in November and December, the appointment to Queensland, however unobjectionable in itself, and which I have referred to, became no doubt a blow to the connection of Australia with Great Britain. To what except imperfect knowledge at the Colonial Office could it be attributed? We have also to remember that Australia, beginning as a convict settlement, has need of all the elevating influences which you can bring to bear upon it. The discovery of gold, whatever animation, or wealth, or numbers it created, was not a balance, but an aggravation, morally and socially, of the original misfortune. What sort of Governors have been appointed? Even at best they have been local, and without a general control over the mighty area which stood in need of organizing force, and of regenerating influence. So far, Australia has not even the good fortune of New Zealand. New Zealand has been formed by the rare virtue, indomitable energy, heroic type of Bishop Selwyn, the mature experience of Sir George Grey, the masterly acumen of Gibbon Wakefield, who may be considered as its founder. Australia has never had a mind or character impressed on its mysterious extent and hidden capability, which would suggest the parallel of Washington in the United States, or of many others in Great Britain. Beyond Captain Cook, they have no founder to look back to. It is desirable that such a want should be redressed, even if Imperial Federation is a vision, even if no assistance can be drawn from this extraordinary settlement. Allusion has been made to circumstances tending to relax the bonds between Australia and Great Britain. Another ought not to escape us. It is the hatred which exists of Chinese immigration. It is, of course, seen that the Mother Country cannot, without some inconvenience at Pekin, effectually discourage it. A ground of alienation both economical and social may at any time present itself. But there is a larger view upon this subject I cannot go into this evening. Even if mistaken scruples of economy deter the Government from immediate action as regards Canada and South Africa, the title of Australia to the best support by which her future can be organized would stand alone, and

671
special, and imperative upon them. The Motion offered, it should he remarked, however, does not bind the Government to any course whatever. They may reject the method I prefer, adopt the methods which appear to me inadequate, or hit on means of action which entirely escape me. The Motion only gives the possibility of acting. It gives the possibility of acting, because, without some indication from Parliament or from the public, the Government can do nothing at present. The deputation, brought about the Conference at Westminster. There would have been no Conference if there had been no deputation, and no further course will be pursued unless some agency impels it. There is not any other agency. It has been said that Governments are only gauges of pressure brought to bear upon them. The noble Marquess the First Minister is himself the author, and he is bound, perhaps, to be from time to time the illustration, of the maxim. There are some fallacies which stand in the way of any Resolution which hardly need a serious reply, and yet cannot be wholly disregarded. It is said that time alone will bring about the necessary union. Unfortunately, time is by itself an agent in the opposite direction. Dependencies of large extent, it has been shown, are always on the road to nationality. Time also may produce the war so dangerous to cohesion. Time ought to be embraced by us, but not relied on for this purpose. It is said that commercial union will tend to the political arrangements wished for. Unfortunately, the commercial union is quite beyond our reach, and if we wait for that we shall have to wait for ever. It is said that federation will spring up by gradual process, like the British Constitution. The British Constitution may have been in some degree evolved, but its main features have been brought about by perilous exertions, such as Magna Charta or the Revolution of 1688, of which the anniversary is near us. The true principle is rather: there is a price for everything—results of an extraordinary kind are only to be purchased by remarkable exertion. Objection, therefore, can only come from those who question altogether the necessity of strengthening the Empire. Can they deny the weakness of the
672
Empire? Has it not been seen in various transactions? But that inquiry is superfluous. It is admitted by the language of the Government. It is the foundation and the shelter of the Naval project they are offering. It is true that Naval project, as regards security, and as regards defence, may remedy to some extent the weakness which provokes it. But we are not to forget the volume which the noble Marquess elicited some years ago on purpose to exhibit the range of our guarantees, the insufficiency of power to maintain them. In that volume, which may be considered as a text book of European policy, equally adapted to the novice and the expert, we observe our duties to Portugal, to Belgium, to the Ottoman Empire. It leads us to a well-founded incredulity—it was meant to do it—as to how far the United Kingdom, standing by itself, is qualified to execute and meet them. We cannot do it wholly by a Navy, unless indeed considerable bodies of marines are placed on board the further ironclads you organize. It remains only to point out the error of those who, while acceding to the train of reasoning submitted, suggest that this House is not entitled to come forward or point to any sort of action on the subject. The Government, it has been shown, are chained until some agency releases and impels them. It cannot be the other House, which very probably is buried in the Estimates from February to Easter. This House alone is equal to the function. It has not ceased to be the Council of the Realm, as it was before Simon de Montford added representatives in 1265, and before those representatives were separately organized. The House of Lords is deemed by some to be less stable than it used to be. An Upper Chamber and a suffrage more than democratic may be some day irreconcilable. But while the decay of men is quick there is a lingering vitality in institutions and assemblies. A Senate which resolves upon a step to pave the way for union with its dependencies may draw from climes and races the most various an echo to reward, perhaps an echo to immortalize it. But if the House is doomed to pass into abeyance, its last decrees and waning efforts might be well subordinated to the maxim, Turegere

673
imperio populos Romanem memento, and thus directed to transform an overburdened State into a preponderating Nation. On these grounds, and many others I have not been able to advert to, I move the Resolution as it stands upon the paper.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the Colonial Conference of 1887 has led to good results, and ought to be the basis of further measures tending to Imperial security.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
*LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, we have heard with interest the speech which the noble Lord has delivered upon a subject in which he has taken great interest, and a subject of which I am the last person to deny the importance. This Empire, though so vast in extent, comprising as it does some 9,000,000 square miles and 321,000,000 of inhabitants, has probably the least systematic organization of any Empire of the present day, or of any of the great Empires which have flourished and passed away. This Empire has been built up by conquest, cession, annexation, and settlement; and the result of those different modes of acquisition has been that within its limits there is a variety of races, of religions, languages, customs, laws, and constitutions, probably unequalled in any Empire, ancient or modern. So far, then, I agree with the noble Lord that there may remain much to be done in re-organizing the Empire. 'To bring together the component parts of the Empire into closer union: to unite more closely the Colonies between themselves by some system of Colonial Federation; and to strengthen the links between the Mother Country and the Colonies by some system of what is called Imperial Federation, is, I admit, not only the dream, but the legitimate aim and object, of Imperial statesmen. But the subject is one of great difficulty and delicacy, and no one can approach, or ought to approach it, without due and careful regard, and full inquiry and examination into the wishes, the views, and the interests of our fellow-subjects in the great Colonies. One is reminded of the reply that the Empress, Catherine II., gave to the philosopher Diderot, who had favoured her with a cut and dried system of reform, and was
674
finding fault with her for not pressing it on the country. Her reply was—
"Yes, Mr. Philosopher; but you seem to forget the very different positions that we hold with respect to reform. You work on paper, which endures all things, and presents no obstacle to your imagination or your plan; but I have to work on the human skin, which is ticklish and irritable to an alarming degree."
That reply is very much in point, I venture to think, with respect to this question. I may agree in the outlines of the picture which the noble Lord has drawn, but I confess I feel great difficulty in filling up the details. One consideration appears to me to lie at the very root of the matter, and to bear strongly upon many parts of his speech. It is this—that looking to the rapid increase and the extraordinary development and great responsibility of self-governing Colonies such as Canada, Australasia, and the Cape, I take it to be clear that any proposals which tend to alter the relations between the Mother Country and the colonies must come, if they are to be of any service at all, from the Colonies themselves in the first instance. Our fellow-subjects in the Colonies view with, perhaps not unnatural jealousy, any proposals which come from this country. They are apt to think—I hope that their belief is unfounded—that we consider too much our own interests, and are not sufficiently alive to their interests and position. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it to be in the interest, not only of the Mother Country but of the Colonies, that they should remain integral parts of the Empire—and, not only so, but that they should be as far as possible more closely united by ties of commerce, increased facilities of communication, and uniformity of laws, and ultimately—if it can be found possible—by their bearing some more direct share, and having a more direct voice, in the Councils of the Empire, and, as a result of that, their bearing a larger share in the defence of the Empire and Imperial responsibilities. But though any Government—Her Majesty's Government or any succeeding Government—would be ready and anxious to consider carefully any well-thought-out scheme which lies in that direction, I believe that any Government would have to be satisfied that the scheme—as I have before

675
said—must come, in the first instance, from the Colonies themselves. The consummation may be devoutly to be wished, but it is a long way off, and those who desire to see closer union must, I think, be contented to wait until the inhabitants of our great Colonies are themselves satisfied that their best interests will be secured by a closer union. These and like questions must be fought out in the Colonies. The noble Lord has admitted—and no one who has read the debates in the Assemblies of the Australasian Colonies can doubt it—that there is a party—I will not stop to inquire how large it is, or whether it is increasing; but there is a party of men who most conscientiously believe that the Colonies are now sufficiently independent to stand by themselves; that they would be better freed from the responsibilities of the Empire; and in fact that it would be better, as they express it, to cut the painter. Well, that is the view of a party in Australasia, and it appears to me, as I think it must to your Lordships, that that is a question which must be decided in the Colonies, and that until it is decided it would be useless, nay, even mischievous, for us to formulate in this country schemes for a closer union. I believe, also, that some system of Colonial Federation must precede any such closer union with this country. If one could look forward and see the great Australasian Colonies federated as the Dominion of Canada is federated; see also the West India Islands federated, and perhaps our Eastern Colonies, it would be within the bounds of possibility that those great federations might be properly represented in this country; but I think it would be absolutely impossible to have any system of representation of the separate Colonies as they now are. For these reasons I confess it appears to me that it would be unnecessary for me to go in detail into the different suggestions that have been made by the noble Lord. Of course, I must not be understood as finding fault with the noble Lord for bringing forward this motion. It is very desirable that independent persons who take keen interest in Colonial subjects should ventilate their opinions for the consideration of people here and in the Colonies, but it would be impossible for me to pledge Her
676
Majesty's Government to any of the noble Lord's suggestions; and in the circumstances it would be premature for me to express any opinion on the part of the Government. The noble Lord spoke of the success of the Conference of 1887. I concur in the hope expressed by the noble Lord that this Conference may be succeeded by other Conferences, because I consider they tend to draw closer and closer those bonds which have been created by a common origin, a common history, and a common allegiance. I hope, further, that any future Conferences will partake more truly of an Imperial character, and will include representatives from the leading Crown Colonies, because, as your Lordships are aware, only the responsible governing Colonies were represented in 1887. But, as the noble Lord has himself pointed out, the decision as to holding future Conferences does not rest with us—it rests with the Colonies themselves. To what was the success of that Conference owing? It was owing mainly to the character of the delegates sent over by the different Colonies. They sent over Premiers, ex-Premiers; men who were then taking their share in the administration of the Colonies, and men who had taken a leading part in the administration of the Colonies; men who had won their spurs in Colonial political battles, and who were men of distinction and experience. They came over at personal inconvenience to themselves, and secured the success of the Conference by lending us their loyal aid, which was based upon their knowledge and experience. But it would be a question for the Colonies to consider when, and under what conditions, they can again spare their leading statesmen to come over here. The noble Lord, in one part of his speech, seemed to think it a very easy thing for a Minister to be spared, and he suggested my going round the world picking up information, and neglecting the Crown Colonies and the duties of my office; but it is not so easy to spare statesmen from the Colonies to come over to this country, and I have never yet heard any proposal that a Conference should be held in one of the Colonies. There is a sufficient amount of jealousy between the Colonies to make it doubtful whether a Conference would be successful if held

677
in any Colony. I think, also, it is not desirable to deal with any question of a Conference until the results of the present Conference have been more fully worked out. There is the question of defence. It must be admitted that the Colonies are deeply interested in the question of defence; but perhaps I may be allowed upon this subject to read to the House the words of the noble Marquess, spoken at the opening of that Conferenc.
"On this question of defence the Colonies have a very real and genuine interest in the shield which their Imperial connection throws over them, and they have a ground for joining with us in making the defence of the Empire effective, a ground which does not rest upon their allegiance to this country, but which is based on the most solemn and reasonable foundations of self-interest and security."
The ships which are to be added to the Australian Squadron are now in course of construction, and all the Colonies, with the exception of Queensland, have passed, with unanimous acclaim, the legislation necessary to secure their co-operation. In Queensland, it is true that, owing to a change of Government, and to the General Election, no Bill has been submitted to the Queensland Parliament. It is also true that Sir Thomas McIlwraith, the present Premier, has pronounced himself against the arrangement; but I have very little doubt that, when the matter is again seriously considered, and long before the time for payment arrives, Queensland will waive any difficulty upon the point, and will see the desirability of not separating herself from the other Australasian Colonies, and also losing the advantage of the increase of the Squadron. I will not go into further details as to the measures for defence. Several measures, such as those for the defence of Esquimalt, Thursday Island, and of St. George's Sound, are under consideration, and I should hope for a speedy decision upon them. Then I may mention one of what may be called the unheroic means of securing closer union, and that is the uniformity of laws. As the noble Lord has stated, several legal subjects of considerable importance were brought forward, and discussed at the Conference, and though they have not yet been finally worked out, they have been carefully considered. I will only refer to three subjects of considerable importance, and to which the delegates attached
678
great weight. One is the enforcement in this country of the judgments of Colonial Courts, and, of course, enforcing also in the Colonies the judgments of the Courts of this country. The second is the enforcing orders of Colonial Courts in Bankruptcy, and in winding up of companies and winding-up estates. And the third was the providing machinery for the speedy recognition in England of probates and letters of administration granted out in the Colonies. Bills have been framed by the Government draftsman on all these points. They have now been sent out to the Colonies, and when we get replies from the Colonies I should hope that we should; be enabled to legislate. There are some other legal subjects with which I think I need not now trouble your Lordships; but, before these legal matters be disposed of, and before we have ascertained by practical experience how they work, I think that, considering there is no burning question that could now be brought before a Conference, it would not only be unnecessary, but would, in truth, be inconvenient to attempt to summon any other Conference for some time. I may very shortly refer to two of the suggestions that the noble Lord has made in default of a Conference. The first suggestion, as I understand it, is that we should call for Reports on the question of Imperial Federation. That appears to me, for reasons I have already given, very undesirable. I think the Colonies would view with great jealousy any attempt on our part to bring forward that question, and to obtain Reports in the manner suggested. The second was—if I may call it—a scrambling general inquiry in which I was to take somewhat a leading part, with some minor officials. Really the same objection applies to that proposal. The person who would be sent out as a Commissioner would have no powers to call any body before him or to get books before him to examine. He must trust entirely to the information that is given him, and. it would be given him reluctantly if he were in an official position. It could be Par more readily obtained by gentlemen; travelling in officially in the Colonies, but with their eyes and ears open. I believe such a semi-official inquiry would not be viewed with favour. In all the circumstances I would

679
ask the noble Lord, as the subject has been ventilated and discussed, and as he is now made aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government, that he would consent to withdraw this Motion. He assumed that it is a Motion that means nothing; but if it means nothing, we should hardly be justified in agreeing to it, and it is hardly worth while for him to press it. But it does mean something as I understand it; it is a Resolution which binds Her Majesty's Government to take some steps in the direction that he has indicated, or to take some abstract and undefined measures which he has not indicated, but which are to "tend to Imperial security." Therefore it must mean that the Government should take some steps at an early stage by Conference, inquiry, or otherwise, and I am bound to state frankly that Her Majesty's Goverment cannot consent to be bound by such an engagement.
*LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I know the House to be impatient of reply, and I only rise because no one else seems now disposed to do so. Indeed, the noble Lord the Secretary of State has offered nothing which I ought to counteract, nor given reasons for the Motion being avoided. It is true that he has criticized the modes of action I rejected as inadequate, but luckily—and this ought to be noted—he has not said a word against the simultaneous missions I recommended to his judgment. There may not be between him and me the slightest difference of opinion. However, he requests me to withdraw the Motion. I cannot do so, because, if I am permitted to repeat a former phrase, it is the only way to cause a possibility of action, and because no species of objection has been offered to it. If the Government decline to accept the Resolution, they may amend it or move the Previous Question without resistance upon my part. I cannot withdraw the Resolution, and to negative it would be a Vote of Censure on the Conference of 1887, and those by whom it was originated.
On question, resolved in the negative.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); An amendment made; The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.
ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 5.)
COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS BILL.—(No. 6.)
Read 2a (according to order).

AFFAIRS AT LAKE NYASSA.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in rising to ask if further information can now be given as to the present condition of affairs at Lake Nyassa, especially with reference to the reported arrest (and subsequent release on bail) of Mr. Ross, British Vice Consul, said: My Lords, I do not think it will be at all unreasonable that a question such as I have placed on the Paper should be asked at the present time, although I am aware that so recently as the early part of last week a question bearing upon the matter was put in another place and answered by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but at that time the matter to which I allude in this question had not been reported to this House, at any rate it was not alluded to on that occasion. There is no doubt a very large amount of interest has been attracted in this country towards affairs in the Nyassa Territory, and I think this interest has been extended and increased owing to the fact that an association known as the African Lakes Company has been carrying on operations recently in that region. That Company had its origin in Scotland, and is chiefly equipped by Scotchmen. It carries on operations designed to stimulate and encourage the development of the country both in the matter of trade and missionary enter-prize, and these two objects are carried on harmoniously and in perfect consistency. For example, one of the rules of the Association is that no intoxicating drinks should be sold in their district, and though, of course, every such effort requires caution, I have heard no complaints as to the Company having shown a want of discretion in the zeal that they have displayed in their work. On the contrary, I am led to suppose that at present, if they are involved in any complications, that is not in consequence of any aggressiveness on their part, but rather in consequence of the jealousy, and I venture to say the unreasonable jealousy and suspicion of others. My question is rather incomplete, because I do not state what the district is in which Mr. Ross is Vice

681
Consul. It is in the Fillamare territory, which is Portuguese territory, and I understand that he is supported by our Consul at Mozambique. This gentleman is also agent for the African Lakes Company to which I have referred. I can quite understand that the noble Marquess who will answer the question may deem it necessary to exercise considerable reticence on the subject, especially in view of the actual proceedings which have been taken by the Portuguese, but I sincerely hope that it will be possible for him to give some information which may allay uneasiness, more especially with regard to the position of the African Lakes Company.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In answer to the noble Lord, I have to say that we have no information at the Foreign Office with reference to the incident alluded to in this question. I do not know whether it has actually taken place or not. But the place which he mentions is not in connection with the telegraph, and we have little information with respect to the African Lakes Company which would at all satisfy the very natural interest which the noble Lord feels in the subject. The enter-prize is one which we all regard with the greatest sympathy, and the progress of which will be advantageous not only to the progress of this country, but to the civilization of those who dwell in those regions. I hope that enterprize will go on and be successful. It has at present met with no actual obstacle except that very serious obstacle offered by the hostility of the Arabs—who fear that their slave-trading operations may be interrupted by the success and prosperity of the company; and undoubtedly they have met with very serious resistance, and some of their agents have been exposed to considerable danger. But so far as I know there has been no loss of British life in the struggle. Still, very great danger has been incurred, and it is obvious that we can do little or nothing to shield them against the enterprize of these various tribes of natives, especially the Arabs, whose opportunities of hindering them are very considerable. With respect to the position of the Portuguese, all I have to say is that the discussions relating to our status in that district, and the status of the Portuguese are going on at the present moment, and it is, therefore,
682
not convenient that I should enter upon a discussion of that matter. None of the obstacles which have interfered with the development and prosperity of the African Lake Company have been interposed through the agency, as far as I know, of the Portuguese. We have, therefore, on that ground no international complaint against them. The whole question is one of great difficulty, and is being watched with great anxiety and vigilance by Her Majesty's Government. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall spare no effort that we can properly make for the purpose of furthering the salutary enterprize and designs of British, and especially Scottish traders in that district. But the region is not British territory, and it is not under British protection, and at present any action we might take must be limited and controlled by the circumstances to which I have referred. If there is any other matter on which I can give the noble Lord any information, I shall be glad to do so. But I do not know that I can now usefully pursue the subject any further.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: There is one point on which I should like information, and that is as to the action of the Portuguese with regard to the munitions of war—whether they permit munitions of war to go up to our countrymen? I believe that they did allow three guns to go up there—an Armstrong, a Nordenfelt, and a mountain gun, and a certain amount of ammunition. If they did so, it would have a very good effect. Of course, it would be impossible for our countrymen on the Lake to resist an Arab attack unless they had an unlimited supply of ammunition. Therefore, I should be very glad if the noble Marquess could give any information to the House as to whether the Portuguese are more liberal in allowing arms and ammunition to go up for the use of our countrymen.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The policy of the Portuguese Government, resembling that of other Governments on the coast of Africa, is to forbid the importation of arms and ammunition for fear of their reaching the tribes in the interior, so as to give additional opportunities for conflict and bloodshed.

683
I do not know that we can take any exception to that general policy. Undoubtedly we have had occasion to urge upon them to relax that prohibition for the purpose of permitting warlike stores which were required by the agents of the African Lake Company in defending themselves against the Arab attacks; and it is also true that we have not met with that willingness to aid us in a question dictated by obvious motives of humanity that we should have expected. A considerable quantity, however, both of arms and ammunition have been passed by the Portuguese, and it is not within my knowledge now that agents of the African Lake Company are suffering any inconvenience in consequence of obstacles which are imposed to the importation of arms by the fiscal regulations of the Portuguese Government.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Ten o'clock.