Sitting of 26 March 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to hear from some Member of the Government what is proposed to be done with this Bill. Is it a measure of a similar character to the Bills of last year which imposed a tax upon the public for the drainage and improvement of certain districts. In the absence of information I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time ont his day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. COURTNEY: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Amendment. This is not at all a Bill of a similar character to the Bills that were introduced last year. It does not propose any allocation whatever of the public money, but it simply sanctions certain works which have been authorized by the Board of Works for the drainage of certain areas.
    MR. CONYBEARE: At any rate, in the absence of any Member of the Government to explain the effect of the Bill, I would submit that the Third Reading ought to be postponed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  QUESTIONS.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
    MR. MACLUREasked the Under Secretary of
    832
    State for the Home Department whether any Justice of the Peace, being a shareholder in a railway or other company having licensed premises within the county, city, or borough for which he acts, was disqualified from sitting as a magistrate at licensing sessions, and liable to penalties for so doing?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Secretary of State has no authority to give an opinion on a point of law. I can only refer my hon. Friend to the 60th section of 35 & 36 Vict., c. 94; but, assuming that the words in the question "having licensed premises" mean being "a retailer of intoxicating liquors," the answer, as I am advised, would seem to be in the affirmative.

    POSTAGE TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
    MR. ATKINSONasked the Postmaster General what amount he gained to the Revenue per annum for overcharging Members of Parliament whose letters are re addressed from the House of Commons Post Office outside the whole of the London districts; and, what arrears were at present owing for such re-addresses, and by whom?
    *A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): As the Postmaster General stated in reply to my hon. Friend on the 5th inst., re-directed letters for Members of Parliament are treated exactly in the same way as re-directed letters for other persons, and I cannot admit the propriety of the term "overcharge" which my hon. Friend uses in reference to this matter. The revenue derived from the re-direction of Members' letters from the House of Commons to places outside the Metropolitan District is estimated at about six shilling sa week. No arrears can accrue, because the redirection charge is collected on delivery. If the payment of the charge is in any case refused the delivery is not effected, and the letter is returned to the sender.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Is the hon. Baronet aware that many people indulge in the habit of sending circulars to Members of Parliament which are re-directed and sent on, thereby putting Members to a considerable and an unnecessary expense?
    *SIR H. MAXWELL: The hon. Member had better put that question to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General.

    BOMBARDMENT OF TUNGI.
    MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government had paid the indemnity due to British-Indian subjects for the destruction of their property in the bombardment of Tungi and Minengani; and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government proposed to take to enforce their claims; and whether the Portuguese had yet evacuated the territory north of the Minengani River, as maintained both by Her Majesty's Government and by that of Germany to be her proper boundary?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It will be seen on reference to p.p. 82 and 83 of "Africa, No. 10 of 1888," presented to the House in December last, that the Portuguese Government have declined to comply with the request for compensation made to them by Her Majesty's Government. No claim can be made according to International Law. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, the Portuguese Government have not evacuated the territory north of the Minengani River.
    MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: Was not that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government when the case was first brought forward?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think I stated at the time that whether the claims would be paid or not would depend on the circumstances of the case, and whether a notification of the bombardment had been given to Her Majesty's subjects. It appears that due notice was given, and in accordance with International Law no claim could be made.

    IRELAND—PARTY EMBLEMS.
    MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, in the case of Andrew Cole, publican, who, on the 11th March, at Londonderry, was prosecuted by Head Constable Webster, R.I.C., under 6 and 7 William IV., for display-
    834
    ing "party emblems," when the offence consisted of defendant's wife and a number of girls waving pocket handkerchiefs when Father Stephens and other prisoners were being conveyed along the street, the prosecution was authorized by the Government?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Constabulary report that the public-house named in the question had on several occasions been the scene of demonstrations in favour of the prisoners charged with the murder of District Inspector Martin while they were being conveyed to and from the railway station. The prosecution referred to in this question was instituted by the police on their own responsibility, and I may add that the magistrates made no rule in the case, being of opinion that the acts complained of did not come within the statute.
    MR. J. ELLIS: Did not the head constable admit that there were more armed persons present than civilians? As the same thing was done in adjoining counties without a prosecution following, why was the distinction made?
    MR. MADDEN: I am unable to say I have no information as to specific matters of fact.

    THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to issue a Circular to the County Councils, under Section 53 of "The Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888," in order to place the recommendations of the Boundary Commission before the Councils, or whether the Councils can proceed to make the representations in regard to those recommendations without awaiting any such Circular?
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,, St. George's-in-the-East): I have forwarded to the Council of each county affected by the Report of the Boundary Commissioners a copy of so much of the Report as relates to the particular county, and I have brought specially under the attention of the County Council the provisions of Section 53 of the Local Government Act.

    POSTAGE TO AUSTRALIA.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether he can give the date on which he decided that the reduced rate of postage by the long-sea route to Australia should commence on the 1st of January, 1889; and why the announcement of this reduction in postal rates was not included in the "Postal Guide" for the present quarter?
    *SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, I have to state that the rates of postage are fixed under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, the instrument being a warrant signed by two of their Lordships. The warrant fixing the postage on letters sent to Australia by the long sea route is dated the 17th of December, 1888; and the House will readily understand that this was too late to admit of the new rates being embodied in the Tables of Rates published in the Post Office Guide issued nominally on the 1st of January, 1889, but, of course, passed for the Press considerably before that date.

    IRELAND—TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.
    MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland, having regard to the charges as to the treatment of political prisoners proved against Mr. Francis MacGillicuddy Eager, ex-Governor of Limerick Gaol, and reported in the Debates of this House, if it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to continue that gentleman in the Commission of the Peace for the County of Clare; and if he is aware that the appointment in question has excited much surprise and indignation in the district in which Mr. Eager resides?
    MR. MADDEN: The gentleman referred to in the Question was appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the usual way on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. I am not aware that the appointment in question has been received in the manner suggested in the Question. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason why Mr. Eager should not continue to hold the Commission of the Peace.
    MR. O'KEEFFE: I may inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have
    836
    received a number of letters from influential persons residing in the district protesting against the action of this gentleman.

    THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
    MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could state who supplied to the Secretary of the Special Commission the copy of Messrs. Walsh and Sons' shorthand notes, from which the proceedings in O'Donnell v. Walter were printed in the Blue Book issued for the purposes of the Commission; whether such copy was returned by the Queen's Printers to the Secretary of the Commission, together with the proof of the print of the Blue Book; and, whether any Member of the House desiring it can be afforded an opportunity of seeing the copy from which such notes were printed?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State has no means other than such as may be accessible to the hon. Member of ascertaining the facts regarding which information is sought in the first and second paragraphs of the question. The Secretary of State has no power to authorize the inspection by anyone of the document mentioned. Authority for inspection can be given only by the Commissioners themselves.

    THE LAND JUDGES COURT (IRELAND).
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, having regard to the entry of an irregular Judgment in the books of the Land Judges Court (Ireland), he would cause an inquiry to be made, with a view to ascertain whether the entry was made by any officer of the Court?
    MR. MADDEN: I have no power to cause such an inquiry to be made.
    MR. O'BRIEN: Who has authority?
    MR. MADDEN: The question as to the records of the Court rests with the Commissioners. The Government have no power to require that any particular course shall be taken.
    MR. O'BRIEN: In the case to which I refer the Judges discharged the Order, but the entry is entirely different.
    MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member is altogether misinformed.

    LO BENGULA.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received official information that Lo Bengula, the Chief of the Matabele, has granted to Mr. Charles Rudd a concession of the mineral rights throughout his dominions, and which contains a clause that no other concession in respect to mineral rights or other industrial undertakings can be granted without the consent of Mr. Rudd, and that, acting on this concession, Mr Alfred Haggard was turned out of the country by a force of Matabeles under the command of a European agent of Mr. Rudd; whether any request has been forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from Mr. Rudd or his agents, or from the Cape Government, requesting him to confirm or to express his approval of this concession; whether such confirmation or approval has been expressed; whether he is aware that it has been stated in the Cape newspapers that one of the conditions of the concession is that Mr. Rudd will maintain a gunboat on the Zambesi River; and, if so, what flag this vessel will carry, and against whom it is contemplated to use this armed ship; and, whether he is aware that the territory in regard to which this exclusive concession has been granted is as large as France and exceedingly wealthy in mining and other natural products?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): It has been officially reported that Lo Bengula has granted to Messrs. Rudd, Maguire and Thompson a concession which is of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's question, except that it does not include any "industrial undertakings" other than mining. The concession authorizes the holders of it "to take all necessary steps to exclude" from Matabeleland "all persons seeking land, metals, minerals, or wining rights therein," and under this authority Mr. Alfred Haggard and others are stated to have been turned back in November or December of last year by some Matabeles under Mr. Maguire, one of the concessionaires. The Cape Government has taken no action in relation to this concession.
    838
    Mr. Rudd has "solicited the co-operation" of Her Majesty's Government in accomplishing the objects of the concession. Her Majesty's Government have expressed no approval of it, and have no power to confirm or disallow concessions in Matabeleland. The condition in the concession as to the armed steamer is that it, or in lieu of it £500, shall be delivered to Lo Bengula, who, presumably; desires it as a protection against foreign aggressions. There is no provision as to its maintenance; and its flag, if any, would apparently be Lo Bengula's. The territory is believed to be about three-fourths of the area of France, and is said to be rich in minerals; but little is definitely known.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the Colonial Office prepared to make any representation to Lo Bengula about these concessions?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: We have no power to make any representation.
    MR. O. MORGAN: May I ask whether this territory is not supposed to be under British influence, and, if so, whether concessions can be made, not to British, but to German, subjects?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: It is under the sphere of British influence, but I am afraid that that is rather a vague term. We have no power to prevent the real rulers of the country from making a concession. We can only advise them not to do so.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Did not Lord Knutsford, in May last, declare very peremptorily that the Government would not permit any concession to be made without the previous consent of the High Commissioner?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Has not Lo Bengula sent envoys to Her Majesty's Government, and have not the Government ample opportunities for making representations to those envoys?
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Before the hon. Gentleman answers the question, allow me to ask him again whether Lord Knutsford, in the latter end of May last, did not use the very words as to this territory which I have attributed to him?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not think the Government had any power to approve or disapprove.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: But did not Lord Knutsford, writing of this very territory—not in reference to this concession, but before the concession was negotiated—say, in express terms, that the Government would allow no concession to be granted?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of the question. We do not allow concessions to be granted in the territory between the Shashi and Macloutsi Rivers, which is in dispute between Lo Bengula and Khama.

    IRELAND—TREATMENT OF FEMALE PRISONERS.
    MR. MAC NEILLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if he could state why the two untried female prisoners from Gweedore, Margaret Cull and Annie Doherty, who were on Friday week, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the Rev. J. Doherty, the Prison Chaplain, deprived by the Governor of Derry Gaol of warm clothing provided for them for the journey between Derry and Letterkenny, were again deprived last Saturday of dresses and hats provided for them by friends; whether, in spite of the promise of the Solicitor General, the Governor, while allowing them shawls, refused to permit them to wear the hats and warm dresses so provided for them; whether they were obliged to go from Derry to Letterkenny bareheaded and badly clothed in inclement weather, though sufficient clothing was sent into the prison for their use; had he given directions to the Prisons Board to entertain in the future communications coming from chaplains of prisons relative to the welfare of prisoners directly, without the intervention of the Governors; and what reply had the Prisons Board made to these communications?
    MR. MADDEN: With reference to the specific matters of fact referred to in the question, I have called for a Report. The question has only appeared on the Paper to-day; but I may say that I ascertained that the Prisons Board had given directions to the Governor of the gaol that warm clothing supplied to these female prisoners should be allowed to be worn by them. I cannot answer the question any further.
    MR. MAC NEILL: As these females have been further remanded until
    840
    Thursday, and as one of them has a baby in her arms, will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that if they are supplied with warm clothing they shall be allowed to wear it?
    MR. MADDEN: Orders have been given, and I have not the least doubt that they will be supplied with warm clothing.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I must press the matter. On the last occasion I entreated that the Governor might be directed to allow these poor women to wear the clothing offered to be supplied them, but I am informed that he refused.
    MR. MADDEN: The instructions which have been given are that warm clothing is to be allowed, and I have no doubt that those instructions will be carried out.

    EMIGRANTS TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
    MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been directed to the condition and treatment of emigrants, principally from Limerick, Clare, and Tipperary, as reported in to-day's papers, numbering 1,800 persons, on their arrival in Buenos Ayres during last month; if those emigrants, men, women and children, contrary to the representations held out by the agents of the Argentine Republic, were totally neglected on their arrival, unprovided with food, lodging, or means of obtaining work; and if Her Majesty's Government would immediately telegraph that the Consular Agent at Buenos Ayres will assume the responsibility of preserving the lives of the destitute persons referred to?
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the papers that some of these emigrants have been sent back, and that 10,000 Frenchmen, mostly labouring men, are unable to find work, and are starving.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member given notice of this question?
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: No, Sir.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member had better put it down upon the paper.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: A despatch on this subject was received yesterday. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres states that 1,800 persons,

    841
    the great majority of whom had come from Ireland, had disembarked from a large steamship. Immigrants' barracks for 2,000 persons have been provided, but it happened that a large body of Italian immigrants had arrived a day or two previously, and, though the newcomers were not "totally neglected," the accommodation that could be improvised for them was very inadequate. Fortunately, in anticipation of the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from this country, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires had assisted in forming a Committee of British residents, by whom most liberal supplies of food and other comforts were given to these poor people, and on the next day large numbers of them were lodged in the private houses of the members of the Committee, until the barracks should be available, or the immigrants should be sent up country in due course. The hon. Member will see that the spontaneous action of Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires and the British residents renders any special orders unnecessary, but Mr. Jenner has been already directed to report upon the condition of the immigrants who are arriving, and Her Majesty's Government are considering whether some special agency is not required in order that those from this country may be properly advised.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government have issued a warning to French subjects, and will the Foreign Office follow that example, and pending the arrival of an official report, issue a warning to poor Irish people to abstain from emigrating until the true facts of the case have been ascertained?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No intelligence has reached the Foreign Office from the Argentine Republic of any ill-treatment of emigrants, other than the unfortunate occurrence which I have just mentioned, but the Minister representing this country has been directed specially to report upon the condition of the emigrants.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will Her Majesty's Government follow the example of the French Foreign Office, and issue a warning.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think the House will see that, as no allegations of ill-treatment or neglect have been
    842
    received, it would be premature to warn persons against going to the Argentine Republic. I am glad to know that the British residents on the spot are fully alive to the necessity of assisting the emigrants; and in the despatch to which I have referred, it is stated that a special Irish settlement has been formed, where Irish emigrants will receive proper attention.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Cannot some provision be made, by means of which the Emigration Office would be able to give information with regard to the Argentine Republic, similar to that which is given with reference to emigration to our own Colonies? It is better to prevent the evil on this side than on the other side of the water.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Foreign Office is in communication with the Treasury on the subject, as it will require a certain expenditure of money. I had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night on the subject.
    MR. LANE: May I ask whether, considering that large numbers of emigrants are about to be sent out by the agents of the Argentine Republic, Her Majesty's Government will obtain some guarantee from the representative of the Argentine Republic that proper care will be taken of the people on their arrival?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It would be more convenient that I should have notice of that question. I should then be able to give better information than it is possible to give off hand.
    MR. LANE: I sent the hon. Baronet private notice by letter last night.

    THE MUNSTER WINTER ASSIZES.
    MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant had received an influentially-signed memorial from the jurors of Cork, protesting against the continued selection of the city of Cork for the Munster Winter Assizes; had he also received a resolution, passed at a public meeting in Cork, which was attended by Deputy Lieutenants, Magistrates, and Merchants, of all creeds and polities, condemning the habitual practice of excluding Roman Catholics from the jury box whilst compelling them to attend court daily for five or six weeks at Christmas time;

    843
    and what action had the Lord Lieutenant taken in the matter.
    MR. MADDEN: The Lord Lieutenant has received a memorial from the jurors of Cork complaining of the continued selection of Cork for the Munster Winter Assizes. The same memorial contains an addendum to one of the resolutions alleged to have been carried by a show of hands on the subject of the religious constitution of the the jury. No separate resolution on the subject has been received. There is no foundation for the statement that jurors have been rejected on the ground of their religious belief. The objection raised to selecting Cork for the Munster Winter Assizes will be carefully considered before passing the Order in Council fixing the next Winter Assizes.
    MR. LANE: Have any steps been taken in consequence of the resolution of condemnation?
    MR. MADDEN: The memorial has been received, and I believe there is an addendum attached to it which does not, however, appear to have been passed formally.
    MR. LANE: Was not the resolution in reference to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury added to the memorial?
    MR. MADDEN: I believe that it was forwarded as an addendum, but it formed no part of the substance of the memorial.

    ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War if it was true that an application having been made to the War Office by the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, asking that a member of and from the College might be appointed upon the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the status and emoluments of Medical Officers in Her Majesty's Army, whether the Irish College has been refused on the ground that the English Colleges should represent the entire medical interest?
    DR. KENNYalso asked whether attention had been directed to a statement contained in a Circular, dated 16th March instant, issued by the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, relative to the appointments of the Commission of Inquiry as to the status and emoluments of Army Medical Officers, to
    844
    the effect that the "President and Council of that body feel that a slur has been cast on the College by his refusal to allow it the same representation on the Commission which has been conceded unasked to the Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians of England;" whether he was aware of the intense feeling of indignation which exists in medical centres in Ireland on account of his refusal to grant the representation sought; and whether he would explain on what principle he bases his refusal to grant to the Irish medical bodies representation similar to that conceded to those in England, in whose hands the Irish institutions do not consider their interests can be safely entrusted?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir; I have not seen the circular referred to, and am ignorant of its contents. I have not heard that the action taken in this matter has given rise to the feeling indicated by the hon. Member. I should much regret it if it is so. The reason for limiting the representation to the English Colleges is that it would be impossible to have representatives from all the colleges from which candidates come. It was, therefore, limited to those on the spot. I cannot myself see how the interests of a candidate from the Irish College in respect of his pay and status in the Army can differ from those of candidates from the English or other colleges; but if the hon. Member will point out to me in what the difference consists I will consider the point.
    MR. SEXTON: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether the feeling mentioned in the question of the hon. Member for South Cork (Dr. Kenny) does exist; and whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the question owing to the natural resentment felt by the Irish Colleges at being excluded? Why not increase the number of Commissioners from eight to nine?
    MR. BRODRICK: There is already upon the Commission a graduate of one of the Irish Colleges who holds an Irish degree. The desire was to secure a compact Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War does not feel that he can take any further step unless it can be shown that the interests of Irish candidates differ from

    845
    those of other candidates. If the right hon. Gentleman will confer with me privately, I will see whether the constitution of the Commission is not such as to secure everything he desires.
    MR. SEXTON: If the only desire was to have a compact Commission, why was direct application made to two English Colleges to send representatives, while no such application was made to the Irish Colleges?
    MR. BRODRICK: It was because the English Colleges were on the spot.

    WEST COAST OF AFRICA
    MR. MARUMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the allegation that arms and ammunition are being imported and landed in large quantities on the West Coast of Africa by English consignors; and whether International or Colonial relations enable interference, or whether he will appoint additional Vice Consuls on that line of coast?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member in his first notice of this question mentioned the East Coast of Africa, but I understand now that he only refers to the West Coast. I do not know if the allegation he notices refers to any particular part of that coast. I believe that some newspaper has stated that arms and ammunition are being imported into Liberia and conveyed across the Continent to the Arabs on the East Coast. It is very improbable. It has more than once been proposed that the importation of arms on the West Coast should be prevented by International agreement, but no arrangement has been found possible. No conceivable addition to Consular establishments could accomplish this purpose.

    COUNTY COURTS.
    MR. ALFRED THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government intend to bring in any Bill to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts, or otherwise to provide better facilities for the decision of disputes in the great provincial centres of population and trade?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that, having regard to the recent extension of the County Courts jurisdiction and other
    846
    judicial arrangements in progress, he has not included any proposals on the subject referred to by the hon. Member in the legislation which he desires to promote.

    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETT.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether any communication, written or oral, direct or indirect, has reached the Patronage Secretary from the Member for Rochester, conveying his intention or desire to vacate his seat; and whether the Government will take any, and what, action in the matter to relieve the Rochester Division from practical disfranchisement?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. Gentleman asks me whether communications have passed between my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Rochester with regard to his seat. I venture, with great respect to the House, to say that it would be most improper and unusual to ask that private communications unconnected with the discharge of his official duties which may pass between my hon. Friend or anyone holding his position on either side of the House, should be communicated to the House. I have reason to believe that the hon. Member for Rochester, who has been absent from the House during the present Session, has been disabled by severe and protracted illness, and steps will be taken to ascertain whether there is any reasonable hope that he will be able to return to the House or whether he wishes to vacate his seat.
    MR. J. ELLIS: Is the First Lord of the Treasury in a position to assure the House that the only reason why the hon. Member for Rochester is absent from this House is illness?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that the question is hardly one which the hon. Member is justified in putting. I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances whatever.

    NAVAL DEFENCE OF PORTS.
    MR. ATKINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why he denied to shipowners and merchants of Hull the same facilities with reference to naval defence of ports which he has granted

    847
    to Liverpool, Bristol, and ports of far less importance than Hull?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I may say that I have been in communication on this subject with the hon. Member for East Hull, and I will inform him of the purport of our communication. The Admiralty are reluctant to increase the numbers of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers at the present time, or until a decision has been arrived at as to how their services can be utilized in the event of war. Mobility is an essential condition for ships of the Navy, and the Admiralty have declined to localize ships to special ports. As the Act of 1873 now stands, the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers are not liable for service away from their own ports, except in case of invasion or apprehended invasion; so that, except in this contingency, the Admiralty, under the existing Act, have no means of availing themselves of their services. The Admiralty would be glad to give encouragement to this force when they can see a way of advantageously employing them. They are ready to supply guns, ammunition, and instruction; but they cannot undertake to supply ships for local ports.

    GOVERNMENT DOCKYARD WORKMEN.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the fact that on Saturday, the 23rd instant, some 487 men were discharged from Devonport Dockyard and Keyham Factory; whether it is the fact that on Saturday next another 200 men will be warned; how many more men in the various Departments was it intended to discharge; why men who have served in the Dockyards for periods of four and six years were discharged without receiving any gratuity; whether it was the usual practice to treat on the same terms as to their discharge men who have been working for years in the yards and men who have been only temporarily engaged; why the men were kept waiting for six months after discharge before getting their bonus or gratuity; and why long service men were being discharged while others are retained who have been a far shorter time engaged?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: A certain number of men were taken on for
    848
    casual work in Devonport Dockyard, the terms of their engagement being that when the job on which they were engaged was finished their services would be no longer required. The work has been finished, and their employment lapses. An attempt has been made to organize an agitation against the Government for the so called discharges; but the men have honourably declined to ignore the terms of their engagement.
    MR. HOWELL: Will the noble Lord consider the desirability of introducing a system of casual employment into the dockyards?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: It has been introduced for some time.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Is the noble Lord aware that of 83 men who left the Keyham Factory on Saturday there were 14 whose term of service ranged from three years to 14 years and nine months. I should like to know how it is that the long service men have been discharged just as freely as the casuals?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The right hon. Member has been misinformed. Every man who has served 12 years is entitled to a gratuity, and in this case would receive his gratuity. After having received it he would be available for casual employment, and, of course, the terms upon which he engaged in casual work would be the same as that of other men.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Am I to understand that the long service men are liable to be turned off by the Government at any time and taken on again as casual labourers?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: If the hon. Gentleman has not understood the answer I gave to him I do not think I can add to it. A man is entitled after a certain number of years' service to a gratuity, and after he has received that gratuity he is available for casual work.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to give notice that on an early day I will call attention to the subject.

    TITHE DISTRAINTS IN WALES.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that tithe distraints had been effected this year on four different occasions in the parishes of Llannor,

    849
    Llanaelhaiarn, Llandwrog, and Llanfairfechan, in Carnarvonshire, when, although large and vociferous crowds, numbering several hundreds, assembled on each occasion, no breach of the peace occurred; whether the Chief Constable of the county attributed the maintenance of order to the fact that he attended the distraints in each case unaccompanied with any police other than the local policeman, and that he exhorted the people in the Welsh language to preserve order; whether he was aware that the crowds gave cheers for and thanks to the Chief Constable for coming without a police force and for talking to them in Welsh; and whether he would recommend this precedent to the police authorities of Cardiganshire?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State is informed by the Chief Constable of Carnarvonshire that upon three occasions during the months of December and January last sales for tithes were effected in the three first-named parishes in Carnarvonshire. In the fourth parish a settlement was made, and no sales took place. On each occasion a considerable crowd was present. The Chief Constable was present with one or two local policemen, and no serious disturbance took place. The Chief Constable attributes this to the absence of any large body of police, combined with the cordial support which he received from the farmers distrained upon, and from other persons present who had influence with the people, and also to the good-tempered demeanour of the gentleman who acted as auctioneer. The fact of his speaking Welsh also had the effect of making the people more ready to comply with any request he made. The Secretary of State has already stated to the House the steps taken by him with the view of recommending precedents of this kind to the Magistrates and police authorities in Cardiganshire.

    THE ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS IN ASIATIC TURKEY.
    MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the accounts constantly appearing in the European newspapers of the oppressions perpetrated on the Armenian
    850
    Christians in Asiatic Turkey by Turkish officials, and in particular to the reports from various parts of Armenia, published in the journal Haiasdan of 1st and 15th February, 1889; whether Her Majesty's Government is taking or will take measures to inform themselves as to the condition of Asiatic Turkey and the sufferings endured by the Christian population there; when papers containing the reports received from the Consuls in Asiatic Turkey during the last seven years (in continuation of the Blue Book of 1882) will be laid before Parliament; and whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the duty undertaken by them in the so-called Anglo-Turkish Convention, and in the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin, to secure the fulfilment of the promises then made by the Turkish Government to carry out administrative reform in Armenia and Asia Minor, and protect the Armenian Christians from the Kurds and Circassians, will, if convinced that these promises remain wholly unfulfilled, remonstrate with the Turkish Government and endeavour to secure their fulfilment?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to say that the Foreign Office are not in possession of the particular number of the Haiaisdan mentioned. Sir W. White constantly makes use of such means of information as are in his power to obtain authentic information of the condition of the Christian population in Asiatic Turkey, and the general result is to show that the reports which appear in the newspapers, though, unhappily, not always unfounded, are, at all events, greatly exaggerated in many instances. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it was decided when the late Government was in office that the publication of these papers was undesirable in the interests of the Armenians themselves; and Her Majesty's Government have found, by experience, that their representations in favour of administrative reform, if they produce any effect, it is of a contrary nature to that which they desire. They, therefore, consider that it is undesirable to address any formal and general representation on the subject to the Porte without the concurrence of the other Powers parties to the Treaty of Berlin, but Her Majesty's Ambassador

    851
    will continue, as heretofore, to represent to the Sultan and to His Majesty's Ministers unofficially any individual cases of hardship and oppression of which he may receive well-established evidence.
    MR. BRYCE: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that some years have elapsed since any Reports were received. In consequence of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply and of previous replies which I have received, and the non-publication of any Report for seven years, I shall take the first opportunity of calling attention to the subject and to the tactics of Her Majesty's Government.

    ARMY CONTRACTS.
    MR. CHANNINGasked whether attention had been drawn to the recent rejection of a tender for Army boots made by the Finedon Co-operative Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Company; whether he is aware that the tender was at a higher price than the previous tenders of the Company; that this higher price was fixed by the Committee, acting on the advice of the then manager and secretary, and that the manager and secretary made a separate tender on their own account at a lower price and obtained the contract; and whether the manager and secretary obtained the contract by representations which fully and truthfully complied with the conditions on which such contracts are issued; and, if not, whether he will direct the contract to be cancelled, and permit the Company to send in an amended tender?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot go into the proceedings between the Finedon Co-operative Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Company and their secretary and manager; but it is evident that the latter obtained a recent contract for Army boots through representations to the Director of Army Contracts, since proved to be misleading, and their names will be struck off the list of contractors. Legal advice will be taken as to whether the present contract (which is a very small one) can be cancelled. Arrangements have been made to give employment to the Finedon and other co-operative societies in Northamptonshire at the average price of the last competition.

    THE CARDIFF SAVINGS BANK.
    MR. HOWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to a notice issued by the official liquidator of the Cardiff Savings Bank, requiring the irregular depositors "to come in and prove the debt claimed, by filing an affidavit," and to attend by solicitor at the High Court of Justice in London on 10th April; whether he was aware that the deposit books, which are in themselves bonâ fide evidence of the claims of depositors, are in the hands of the official liquidator, or of the representative of the bank; and whether, having regard to the fact that these depositors were poor persons, some other mode of proof of claim could be arranged, so that those poor people shall not be deprived of their lawful dues?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): My attention has been called to the notice in question, but I must once more remind the hon. Member that I have no right and no power to interfere with the course of the liquidation or the mode of proof which the Court considers necessary. The procedure laid down by the Act must be followed, and the directions of the Court in carrying out that Act must be obeyed. The liquidator has addressed a letter to the irregular depositors pointing out the method by which their claim might be presented to the Court at small cost to each individual. The liquidator is ready to give any information in his power to the depositors, and it would be more advantageous to the depositors and their friends to apply for information to him than to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact that some of the deposit books (there are others which cannot be traced) are in the liquidator's hands will not invalidate the evidence which those books afford of the amount of the deposits.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the expense and trouble the depositors in the late Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank are being put to in order to prove their claims; whether the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are taking any steps to carry out the recommendation of Mr. Lyulph Stanley, the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the affairs of

    853
    the Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank, as given on page 63 of his Report; whether he can state the amount by which, according to the Commissioner, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—
    "Have been defrauded by the trustees, both by the loss of forfeitures resulting from the omission to enforce signed declarations, and by the large sums invested and drawing interest in excess of the sums the trustees were entitled to invest, and to whom yearly false statements have been returned by the trustees and managers;"
    and whether, seeing that these yearly false statements were returned through carelessness, and placing too much confidence in their actuary, and not wilfully, he is prepared to advise the National Debt Commissioners to forego their claim, provided that the trustees and managers pay all claims of depositors in full?
    *MR. GOSCHEN said: The recommendation of Mr. Lyulph Stanley was that a Petition should be presented by the National Debt Commissioners for the winding up of the bank under the Companies Act. This has long since been done. I cannot state the exact amount of the claims of the National Debt Commissioners against the bank, but I am inclined to think that if the trustees and managers were now, without further delay, to make good to all the depositors the unpaid balance of their deposits, these claims might reasonably be waived.

    CAPTAIN SEGRAVE, R.M.
    MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a list of the persons convicted by Captain Segrave, R. M., in Courts constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and the charges alleged against them, and the punishments inflicted?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It would be contrary to precedent to lay upon the Table a list of persons convicted by any particular magistrate or magistrates. I would, however, point out, as regards the casein question, that in no instance did Mr. Segrave alone convict any persons in Courts constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, such Courts necessarily consisting of
    854
    two Resident Magistrates. Mr. Segrave was always the junior member of these Courts, as he was not one of the Resident Magistrates declared to be legally qualified in regard thereto within the meaning of the Act.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Under the Crimes Act it requires two magistrates to conduct an inquiry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is so.
    MR. MAC NEILL: At what date was Captain Segrave suspended in the exercise of his office of Resident Magistrate; and at what date was his salary stopped?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Segrave was suspended on the 20th instant.
    MR. MAC NEILL: On what date was his salary stopped?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the same date, of course.
    MR. H. FOWLER: In view of the fact that the House will be required to pay for the shorthand notes taken at the Special Commission, will the First Lord of the Treasury have a copy of the notes placed in the Library for the use of Members?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will communicate with the Secretary to the Commission. If there is no objection on the part of the Commission, an arrangement such as the right hon. Gentleman desires shall be made.

    IRELAND—INQUIRY INTO TREATMENT OF PRISONERS UNDER THE CRIMES ACT.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is convenient for him to say now what progress he has made with the inquiry which he promised on the Second Reading of the Prisoners' (Ireland) Bill, in reference to the treatment of prisoners under the Coercion Act?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no hesitation in stating that I have had a more or less informal communication with representatives of the Irish, Scotch, and English Prisons Boards; and I am inclined to think that the best plan will be to ask them to serve on the Committee, and to add two other persons who will have the confidence of the public, to make a report with regard to certain views I expressed on Wednesday week.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to communicate to

    855
    the House the terms of the Instruction to the Committee?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think so; I will consider that point.
    MR. CLANCY: Will Mr. Burke, the Chairman of the Prisons Board, be a Member of that Committee?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He will, of course.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will evidence be taken?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, that, of course, will depend on the Committee.

    THE EDUCATION CODE.
    MR. A. ACLAND: I should like to inquire from the Vice President of the Committee of Council whether the Government are prepared to issue a memorandum to accompany the new Code, with the view of making clear those changes which are likely to take place, and indicating the probable instructions to inspectors which will result from the Code?
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I shall be glad to do anything which will facilitate the passing of the Code. The hon. Member's question is not one which I can be expected to answer off-hand. I think, however, it is one well worthy of consideration.

  MOTIONS.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Samuel Smith, Bill to amend the Elementary Education Acts, and to provide Continuation Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Smith, Sir Henry Roscoe, Sir John Lubbock, Sir George Baden-Powell, Sir John Puleston, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Cyril Flower, Mr. Fisher, Mr Picton, Mr. James William Lowther, and Mr. Howell.
    Bill presented, and real first time. [Bill 171.]

    SOLICITORS (MAGISTRACY) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Maclure, Bill to enable practising Solicitors of the High Court of Justice to act as Justices in the County where they practise, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maclure, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Lawson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 172]

    RAILWAY SHAREHOLDERS (LICENSING SESSIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Maclure, Bill to relieve Shareholders in Railway and other Companies from the disqualification penalties for acting as
    856
    Justices at Licensing Sessions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maclure, Mr. Hermon-Hodge, Mr. Fielden, and Mr. Grotrian.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 173.]

    VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Anderson, Bill to amend the Act of the fifth year of George the Fourth, chapter eighty-three, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Addison, Mr. Gully, Sir William Houldsworth, and Mr. Hubbard.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 174.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

      THIRD READING.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      MR. PICTON: Before the Bill is read a third time I should like to ask a question which, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think illustrates my financial simplicity. Still, every Member of the House has a right to understand these things, if possible, and, therefore, I should like to be instructed why sums applied out of the Consolidated Fund for three years are mixed up together in this Bill? There is just one other observation I should like to make. I think the style of the preamble of Bills like this is extremely old-fashioned and entirely anachronistic, and I wish Gentlemen in framing such Bills in the future will consider whether they cannot adapt the language of the preamble to the actual needs of the day in which we live. Of course we know it is merely fiction when we talk of humbly beseeching Her Majesty to accept this willing offering from Her Commons. We know that the money is intended to go towards the services of the country, and that this language comes down from a day when very different ideas were entertained as to the relations between the Parliament and the Sovereign from those entertained at the present day. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will regard this as a very trivial matter—a mere matter of form; but the more the democracy of this country take an interest in the work of the House of Commons, the more offensive does this language of fulsome servility become to them. People do not like to hear the Sovereign talked about as though the Crown were elevated

      857
      into some supernatural region. The people desire to approach the Crown with due respect, but not with the flattering and servile language of former days. Besides, the ignorant people—and of course there are ignorant people everywhere—are led to think by this form of language that the money is actually given to the Sovereign for her own purposes. We ought to guard against misunderstanding even on the part of the most humble of our citizens. I, therefore, hope that the Government will consider whether the time has not come when the language of the preamble of these Bills cannot be adapted to the opinions and social life of the present day, rather than to the opinions and social life of the twelfth or fourteenth century.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I will endeavour to explain to the hon. Member why sums relating to three years appear in this Bill. The first item which relates to the financial year ending the 31st March, 1888, is due to the fact that the amount expended for certain Services during that year exceeded the amount which had been voted and sanctioned by Parliament for those particular Services. The next amount relates to the Supplementary Estimates which were necessary to provide for the Services of the year ending the 31st March, 1889, and the third item relates to the Supply which is necessary to provide for the financial year, ending 31st March, 1890.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
      Bill read a second time.

      SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move as an Amendment the Motion which stands in my name, namely:—
      "That the growing system of Trusts and Syndicates to raise by combination and conspiracy the cost of articles of common consumption requires the immediate and serious attention of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament."
      *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That has no reference to the Civil Service Estimates.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.
      SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)

      CLASS I.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £29,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move the reduction of the Tote by the sum of £1,833. I have frequently objected to this Vote and I will explain why. When the Civil List was arranged, these establishments were set apart for Her Majesty's use, but now we find that they are inhabited by a few private individuals, who, therefore, derive very considerable benefit. I do not want to make this a personal matter, but they are given away, and given away generally to people of no very great eminence. We have not only given the houses, but we are called upon every year to spend large sums upon their maintenance. I contend that the least these people should be required to do is, what we have to do when we take a house on lease—namely, to keep the house in repair. I will give two instances. I see that upon the Hampton Court Stud House £400 is spent on maintenance and repairs, and £5 for furniture; it appears we have also to provide furniture. The Committee will see that £415 was spent last year. As a mere matter of speculation, I would take the house gratis and willingly keep it in repair. It is a house situated near London, and anyone would be willing to keep it in repair for the pleasure of living in it. Then, again, in respect of Kew Palace and buildings, £470 has been spent on maintenance and repair, £10 for furniture and for fuel, lighting, &c.; in all £710. Last year we spent upon this establishment £758. The peculiarity of this house at Kew is, that no one lives in it, except perhaps a servant and a cat

      859
      or two. I really think this expenditure ought to stop. We ought to pull down the house if we can do nothing with it, and thus save this expenditure. There are in addition, Hawthorn Cottage, Bushey House, and all the others. We ought either to sell them or pull them down, or let them; or if we do neither of these things, at least, when these houses are given away, we ought not to be called upon to pay for their repair.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,405, be granted for the said Service.—(Mr. Labouchere.)
      *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The hon. Gentleman has referred in particular to two houses—namely, the Hampton Court Stud House and Kew Palace, and therefore I need not go into the particulars concerning the other houses.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I only gave them as examples.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I understood he only mentioned them as illustrations. His suggestion was that these houses ought to be pulled down or sold, or else the people inhabiting them should be required to pay for their maintenance and repair. In the first place, I wish to explain to the Committee what it is exactly we do. We have nothing to do with the furnishing of these houses, or with any expense except the bare maintenance of the structures; we have to see that the structures are in proper repair. I think I can satisfy the Committee in a very short time that this is really a matter in which we have no option whatever. These houses are what may be called the Royal houses of the Sovereign. Her Majesty has the right either to occupy them herself at any time or to give leave to certain persons to inhabit them, and that has always been in the power of the Sovereign. Up to the accession of William IV., in 1830, these expenses were defrayed out of the Civil List, which was voted to the Sovereign for this and other purposes. The Committee will remember that prior to 1830 there had been an agitation in favour of transferring certain charges payable on the Civil List to the Estimates. That agitation was led by Mr. Brougham and was continued for some time. On the accession of William IV. an opportunity
      860
      arose for a revision or me Civil List. A very strong Committee was appointed by the House. It went very fully into the charges on the Civil List during the preceeding reign, and made various recommendations. Amongst those recommendations was one to the effect that such charges as those now under consideration, which had theretofore been part of the expenses of the Board or Office of Works, and as such defrayed out of the Civil List, should be transferred to the Estimates. That suggestion was adopted by the Parliament of that time. On the other hand, following up the recommendations of that Committee, the Civil List was considerably reduced—reduced by almost one-half. The arrangement was reconsidered on the accession of Her present Gracious Majesty. The Committee appointed on that occasion was again a very strong one, consisting, as it did amongst others, of Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Grote. They took into their consideration the arrangement which had been made in 1830, and they reported that the arrangement then made had been entirely satisfactory, had led to economy, and should be renewed. The arrangement was renewed, and, therefore—so far as my office is concerned—all these Royal Houses are included amongst the other public buildings and palaces, the expenses of maintaining and repairing which are to be provided for in the Estimates. In fact, Parliament—acting on the Report of a Committee of this House—thought fit to reduce very largely the Civil List out of which the repairs of these Royal Palaces had been defrayed—in consideration of which Parliament undertook that these expenses should in future be thrown on the Votes.
      MR. H. GARDNER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in regard to the palaces not in the occupation of the Sovereign, no money was to be charged for furniture. I find in the Estimates for Kensington Palace a charge of that kind of £100, in those for Hampton Court Palace a charge for £300, and for Kew Palace £110, making a total of over £500. Therefore, I should like to have an explanation of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
      *MR. PICTON: It seems to me that in justifying any extravagance which is pointed out, those who defend it on the part of the Government are like the doctors, who, when they can show how a disease originated, are as proud as though they had cured it. In the history of this country, and in the gradual modification of its Constitution, many abuses have grown up, some of which, though trivial in themselves, are very irritating to the popular mind. I am exceedingly sorry that the Treasury Bench is not alive to the importance of securing on a firm foundation a rational attachment to the Throne. It must be well known to hon. Members who have come into general contact with their own constituents—not of one party alone, but of all—that those who are newest to political life are most sensitive in regard to charges for the maintenance of the Royal establishments. I can give an illustration of this from my own experience. Having occasion to address my own constituents on the work of the House during the past year, I had to refer to the various ways in which the national money is spent, and I remember that a very innocent illustration I used led to a perfect storm of disapprobation with regard to the money voted for the Royal establishments. In coming away from the meeting I was overtaken by one of the audience—a plain working man—to whom I said, in reply to the objections he had urged, "Really, I am shocked! I did not know that you were such Republicans down here." "Ah," said he, "but we are." "But," I rejoined, "surely you do not object to pay the hereditary President of your Commonwealth?" "Well," replied the man, "we are content to leave that to you." But he would not hear of any other Royal endowment. That is an illustration of what is thought of the little extravagances which we regard as so trivial, but which seem so greatly to irritate the minds of the people on whom the future of the country will depend; and I say that, unless means are taken to obviate these objections, within an easily measurable distance of time, some future Government will find itself in difficulties it will be almost impossible to surmount without a very grave change. With regard to the Royal Palaces I will only
      862
      take those in the occupation of Her Majesty and Marlborough House for which we are called on to expend £36,178, and this I will compare with the sum charged for the Science and Art Department buildings and British Museum buildings—namely, £21,027. Now, it will be made a matter of complaint in the country that while we only spend £21,027 for Science and Art buildings we are called on to expend £36,178 on our Royal Palaces, many of which are absolutely useless to Royalty. The people will think that their representatives do not pay sufficient attention to their interests. If their anger were directed only against their representatives it would be of little consequence; but it may be directed elsewhere against the Constitution of the country. They fret and fume against the traditions under which we have lived, and unless some change is made a dangerous temper may spring up. Therefore, I most heartily support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
      MR. HANBURY-TRACY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, by whom we are met with the statement that we have not the power of altering certain things in relation to this Vote, whether he will tell us what it is we have the power to alter?
      *MR. BRADLAUGH: At the commencement of nearly every Session we hear a statement as to the bargain that has been made at the beginning of each reign, which shocks my sentiments of historic accuracy. To-day the right hon. Gentleman has been more specific, but I think there has been some variation from, or misconception with reference to, the facts in connection with this matter. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that at the commencement of the reign of William the Fourth a large reduction was made in the Civil List, and that that reduction was still further continued at the commencement of the present reign. If the right hon. Gentleman means that sums which used to be contained in the Civil List were taken out of it, and that a nominal reduction was made by so doing, I am ready to agree with him; but if he means that any real saving has thereby been effected to the country I take leave to

      863
      suggest that he has entirely misapprehended the facts; because at the present moment the total of the amounts voted on account of the Royal Family, or charged on the Consolidated Fund, is larger than the whole Civil List of William IV. at the commencement of his reign, although that included a large number of items which either fall now on the Consolidated Fund or are voted in the Estimates. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman does justice to himself or the Committee when he uses the word "reduced" instead of "increased." The truth is that the cost of Royalty has been continually increasing in this country. The objection has always been that it is not fair to the country that Estimates should be so brought forward, especially at a time when, owing largely to the efforts of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), so great an improvement is being made in those for the Army and Navy, as to leave the public in the dark with regard to those that are presented in respect to the Civil Service. Moreover, it is a matter of complaint when you lead them to believe that these Estimates are less than they were before, whereas a larger sum is now paid than was ever known since 1688, with a slight exception during the extravagant reign of George III. I am prepared by figures to prove that you are wrong in saying that the cost of Royalty is reduced. The only reason for my not now going fully into the matter is that I remember on a previous occasion I was prevented from discussing the subject of the gross cost of the Royal Family on this Vote. I should not have alluded to it now, only that the word "reduced" came upon me as a shock to my reason, and I felt bound to protest against it. It is not, in point of figures, true that there has been any reduction at all, except a very nominal reduction, by taking items out of the Civil List or putting them on to the Votes or the Consolidated Fund; but the actual cost is heavier now than it ever was before, possibly for reasons quite independent of this Vote now under discussion. The cost of Royalty is larger now than when these sums were included in the Civil List.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I do not follow the hon. Member into a discussion which, as the hon. Member himself has suggested,
      864
      is, perhaps, hardly germane to the Vote now before the Committee. With regard to these Palaces, there has been a considerable reduction in the expenditure upon them. So far as the hon. Member refers to the removal of certain other items, not included in this Vote, from the Civil List, I am not prepared with the materials to go into that part of the subject; but, so far as this Vote is concerned, I can confidently say that several thousands of pounds have been saved by this operation. I think that is an answer also to my hon. Friend opposite, who asked whether Parliament has any control over these matters. Parliament clearly has control over those matters, so far as the economical administration of the work agreed to be done is concerned. An hon. Member asked what was the meaning of the charge for furniture at Hampton Court, Kensington, and St. James's. There is no expense for furnishing the rooms in those Palaces for "grace and favour" occupants. The cost for furniture is mainly in connection with pictures and tapestry at Hampton; in the case of St James's, for the State Rooms, which are used for public functions; and in the instance of Kensington Palace, the cost is incurred for the rooms of an official employed to look after the entire building.
      *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider what is the evidence with regard to Kew Palace. Looking at it from a practical point of view, we spend £700 a year on the Palace, which is empty, and has never been occupied for upwards of 60 years, and which the Government have no power to let or to sell, or make any use of, being prevented by a bargain which they made fifty or sixty years ago. I think no good will come of this Palace, which costs us £700 a year, until Parliament refuses to vote the money, and the sooner we come to that point the better. It is perfectly monstrous to go on spending £700 a-year upon a building which the Government are unable to sell, but must keep in repair. If we turn to the total amount spent on Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, we find that it is £18,000 a-year. I do hope that—either by the Government bringing in a Bill, or by some other means—an effort

      865
      will be made to render useful that which is now useless.
      MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: Mr. Courtney, I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, not because I think of the mere temporary reduction which is moved, but because I think the time has come when an entirely new departure should be made with regard to these buildings. If they can be devoted to the good of the whole community, then I am prepared to support any proposition for their being utilized in this manner; but if they cannot be so utilized, but must be used as wards for a species of indoor relief for certain persons of the upper grades of society, then I think we ought to refuse to vote the money for the maintenance of the structures, for, under such circumstances, the sooner they fall to pieces the better for the community. I have been looking at some of the figures, and it is surprising what an amount it takes every year to keep these buildings in repair. I do not know exactly what they are built of; but it seems a wonderful thing that in some instances we should have had to vote £400 and £500 a year for structural alterations, for we have it from the First Commissioner of Works that none of the money is applied to making the occupants of the buildings comfortable by purchasing furniture, and so forth. My only object in rising is to urge upon the Government the necessity of bringing what might have been suited to the requirements of 60 years ago into accordance with the wishes of the people at the present time, and the sooner the Government entirely remedy this system of having Palaces not occupied by Royalty, but by persons nominated by Royalty, the better it will be for the country.
      *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has put the case admirably. The great palaces occupied by Her Majesty undoubtedly ought to be kept up, and kept up well, by the nation. But it is another matter altogether when we come to those houses which are given for occupation by favour. In Hampton Court a considerable number of the dwellings go to men, and the relations of men, who have served the country both in their military capacity and as civilians. To those I have no objection at all, but in
      866
      a very large number of instances these rooms are given to persons who have no claim upon the country whatever, and, in fact, in some cases to less than a claim upon the country, because of the earlier parts of their own career, or by their relatives having received public money and done very little for it. Now, if Her Majesty graciously gives these lodgings to persons, I must say that I do not see why the nation should give anything more than the bare house. If we look at the Vote, we find that the reduction of £1,853 is contained very well within the class of expenses which fall upon all who live in their own houses, and which ought to fall upon those fortunate people who live in houses rent free, and not up in the country. I hope the Government will be encouraged to make an examination of this subject, and recommend that these houses should be given only to persons who deserve well of the country, and I must say that when they have those public lodging houses they should then be in the same position as people who have houses in the country, and should themselves maintain the buildings. In voting for the reduction, I do not wish it to be understood that we ought to keep up the Palaces which Her Majesty occupies during her lifetime, and long may that last.
      *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: It is difficult to recognize Buckingham Palace under the name of the great Reception House of the Nation, and it might very properly be called the deserted Palace and Gardens. I would venture to point out that the cost of maintenance of the Palaces not occupied by Her Majesty is larger than the cost incurred for the Palaces which Her Majesty occupies. The rooms which are occupied at Hampton by the favour of the Sovereign are not altogether advantageous, because last year the whole Palace was nearly lost by a fire having arisen in one of the rooms so lent.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I almost wish, as a matter of fact, that we had never had any ancestors at all, for a more stupid set of people never existed. If there is ever any permanent folly it is our ancestors who have pledged us to it. But I am not going to accept post obits drawn upon me by my ancestors. When a Vote is on the Estimates, we claim the right to discuss it, or why is it submitted to this House? We are

      867
      asked to vote the money, and that implies necessarily that we may decline to vote it. The right hon. Gentleman has not told me who lives in Kew Palace. I believe, as far as ever I have been able to gather, nobody does live there. It costs us £700 a year. Her Majesty has been on the Throne 52 years, so that the Palace has cost us during her reign £36,400. I have mentioned Hampton Court Stud House. That has been given to a gentleman who is highly respectable, but in no way eminent for his services to the country. Take the fifty-two years that that gentleman and his predecessors have occupied it, and it will be found that the House has cost us £28,000. Is it not time that a stop should be put to this sort of thing? Putting aside the question of the original bargain, I say there is not the slightest doubt that if this House were to refuse to grant money in future for the repair of this building, Her Majesty would assent to the fair and reasonable condition that the tenant should maintain the repairs in the future. I am not asking that the house should be pulled down; what I submit is that it should not cost us anything for repairs. Before we part with this Vote, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about Hampton Court. I sometimes go there, when I am inclined, to look at Sir Peter Lely's pictures of Charles the Second's ladies. I find there is generally a crowd there trying to see them. Now, there are some railings stretched across the room where the pictures are, so that you cannot get to see them properly. I inquired why the railings were there, and was told it was because of a bed, which is the bed of the legitimate spouse of George the Third, Perhaps I ought to admire this bed more than I do the ladies; but there is nothing artistic in the bed, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will order the apparatus to be taken away and thus give the public an opportunity of seeing the pictures of Sir Peter Lely.
      *MR. BRADLAUGH: The Secretary to the Treasury promised that the Government would consider whether it was possible to issue with the estimate an additional memorandum showing the total items, including the Civil List and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the Royal Family. Have the Government considered that
      868
      point; and why is there no such memorandum?
      *MR. PLUNKET: As to the existence of any such undertaking, I cannot answer in the absence of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. I have no knowledge of it; but I will consult with him and communicate the result to the hon. Member opposite. As regards the railings round Sir Peter Lely's pictures, I will imitate the example of the hon. Member and study the geography of the room, and if I find they are a source of inconvenience to myself, I will see whether anything can be done to remedy it.
      *MR. NORRIS: The question before the Committee has been so amply discussed by many hon. Members opposite, it may perhaps be of some advantage to know the view which is taken by myself and those sitting near me; and, although on some grounds I might have supported the Amendment, yet, on those advanced by the hon. Member, I am unable to do so. With regard to the royal Palaces which are necessary for the use of Her Majesty, and the Royal Family, I think it is incumbent on the nation to contribute most liberally to their maintenance. But in regard to Kew Palace I think there is some cause for complaint. I believe this Palace is of no earthly use to anybody, and it does appear to me that if we vote £700 per annum towards that edifice it should be devoted to the use of the public in some form or other. I heartily concur, therefore, in the suggestion that the time has come when there should be some inquiry into this matter; and, although I shall not vote for the Amendment for the reason that I do not concur in the form in which it has been brought forward, I wish it to be understood that had the hon. Member made it refer directly to the Vote for Kew Palace I should have gone into the Lobby with him.
      MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Ever since I have been in Parliament, when these matters have been discussed, the historical argument has always been advanced, whenever it is proposed to make additional grants to Members of the Royal Family, although we never hear of it when there is anything to be done in the way of reduction. If hon. Members of this House wish, as I do, to see loyalty more rife in this country,

      869
      they must avoid such irritating circumstances as the having a number of palaces unused, kept up at the expense of the nation. We have a large amount of poverty in this country, and we are not justified in spending the people's money in the maintenance of palaces, unless they may be used for the public benefit. On the Continent the palaces are open to the public, and I claim that English palaces should be open to our public.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to say a word on the subject of Kew Palace, which I believe is one of the most gloomy and most useless palaces ever heard of. Kew Gardens, on the other hand, are a very popular resort, but, unfortunately, the people who go there are allowed to have no refreshments in the Gardens, nor are they allowed to scatter sandwich papers about. I suggest that the Palace might be converted into a refreshment and lounging palace for the British public, and I think you would thereby be making most excellent use of the building.
      MR. CONYBEARE: We have been assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the nation is only bound to maintain the fabric of the Royal palaces, and that we have nothing to do with the internal arrangements. If that is so, I wish to know how comes it that we find in this Estimate items relating to salaries, wages, and allowances in connection, say, with Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Kensington Palace? As far as Kensington Palace is concerned, I do not believe that I have ever been able to gain admission there, because the whole of it is practically devoted to the Royal and aristocratic lodgers, to whom it is given up. I think we have a right to demand to know exactly why these items are charged against us. For instance, there is for insurance, tithe charges, firing, household expenses, &c., a charge of £1,008 for Windsor Castle, and £1,238 for Hampton Court Palace, and there is nothing to show exactly how these sums are made up. I think that the ladies and gentlemen whom the Queen allows to occupy the public palaces ought to pay for their own fuel, light, water, and household articles; and I see no reason, too, why they should not pay for insurance and tithe rent charge. Again, I
      870
      should like to know how many of these palaces were in existence at the time the so-called historical bargain was entered into. With regard to the fire at Hampton Court Palace, I see there is a considerable charge for restoration of part of the building. Now, I am not going to object—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That point does not arise out of this Estimate.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I may have been mistaken, Sir, but I was under the impression it did. I will not, of course, after your ruling, refer to it further. I only wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the matters to which I have drawn attention. I endorse entirely what has been said by my hon. Friend as to the injurious effect upon the popularity of the Royal Family which is produced in the public mind by the taxpayers being called upon constantly to pay large sums of money for their benefit, and for the maintenance of palaces which are not occupied by the Royal Family. Of course, I cannot object to this feeling, because I think it tends to the gradual introduction into the British mind of the appreciation of the superiority of Republican over Monarchical institutions, but I would suggest that those who support the present régime should do all that is in their power to secure the removal of these items from the Estimates, and the abolition consequently of these causes of complaint.
      MR. NOLAN: I intend, Sir, to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, mainly on the ground that there is no explanation of several of the large items which appear in the Estimates. I wish to know, too, under what circumstances the repairs are carried out at these Royal palaces. Is the work handed over to private firms, or are tenders invited and the contracts given to the lowest tenderer? I fear that the officials take it for granted that a certain amount of money is to be spent every year upon these palaces, and they do their best to get rid of it without studying the interests of the taxpayer.
      *MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I may assure him that the question of these repairs is the subject of very careful consideration. The

      871
      arrangement is to place them in the hands of certain firms, under contracts according to specified scales of charges, for general repairs, as it would be almost impossible to invite tenders for the many small jobs which require to be done, but when there were new works or alterations to a large extent to be carried out, then tenders might be invited.
      DR. TANNER: When the days get longer would it not be possible to extend the hours during which people from London can see the pictures at Hampton Court? And could not permission be given to such visitors to take bundles of sandwiches into the building and the grounds?
      MR. CREMER: With regard to the firms of contractors, would the right hon. Gentleman state the names of those with whom contracts were last made and the facts as to the extent of the contracts?
      *MR. PLUNKET: I will ascertain the names of the firms referred to and let the hon. Gentleman know. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, I may at once say that we have already established a refreshment room at Kew Gardens, and will consider whether the system can be extended in the case of Hampton Court.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 106, Noes 208.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
      DR. TANNER: Do the tenants of the refreshment kiosks pay a fair rent?
      *MR. PLUNKETreplied in the affirmative.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,340, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Maintenance and Repair of Marlborough House."
      *MR. PICTON: I think it necessary to move the reduction of this Vote by £150; sub-head "A," new works, alterations, and additions. The details of this Vote show that £100 is for the extension of partitions in the stables, and £50 for works and alterations of a minor character. Now, without going into the question whether the maintenance and repair of this Royal
      872
      Palace ought to be paid by the illustrious occupier thereof, I must say I think it will be contrary to the will, as it is certainly inconsistent with the well-known disposition of the Prince of Wales, that such paltry sums as these should be charged on the Estimates. When we call to mind what a large proportion of our incomes many of us have to pay for rent and repairs, and what a still larger proportion of their incomes labouring people have to pay for rates and taxes, I do think that it is adding insult to injury to ask the over-burdened taxpayers of the country to defray paltry expenses of this kind. It is well known that ample provision is made from various sources to provide for the illustrious occupant of Marlborough House, and it cannot be said for a moment that it is necessary to relieve him of minor expenses of this kind. I think it is doing him wrong, and doing wrong to the Royal Family of this country, and treating the poor of this country with a very scant amount of consideration, not so much as regards their pockets as their feelings, to thrust a claim of this kind on the representatives of the people. I therefore beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £150.
      Motion made, and Question proposed
      "That item A, £150, for new works, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Picton.)
      *MR. PLUNKET: It is in strict accordance with the settled practice that structural alterations of this kind shall be borne upon the Estimates. In August, 1878, Her Majesty's Government decided that, in consideration of the large expenditure already incurred by His Royal Highness in improving the house—he had, I believe, spent more than £50,000 from his own purse for new works and repairs, besides the cost of decorating—it should thenceforth be placed on the same footing as Clarence House, and, accordingly, that the cost of ordinary maintenance and repairs, external and internal, including painting, papering, and whitewashing, should be annually provided for in the Estimates.
      MR. MOLLOY: Some two or three years ago there was a discussion in Committee on this item, in the course of which it was understood that an arrangement was come to that such items should not again appear

      873
      upon the Estimates. It seems that the item of £100, to which attention has been called, is for enlarging the stalls for the big horses of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales. The charge seems to me a mean one; and I am surprised that, in the interest of H.R.H. himself, it has not been kept off the Estimates. I must say that, if I had the control of the Estimates, I should certainly endeavour to disguise such an item as this; indeed, I would never put it in if I had no better excuse to offer for it than that it was to enlarge the stalls for the big horses of the Prince of Wales. I shall vote for the reduction moved by my hon. Friend; and, I hope it will be clearly understood that putting such items as this in the Estimates is doing a deal of harm to H. R. H. the Prince of Wales in the estimation of the people of the country. Instead of doing good, these miserable little charges are building up in the minds of the people a store of feeling which we should deplore as prejudicial to the popularity of the Prince of Wales and the Royal Family.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I must say I have no knowledge of any arrangement such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I have made inquiries of the Secretary to the Treasury, and he also is unaware of any such understanding; but I will make further inquiries into the matter.
      The Committee divided.:—Ayes 93; Noes 221.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: A remark fell from the Commissioner of Works just now that needs a little explanation. He defended the Vote on the ground that it was within the terms of a certain agreement which he said was made some years ago between H. R. H. the Prince of Wales and another party, but he did not say whom.
      *MR. PLUNKET: The Treasury.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: Well, we have heard so much of mythical agreements as foundation for Votes of this kind that I confess I am a little—and I think justifiably—sceptical about such agreements. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us all about it—the date when it was made, the particulars of the agreement, and what was the consideration on the other side of the agreement, which, as I understand
      874
      it, commits the country to this unknown expenditure. For my part, I am unwilling to vote another farthing until we get the whole story. I will go further, and say that each Vote for Marlborough House is one of a series against which the House would do well to put its foot down. Part of these amounts granted to the Royal Family is founded on Statute, but part also is founded on such mythical agreements as that which has been referred to. So far as the expenditure is provided for by Statute—so far as it depends on the Civil List Act—I am aware this House is powerless, and the money must be voted; but we are entitled to know all about the distribution of these parts. The whole administration of the Civil List Act is shrouded in mystery. I am not going into that for the moment; but until our legitimate demands for information as to the expenditure are met, I am not willing to sanction a farthing of these Estimates. I would ask the First Commissioner now to tell us all about this special agreement which, he says, justified this special Vote. Further, though I do not expect a full answer now, I would ask him to hold out a hope that the Government will make a clean breast of the whole financial position of the House in regard to His Royal Highness, and unless he can do that I must object to the Vote.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are entitled to information; but at the same time I must confess it would be a most invidious thing for the House of Commons to undertake the checking of the accounts of tradesmen for the whitewashing and other incidental items for the repair of Marlborough House. Yet it is a matter that calls for some explanation that an item which last year appeared as £390 should this year have risen to £780. The present arrangement seems to me to be in the highest degree unsatisfactory. It is admitted that His Royal Highness undertakes to provide fittings for Marlborough House; but it is difficult sometimes to draw a distinction between fittings, alterations, and repairs. If it is the fact that we are under agreement to keep up the fabric, would it not be much better to make a bargain with His Royal Highness, and fix upon some sum that will represent the average cost of the items for which

      875
      we are liable, say £1,000 a year, or something of that kind, so that we may not every year have to scrutinize the items under sub-head B? I notice another sum under head C, which is suspicious for its smallness—£10 for a water rate. Does that mean that Marlborough House is supplied with water for £10? It is a little surprising to us who have had experience of water rates.
      *MR. BRUNNER: With the idea of supporting what I hold to be the proper position of the Royal Family, I join in objecting to this Vote. I am of opinion that it is a detraction from the dignity of the Royal Family that they should come to the House for these paltry sums. Look, for instance, at this £10 for water rate! I would press on the Government the desirability of reconsidering this arrangement, and putting these matters on a more dignified footing. The right hon. Gentleman is alone on the Government Bench just now, and we cannot ask him to enter on such a negotiation upon his own responsibility; but I have no doubt we shall be talking upon this same subject again, and meantime he might consult with his colleagues. I yield to no man in loyalty; but it is because I dislike this petty dealing with such items that I support the objection to the Vote.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I have only to say, in answer to the hon. Member who has just spoken, that the form in which the expenditure upon Marl-borough House is presented in the Estimates is the form in which the House of Commons has seen fit to have it presented. I do not think it would be possible to present the expenditure en bloc; and from what we have heard it would appear that that would be likely to meet with some objection. The hon. Member for Dundee has talked about mystery and concealment; but there really is nothing of the kind. I will give him all the information in my power. In 1878 an arrangement was made between the Treasury and His Royal Highness, and this has been carried out since. That arrangement, as I have already said, was that, in consideration of the sum expended by His Royal Highness in improving Marlborough House, thenceforward the cost of repairs and maintenance
      876
      should be borne upon the Estimates, putting it on the same footing as Clarence House. The expenditure on fittings and furniture is borne by His Royal Highness. That is the whole of the story, and there is no mystery about it. As to the £10 for water rate, that is a charge payable to the Chelsea Water Company for the privilege of a high service supply, to be availed of in case of fire.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: Who pays the ordinary water rate?
      MR. PLUNKET: His Royal Highness.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: And why not this?
      MR. PLUNKET: Because it is for the protection of the house from fire.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information, which, as I take it, comes to this: that in 1878 it was agreed that on consideration of the Prince of Wales spending a large sum upon a house he lives in himself, the Treasury bound the nation to an uncertain annual expenditure for maintenance and repairs, putting it on the same footing as another building the right hon. Gentleman called Clarence House. This ignotum per ignotus. I think, affords even more justification for objection to this expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the larger question I referred to, which is the principal motive influencing me in the line I propose to take in reference to all these Royal Votes; I mean, the withholding from us information we are entitled to. I propose, therefore, to oppose the Vote.
      MR. BRUNNER: I did not mean to suggest that the sum for this purpose should be set down as a lump sum without detail. I am perfectly willing that the House should grant sufficient to maintain the dignity of the position of His Royal Highness; but when that is done, do not let us have all these mean and trifling claims put forward.
      MR. C. J. DARLING: I would like to ask whether there is any legal obligation on the part of the Treasury for the maintenance of Marlborough House? If there is, it must be of a vague character, for I notice the amount varies from year to year.
      DR. TANNER: There can be no doubt in the world that the establishment of H. R. H. our future King

      877
      should be maintained with dignity, but when we find such variations in the amounts submitted to us, it needs must challenge attention and comment, and then we do not get that amount of information we are entitled to ask for in Committee of Supply. I must say it appears to be a foolish method of submitting accounts to lump together an item of £780 for maintenance and repairs, leaving us no information as to why the item should be increased by £390 over the amount last year, and, on the other hand, to set out a small item like the £10 for water rate.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I think we ought to take note of the improvident nature of the arrangement entered into by a Conservative Government with H. R. H. in 1878. It appears that H. R. H., when he came of age, obtained Marlborough House for his residence while Prince of Wales, and during hit term of residence he spent considerable sums upon adapting the house to his requirements. But that was a sort of quid pro quo. The country gave H. R. H. the house on that condition—he had what I may call a life repairing lease. Then a Conservative Government comes in, ready, as Conservative Governments always are, to throw away money in this way, and the bargain is upset. Why, what would be thought of a private individual who, having made an arrangement for a long term of years, by which he maintained the house he occupied, should after an interval come to the landlord and claim to be relieved from the conditions of his lease because he had already spent so much? Such a thing would be regarded as preposterous. Yet a Conservative Government entered into this corrupt bargain—for such it certainly was. And when we question the right hon. Gentleman, he says "my predecessor"—another Conservative—"entered into the bargain, and you are bound by it." We may be bound by it or not. I should say that we are not. At all events, it is our duty to call attention to this improvident habit of binding us to most improvident arrangements in regard to the Royal Family.
      *MR. PLUNKET: While there is an increase for repairs, there is a considerable decrease on new works and alterations; and the reason of the
      878
      increase is that the Estimates last year were cut down too far.
      DR. TANNER: I think that these Estimates ought to be placed before the country without hesitation and without equivocation, so that we might know what is really required for maintenance and repairs, and what for new works, without telling us that a certain sum has been saved in one direction but that more has been expended in another. The amount for Marlborough House is only a small item, but if, in connection with such small items, important issues can be raised, how much greater issues can be raised in connection with such an item as the shipbuilding for the Navy? I have nothing to say against the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who always tries to put the best face upon matters, not only in regard to his own office, but with regard to the Government with which he is associated, and who invariably displays towards hon. Members the greatest courtesy on every occasion. I trust that in future the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to prevent a reduction being shown on one item, while the Vote is being swelled on others. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in all these matters honesty is the best policy.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether the Committee is to believe that the Prince of Wales expended a sum of £50,000 upon Marlborough House in the year 1878.
      *MR. PLUNKET: No, up to that time.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: Then, when did this expenditure take place?
      MR. HERBERT GARDNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him to consider the advisability of paying a regular fixed sum for keeping up Marlborough House, instead of having these constantly recurring items? I am sure it would be more convenient to his Royal Highness, and better for the Estimates of the year.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that up to that year his Royal Highness was bound to pay the expense out of his own pocket? The new arrangement has relieved him, I understand, of that responsibility. It

      879
      is admitted that his Royal Highness is bound to pay the water rate, and it seems to be a dirty transaction that the Government are to put upon the nation the expense of carrying the water to a certain height to guard against fire.
      *MR. PLUNKET: That is rather strong language. I have already explained the matter.
      MR. BLANE: The Vote we are asked to pass annually represents a capitalized sum of something like £75,000. It does not appear that this expenditure is required on behalf of His Royal Highness himself, but that the alterations and repairs are for the benefit of German visitors who come over here. It is a very humiliating thing that a palace built for Englishmen should be considered not good enough for these German sycophants.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's language is exceedingly unbecoming, and it would be difficult to characterize his argument.
      MR. BLANE: I was only intending to say that what is good enough for Englishmen does not appear to be good enough for foreigners. It occurs to me that we are called upon to vote large sums year after year for the benefit of a particular individual, and, as the house is given to him under a specific arrangement, I think he ought to be required to keep it in repair himself.
      Original Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 85.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £78,395, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
      *MR. PICKERSGILL: This is a Vote which stands on a different footing from the last Vote, in reference to which I regret to state that, in consequence of a mistake, I found myself in the wrong Lobby. I propose, however, to atone for that mistake by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £937, the cost of the maintenance of Hampton Court, Park. The Royal parks professedly exist for the public advantage, and my objection is that the public enjoyment of these parks is unreasonably
      880
      and unjustly restricted. Last year I obtained a Return which gives, on the one hand, the total area of each Park, and, on the other, the portion of that area from which the public are excluded. That return shows the exorbitant proportion of these parks to which the public are not admitted. The case I have selected—that of Hampton Court Park—illustrates the extent to which this obnoxious principle is carried out. Hampton Court Park contains no fewer than 752 acres, or, in other words, it is considerably larger than Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together; and yet, with the exception of a few privileged individuals, the public are entirely excluded from the enjoyment of it. Last year the First Commissioner was good enough to say he would inquire if it would be possible to remove the brick wall now enclosing the Park on one side for nearly two miles, and see whether it could be replaced by something of a more open character. Nothing has, however, been done. The First Commissioner met my arguments last year by the statement that the Park has never been open to the public. I daresay that is true; but I hardly suppose that the right hon. Gentleman meant to advance that as a serious argument, and I do not think I need deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Park was not required in that locality. Well, it is true that the neighbourhood is exceptionally favoured, as it possesses Hampton Court Gardens and Bushey Park; but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take his stand on that argument, I think I may put before him an alternative course. If a large open space is not required in that neighbourhood there are certainly many localities in the Metropolis where it is grievously needed. If, then, the Government refuse to open this park, why not sell it, and with the proceeds of the sale provide a park in some growing neighbourhood in the East of London? I protest altogether against the Committee being required to pay £937 a-year for the sole purpose, as it seems to me, of providing enjoyment for a few favoured individuals who, I daresay, are very well able to provide gardens for themselves. I beg to move the reduction I have proposed.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £77,458, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Pickersgill).
      *MR. PLUNKET: As I promised the hon. Member last year, this subject has been considered. Hampton Court Park is undoubtedly the midst of a locality which is admitted by the hon. Member to be exceptionally favoured in the matter of pleasure gardens and recreation grounds, and so far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no such strong pressure of public opinion brought to bear upon us as should overcome the natural reluctance of the Treasury to add to the expense of keeping up this park. There would certainly be considerable addition to this expense if it were thrown open as the hon. Member suggests. It would also cost a large sum even to pull down the brick wall, not to speak of supplying in its place such palings as would be suitable for a public park. If the park were thrown open we should have to provide paths and gates, and we should also require a larger number of park-keepers. The cost would be really increased by some hundreds of pounds annually. Under the circumstances, we have not thought we should be justified in throwing the park open to the public.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: The right bon. Gentleman has put his refusal to open this park on two grounds. The first is that there is already adequate accommodation in the matter of parks for the public in the locality. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to Bushey Park, but in Bushey Park only about 500 acres out of 1,000 are open to the public. As to the amount received for keys at Hampton Court, one guinea was paid for each key, and the total amount obtained was £90, so that we are called upon to pay £900 per annum for maintaining a park used by about 90 persons. In point of fact, however, the park is not reserved for those 90 persons, but a great part for certain breeding horses, and I am obliged again to ask the right hon. Gentleman what becomes of our foals? I have been told that the cream coloured horses that occasionally appear roam about in the park, so that apparently we pay £900 per annum for the purpose of maintaining,
      882
      close to the Metropolis, a park for the benefit of 90 persons, of certain foals which we never see, and of certain cream coloured horses which we uncommonly seldom see. We are perfectly ready to vote the money spent upon this park if we can have the run of the park, but not otherwise. I shall certainly support the Amendment.
      MR. J. ROWLANDS: We are prepared at all times to vote money for the construction of gates or for the maintenance of paths if by so doing we can obtain the opening of a large area as an additional lung of the Metropolis. There is at Hampton Court something in the way of green fields belonging to the public, but at present the space which the people are allowed to use there is extremely restricted. It is time that the Office of Works should realize that these public spaces are to be utilized for the public. We are determined that the public shall not be shut out from them. We on this side have done with the "favoured few." We do not know anything about the "favoured few," and we intend to persevere with Amendments of this kind, year by year, until we get the whole of this space for the use of the persons who seek a little fresh air on Bank Holidays and other occasions. We will allow the persons who pay for keys to use the park in the same way as the general public use it, but in no other way.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me that it will be impossible much longer to exclude the public from this park. I must say I think there is a good deal of force in the argument that the general public ought not to be called upon to pay any large sum towards throwing the park open, but I cannot but think that the cost might be defrayed by the London County Council.
      *MR. PLUNKET: Of course I will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who has had much experience in this Department.
      MR. WARMINGTON: There is something more serious than the mere question of expenditure upon this park, and that is the principle upon which the exclusion of the public is based. It is all very well to call these spaces royal parks. We can understand appropriating a park for a Royal palace, to be used by Royalty, but

      883
      this is no such case. Here we have a large piece of ground which is admitted to be public property. It should be used for the public. We, on this side, are not disinclined to pay for public spaces if the public use them, but here you have a park belonging to the public taken from the public, and the expense of keeping the public out of their own property is defrayed out of the public purse. That is the real common sense of this Vote.
      *MR. PLUNKET: It is true that I did not rest my argument upon the question of this being a Royal park, but I wish to prevent any misapprehension arising on the subject. Whatever the policy of admitting the public may be, it would be an entirely new thing. This has always been a reserved part of a Royal park. From time to time portions of the Royal parks have been given up to the public; for instance, it is only within the last 50 or 60 years that Regent's Park was opened to the public. It is not the case that the public were ever admitted into Hampton Court Park, and they are not now excluded from something to which they formerly had access.
      MR. MOLLOY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this is a new proposal, though he does not base his argument upon that. I would point out that for the last four or five years hon. Members on this side of the House have been making these proposals. For four years we had a controversy in this House as to a rule laid down by the Ranger that nobody should drive through Richmond Park except in a private carriage, so that those who did not possess private carriages were not allowed to drive there. To my own knowledge for four or five years it has been urged that this portion of Hampton Court Park should be thrown open to the public. I would ask whether the question of expense is the sole obstacle in the way of opening the park? If so, this Committee will always be willing to pay that expense. I believe, from information I have, that the obstacle is not the expense of throwing the park open, and that the land is retained for the benefit of more or less private individuals. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the only obstacle to throwing open the land is the question of expense?
      DR. FARQUHARSON: I should like to be quite clear as to what this piece of land is used for. If it is used for improving the breed of horses, of course that is for the benefit of the public. If, however, the stud is not successful, and the horses bred are of no particular character, I think that the last refuge of the First Commissioner is cut away. If the land is used as a private garden for the benefit of certain private persons, I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to take the advice given him to-day and see whether the park cannot be thrown open.
      *MR. CUBITT: I think it only just to state on behalf of my constituents that when a representation was made to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works by certain persons at Ditton in favour of opening a locked gate at Hampton Court opposite a ferry so as to save them a long walk in obtaining access to the gardens, he at once responded to the request made to him, and did as he was asked without incurring any extra expense.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cubitt) for what he has stated, and I may take this opportunity to point out that the expense incurred in connection with the Stud-House, Hampton Court, is for the half-bred breeding establishment; no portion of the money is applied to the thoroughbred establishment, which is maintained wholly out of the funds of the Civil List.
      DR. TANNER: With regard to the gate that has been spoken of, the right hon. Gentleman has in the first place considered the convenience not of the bulk of the people, but of the constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What we want to assure is the convenience of the inhabitants of London generally. Instead of talking about the cost of the gate and paths, which must be a small sum, steps should be taken to throw down the hideous brick wall which bounds the park. Surely if we were to take example from other countries and follow the mode adopted in the parks of France, Germany, and other civilized places, that wall would be at once removed, and we should get rid of all those obstacles which are now obtruded by obstinate

      885
      Toryism against the wishes of the people.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 211.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. Richmond Park consists of 2,500 acres, and you have an expenditure of £636 for police and £1,000 for roads. Then you have 2,000 acres of underwood, and you are called upon to pay for that £3,000, besides the amounts expended on the police and the roads. Now, underwood pays for itself I have always understood; I do not know why. We have a number of rangers and sub-rangers, and that sort of thing. You have changed the name; they used to be gamekeepers; but, whatever the name, they are the same, and still exist. Would any gentleman in this House, or anywhere else, with a park of 2,500 acres, consisting of plantations and grass, spend upon it £3,000 per annum, irrespective of the roads, and get nothing for it? That is our position with regard to Richmond Park, and I think I am exceedingly moderate in only moving a reduction of £1,000. I leave you £2,000 per annum for police and roads, and to amuse yourselves with your rangers and gamekeepers; but I do think that a protest ought to be registered against this excessive expenditure upon this Park.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £77,395, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
      DR. TANNER: I really think that hon. Gentlemen on this side have some reason to at least expect a response from Her Majesty's advisers upon this question, upon which they might have expected to be challenged.
      It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
      *MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps it may be convenient to the House that I should state that we propose to resume Committee of Supply on Thursday, taking first the Vote for the Submarine Telegraph Service, which is the new Service
      886
      rendered necessary by the Government's assumption of the telegraphic communication between England and the Continent. After that we propose to go on with the Civil Service Estimates in their order as they stand, and at 10 o'clock to take the National Debt Conversion Bill.
      SIR W. LAWSON: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to resume the discussion on the Naval Vote?
      *MR. W. H. SMITH: On Monday next. We are under an engagement, and are bound to take Supply on Thursday.
      MR. SEXTON: Do the Government intend to take the Committee stage of the Army Annual Bill to-night?
      *MR. W. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend is not in his place, and I am not able to give an answer to that question. The Committee stage of the Army Annual Bill is usually formal, but if there are any notices on the Paper, no doubt some time will be given to their consideration.
      MR. SEXTON: I have notice of an Amendment on the Paper.
      *MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be taken on Thursday then.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.
      Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      THE SLAVE TRADE.
      *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope, Mr. Speaker, the House will not think me presumptuous in asking it to listen to me in reference to this important subject of the Slave Trade. I should not have ventured to do so if it were not that I lave a strong hereditary interest in the subject. I do not think the House would desire me to detain it with any references to the horrors of the Slave Trade. We all know full well that the traffic in slaves throughout Africa produces awful suffering and an appalling waste of life year after year. The centre of Africa is rapidly becoming depopulated in order to gratify the greed and the lust of the Oriental slaveholders, and it has been calculated, I believe, by those conversant with the subject, that for every human being who is successfully enslaved some 20 or 30 others are sacrificed. In the last 80 years England has been almost single-

      887
      handed making war against this hideous traffic, and I am glad to think that of late this country has had some seeming assistance, at all events, in the matter. The latest phase is the Anglo-German Agreement, which was entered into a few months ago in order to carry out a more thorough blockade of the coast of East Africa. I do not desire to enter into questions connected with that blockade, but I must confess that I am not prepared to blame the Government for having entered into that agreement, for they had to decide—a new departure having been already taken by the German Government—whether it was not in the interests of Africa and of Great Britain that we should enter into the arrangement. Indeed, I doubt, if the Government could have refused to accept a proposal for a friendly Power to help her in her great work, even though they may have had some doubt as to the entire genuineness of the object which the Germans had in view. By joining we increased our friendship with Germany, that partially influenced her proceedings. By forbearing it is pretty certain we should have lost much of our influence at Zanzibar. At the same, time while I do not blame the Government, I confess I do not agree with the very sanguine view of the matter which is apparently taken by the Government—namely, as Lord Salisbury said, that this blockade has been "exceedingly satisfactory." On two essential points the Government were over sanguine. England and Germany entered into the agreement on the understanding that the blockading vessels should have the right to search ships under whatever flag they sailed, and that no land operations would be taken in connection with the blockade. But it now appears that the French are inclined to stand on the dignity of their flag, and will not allow the right of search where it is concerned; and, as we are all aware, the Germans have unfortunately gone in for what is practically a land expedition, and have destroyed some hitherto peaceful towns. But the moral that I wish to draw is this: that a great question like this, in which so many nations have interests, direct or indirect, ought to be made an international question and not left to two Powers alone. All the Great Powers should take combined
      888
      action in order that they might finally, if possible, bring this hateful traffic to an end. By international agreement they would be able to deal with a larger area and to serve a greater purpose. They might hope not only more effectually to intercept the supply, but to strike a deadly blow at the demand for slaves themselves. There is a good precedent for international action. I need not trouble the House with any detailed reference to the Congresses at which this subject has been discussed. As the House is aware, at the Vienna Congress of 1815, and again at the Conference at Verona in 1822, the English Government successfully urged the necessity of dealing with the Slave Trade. In 1841 a further Treaty was made by England, to which, unfortunately, France did not assent, which, declaring the slave trade piracy, as far as they were concerned, gave reciprocal powers to Austria, Prussia, and Russia to search suspected ships. Finally, the other day the representatives of nearly all the great nations, including Turkey, met together to consider the affairs of the Congo; and they unanimously agreed that every step in their power ought to be taken to put an end to the Slave Trade, in that portion of Africa at all events. Unfortunately, the opportunity which was afforded England of again dealing with this question at the time of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 was entirely neglected, and this neglect remains a blot on our escutcheon. Now, Mr. Speaker, at the time of that Treaty the attention of the accredited agents of the Great Powers assembled at Berlin was called to this matter, and they gave personal interviews and great attention the delegates appointed to lay the matter before them; indeed, they said that as far as they were concerned they were willing and desirous that a new departure should be taken in regard to it. But it was generally thought that England should take the initiative, yet the representatives of Her Majesty were alone in refusing to take action, and to seethe delegates. Her Majesty's Government were—to our shame, be it said—bound hand and foot to a slave-owning country by the secret Treaty which they had made with Turkey. That is a blot which, though the Government cannot wipe it out, yet I hope they will endeavour to diminish

      889
      its effect by taking the initiative now in a new departure. Fifty years ago the Great Nations met together to consider the question of the Slave Trade, and, considering the enormous strides made on the subject by public opinion during the last decade or two, considering the increased responsibility which rests upon all nations with regard to the opening up of the Dark Continent, I think it is not in any way premature to ask that a further step should now be taken, and that a fresh Conference of the Powers should be held to deal with this traffic. Germany and England, the two Powers most interested, have practically acknowledged the necessity of another Conference. When Prince Bismarck applied to England to join in the blockade, he applied also to the Cabinets of Paris, Lisbon, Brussels, and Rome to co-operate in the undertaking, thus showing that he thought the matter ought to be settled by the general consensus of the Powers rather than by one or two States individually. Our Government has gone even further, for in a despatch written in September last Lord Salisbury requested Lord Vivian to ask the Belgian Government to call a Conference of the Powers in order to discuss the question. These are his words—
      "Her Majesty's Government feel that the altered political conditions of the African seaboard calls for some united action of the Powers now responsible for its control with a view to the closing of all foreign markets for slaves, and the consequent discouragement of the internal slave-hunts."
      The despatch went on to ask Belgium to call a Conference of the Powers. To that despatch the Belgian Government replied that they would be very glad indeed to call a Conference with that object; but, unfortunately, the incidents in the German Plan of Campaign, in the opinion of the English Government, put a stumbling-block in the way of the immediate calling of the Conference, and Lord Salisbury in November withdrew his proposal, though, as he said, he hoped that this step, from which so much good might be expected to result, is only postponed. The principle is thus admitted, and it comes to this, therefore—the question is whether or not this is an opportune moment to call a Conference. Many of us believe that the present is
      890
      a very opportune moment to call a Conference of the Powers again to discuss the question of the Slave Trade. On the one hand, because the public conscience has been awakened and the public mind aroused on the subject of late in a way they have not been for some time past. It is not that a new crusade has been preached, but there has been an awakening of public opinion in this and in other countries, and other nations have shown a desire to share in the admirable work of the suppression of the Slave Trade. Germany, the great irritant, and France, the great obstructive in East African politics, have both of late declared their willingness as far as they can to assist England in this work. Italy is anxious to join also, and Portugal has declared that for this time, at all events, she is really in earnest in desiring to co-operate. While, on the one hand, there is this great increase of public opinion, on the other there is at the present moment a fresh upheaval of the Arab element in Africa against the Europeans. It is difficult to say how far this upheaval is due to the question of the Slave Trade, to religious animosity, or to a fear on the part of the Arabs that the spread of the influence of the European in South Africa will ultimately annihilate them and drive them out of the Continent. But whether it is due to fanaticism, greed of gain, or a real struggle for existence, certain it is that, unless it be checked, one principal result of that fresh upheaval will be this—that the Slave Trade will be enormously increased and the cause of civilization and humanity in Africa will be thrown back for many a decade. I submit that the Anglo-German blockade will neither on the one hand satisfy public opinion, nor on the other hand will it be sufficient to check the rising of the Arabs against the Europeans. What, it may be asked, may we expect to obtain from a meeting of the Great Powers; what measures could they take to put an end to the Slave Trade? There are four things of a real and practical nature which we might hope to attain from a meeting of the Powers. In the first place, the status of slavery should be no longer recognized by international law; secondly, the Slave Trade should by international law be declared piracy; thirdly, we should get rid of the difficulty which at present exists with regard to the right of search of suspected ships

      891
      carrying other flags; and, fourthly, there ought to be greater restriction and supervision under international law of the imports of arms and ammunition into Central Africa. Now, in regard to the question of piracy, what we desire is that by international law a slave trader shall be declared a pirate, and shall receive such punishment as is meted out to pirates. I am glad to think that so far as regards any of our own subjects who have engaged in the Slave Trade for the last 60 years they have been treated as if engaged in a piratical pursuit; and as long ago as 1841 we were able, as I have already shown, to obtain the assent of some of the other Great Powers to that part of our programme. But, unfortunately, while we declare slave trading under our flag to be piracy, and some other Powers do the same, yet it is only a municipal law, and there is no international law declaring it to be universally piracy. Great difficulties and serious obstacles to the prevention of the Slave Trade ensue from this deficiency. We have no right as a nation to allow our war vessels, except by mutual agreement, to search ships sailing under other flags, however much we may suspect them of being slavers. I am sorry to say that France has consistently refused to allow dhows sailing under her flag to be searched. She seems to think that the dignity of her flag is enhanced by allowing—as was the case at all events until lately—its purchase at a small price, and by seeing it wave over and protecting these piratical slavers. If the slave trade were declared piracy by international law, each nation would acquire the right of mutual search of suspected vessels. And there would be a great further advantage. At present, where the Arab slavers fly a foreign flag or no flag at all, even though our gunboats may catch them red-handed, their wretched persons are held sacred, and the most we can do is to seize the dhows and liberate the slaves, while the slavers themselves get off scot-free. Though we have abolished capital punishment except for murder itself, and though we may not be able, as has been suggested, to string-up the slave-dealers or to flog them, still, if they were declared pirates by international law, we could give them 12 or 14 years' penal servitude. A few such sentences would greatly encourage
      892
      the others, and would, I believe, lead the slavers to seek some other traffic in which there would be less risk to their precious skins. I do not think I need trouble the House with arguments in reference to the advantages to be gained from the prohibition by mutual international agreement of the import of arms and ammunition into Africa. As is well known, the import of arms and ammunition is very much at the bottom of the Slave Trade, because by the possession of arms of precision the Arabs are able to master crowds of defenceless Africans, and to depopulate whole districts. I am strongly of opinion that such operations as we do undertake ought to be, as far as we are concerned, confined to naval operations. It seems to me that to engage in land operations would be absolutely fatal as a policy, and the Germans, if they really attempt to carry out such a policy, will find that out to their cost. If a land force were sent up the country it would have no objective in view, it would have no opportunity of meeting the enemy in a body, and it would be decimated by disease and overwhelmed by the difficulty of food and transport. So far as our physical force policy is concerned, I think, therefore, it should be confined to naval operations. But I should like, however, to see land operations of a peaceful character—namely, that we should obtain the moral pressure of international agreement directed against the existence of slavery where it is still recognized as an institution. It would be a great step if an International Congress would declare that it would no longer recognize the status of slavery where slavery still exists. One great difficulty which arises in connection with the continued recognition of the status of slavery is the question to which reference has very often been made in this House—the difficulty in connection with fugitive slaves. Every Englishman has always desired that, if possible, the deck of a man-of-war shall be as free to the slave as if he had set his foot upon our soil. When at one time a Government of the same constitution as the present did attempt to diminish the force of that principle the public outcry was so great that they had to revoke the so-called Slave Circular, and revert to that which

      893
      everyone believed was the then state of our law, but which they thought was not so. But there is a great difficulty in connection with this matter. We may have a strong opinion about it, and may send strong instructions to commanders of our ships; but, as a matter of fact, we have no real right so to deal with this question in the present state of international law. Moreover, the proceedings of different nations in this matter vary considerably, and some do not in any way admit that the decks of their war vessels are free soil. When, again, it comes to the question of the decks of merchant-ships, which is a far more important question, there is no power of declaring them free soil in a port in which slavery exists, and the result is that if the fugitive slave comes on board he must be handed back to his owner, or the captain becomes liable in damages. If my proposition were carried out, we should no longer recognize that such a thing as the status of slavery could exist, and there would be no necessity to hand a slave back to his owner, or even to the authorities of the country. Further than that, the non-recognition by international law of the status of slavery would exercise a very great moral pressure in the direction of the final abolition of slavery, and if an International Congress were called, the countries in which slavery still exists would be asked to attend. It is possible that, in the present state of public opinion, most of them would be ready to admit that the time has come for the abolition of slavery. But, whether they did or not, the moral pressure which would be exercised by the other Great Powers would go a long way to finally bring to an end the question of slavery. I know we are told by some, who are interested in the work that is going on in Africa, that by taking the course I have indicated we shall be doing more harm than good, especially in the interior of Africa, and that we had better leave the work of putting an end to slavery and the Slave Trade to our missionaries, and to the effects of civilization and trade. Unfortunately, however, the results of missionary effort in the direction of the abolition of slavery are infinitesimal, and I am afraid that if we wait until the natives are converted, the inhabitants of large tracts of country in Africa will be
      894
      swept away before the influence of the missionaries can put an end to this traffic in human beings, and the same applies to the question of trade. But if some general arrangement could be arrived at among the civilized Powers, by which the Slave Trade should be declared piracy, the difficulties surrounding the right of search and the importation of arms and ammunition could be removed, and slavery itself affected at its source, much would be done to put an end to the Slave Trade and to give increased opportunities for converting the souls and clothing the bodies of the Africans. If there is any hope that such an agreement as I have indicated can be arrived at, it is the duty, and I am sure it will be the pleasure of this country, to take the initiative in bringing about such an agreement. We ask the Government to give us a pledge that they will, at the earliest possible moment, carry out the opinions they formed some months ago, that a further new departure should be taken in order, if possible, to exterminate this horrible trade. I beg to move the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That, in view of the present increasing and extending desolations of Africa caused by the slave trade, and also of the large responsibilities which European nations have now assumed in respect to that continent, the time has come when full and complete effect should be given to those declarations against the slave trade which were delivered by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and by the Conference at Verona in 1822; and that, therefore, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to take steps for calling together (in London, if possible) a Conference of the Powers, in order to devise such measures for its repression as may be at the same time effective and in accordance with justice, and under the regulations of international law."—(Mr. S. Buxton.)
      SIR J. KENNAWAY: In rising to second the Motion brought before the House by my hon. Friend, I feel I need not take up much of its time in striving to demonstrate that the question of the Slave Trade, which has deeply moved the hearts of the people of this country, which has been fought out with such persistency in this House and in this country, and which, so far as this nation is concerned, was brought to a triumphant issue many years back, is upon us now with all its horrors. We cannot shut our eyes to the pictures of the slave gangs, with all

      895
      their miserable accompaniments, crossing over Africa, leaving enormous tracts of cultivated country, equal in size to European countries, desolate, and turning them into howling wildernesses. We cannot shut our ears to the cry of suffering humanity which comes to us to deliver that fruitful land from the curse of the Slave Trade; and it is not a question of humanity alone, but one of self-interest also. We cannot find that outlet for our manufactures which is so necessary to our commercial existence and prosperity in communities which have been deprived of all their inhabitants. We cannot help feeling disappointed that after all our efforts so little seems really to have been done. The slave traders are now spread through the length and breadth of the Continent of Africa, and even the discoveries of men like Livingstone and Stanley have in many cases been the means of opening out fresh Slave Trade routes and encouraging the Arabs to penetrate into the interior further than they have ever done before But there has been of late a new step taken by European Powers which seems to call for a new departure. The whole political map of Africa has been par celled out between the different Powers of Europe, and it is right that we should call upon those Powers to remember that right and duty are correlative, and that the advantages they hope to gather from acquiring a sphere of influence over this Continent carry with them great responsibility. We could not, of course protest against other nations seeking new openings for their trade, and we wish them well, but at the same time our old traditional policy calls upon us to make an appeal to them to use their influence to put down this great evil of the Slave Trade, and to try and obtain the benefit of united action in doing so. At the Congress of Verona, at which England, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France were represented, the Duke of Wellington brought forward resolution urging the Powers to make the Slave Trade piracy. France objected on the ground that such a proposition was ultra vires of the political Conference. The result was that nothing actually was done. Since that Conference various Powers have been induced to make the Slave Trade piracy, and have granted each other a mutual right of search.
      896
      Among them are Austria, Brazil, Germany, England, Portugal, Prussia, Russia and Spain, and as late as 1862 the captain of a vessel was hanged at New York for piracy. For some years the limited right of search was granted by the French Government, but at the expiration of the Treaty of 1865 this power was withdrawn, and since that time no right of search has existed in regard to vessels carrying the French flag. The slave traders have availed themselves to the utmost of the knowledge of this fact, and I believe at the present time, by the payment of £5 or £6, the right to use the French flag can be obtained at Madagascar. The result has been that the trade under the French flag amounts to twice as much as that under any other flag, and our efforts with regard to cruisers have been rendered almost entirely nugatory. In a despatch of September last, Lord Salisbury directed that the attention of the French Government should be called to the flagrant case of the landing of 75 slaves from a dhow carrying the French flag under the guns of a British man-of-war. The result was that orders were sent out to the French ships to look out for the slave traders, and catch them if possible. Lord Salisbury followed, that up by an important despatch in October to Lord Lytton, pointing out that the immunity from search enjoyed by vessels flying the French flag was an encouragement to the slavers to carry on the Slave Trade by sea, and also tended to develop it on land; and that that traffic devastated countries which the European nations were endeavouring to open up to Christianity and civilization; and he asked that France might accord that mutual right of search which in the case of other nations had not in its operation led to any difficulty. To that appeal no answer has been vouchsafed; and we can look to nothing but the strong force of public opinion to induce France to change her attitude on the subject. A gentleman who came over here with Cardinal Lavigerie, and who is an active supporter of the French Anti-Slavery Society, has written a letter, stating that it is utterly impossible to obtain the consent of the French Parliament and people to giving English gunboats the right to search vessels carrying the French flag. He recommends that the question shall be dealt

      897
      with from a general point of view, and that there should be an agitation for a rule common to all nations, authorizing the searching of vessels. We must recogaise what is the position of the Government of Prance, how very delicate is the condition of parties, and how unwilling any Prime Minister with a majority of a dozen or so must be to enter into a course of action that might render him unpopular. We have Treaties with Turkey; but they are not carried out. Jeddah, which is under Turkish dominion, is one of the great marts for slaves, and while, as it is said, there are a thousand eunuchs in the Palace at Constantinople, it is evident the Turks will be unwilling to curtail the source from which supplies of slaves are obtained. On the 17th of September Lord Salisbury asked Belgium to take the initiative in summoning a Conference to which Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and Turkey should be invited. Belgium answered that she was ready to do so if the Powers were willing to come together; but, in the month of November, Lord Salisbury wrote and said he thought the occasion was not opportune, for various reasons. Whether those reasons were the complications which have occurred in East Africa, or that the Powers were not willing to take part in a Conference, was not stated. All we know is, that though Lord Salisbury earnestly desired to act in the matter, he thought the occasion was inopportune. It is, however, to be hoped that the Conference will not be postponed ad infinitum. and that Her Majesty's Government will lose no fitting opportunity of pressing it forward. We spend large sums of money on cruisers, and at present that money is thrown away, partly on account of the immunity enjoyed by slavers under the French flag, and partly because steam launches are needed that will overtake the slave dhows, which at present outstrip our ships and land their crews, who disappear in the bush. It would seem that the time is now very opportune for action in the matter. We are on the very best terms with Germany; we have, at this moment, in this country a very important Envoy from Germany; and Germany is under some obligation to us on account of the obloquy we have been brought under from falling in with her
      898
      proposals. Among the questions that will come before the Congress, I think that of domestic slavery in the Congo will have to be considered; and we may hope it will result in the formation of that International Commission which was ordered to be set on foot at the time when the Congo State was founded, because it is said that great irregularities have occurred in that State, But while we endeavour to cut off the supply of slaves, it is necessary also to cut off the demand; and I think the Congress should be asked to procure the abolition of the legal status of slavery in Mahommedan countries, and, first and foremost, in Pemba and Zanzibar. Through our occupation of Egypt, slave markets are no longer held there; and any slave may now go and demand his freedom. That is being carried out now, under a Treaty which took effect in 1884, with the hearty co-operation of the Khedive. The same policy was to have been pursued in the Soudan. Much has been done by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The fact that Slave Papers have been presented to us within a month or two of the actual occurrences, instead of at a time when the matters referred to have become ancient history, deserves recognition. The Government have the House of Commons and the country at their back in this matter. We hope that, amidst all the difficulties attending Foreign Office work, and in the special circumstances attending the present unhappy state of things in East Africa, the Government will not let this matter sleep, but will realize that it is a question on which the country has set its heart and its mind, and one on which it will not relax its efforts until it has been brought to a successful issue.
      *MR. A. E. PEASE: I am very sanguine this Resolution will meet with general approval, and I am not without hope that Her Majesty's Government will give a favourable response to the appeals made from both sides of the House. We have Lord Salisbury's own admission of the necessity of a Conference, and the expression of his hope that the question is only postponed for a time. I am sure anyone who has any knowledge of the horrors of this African slave traffic must regard this question of an International Conference as a pressing and urgent one. During

      899
      the last 10 or 15 years there has been something like apathy, something like popular cynicism, in regard to the Slave Trade, and this has been indicated by the heedlessness of this House with regard to the publication of papers on the subject. But lately public opinion has been aroused to the horrors of this trade, and we have seen the Government respond by laying information abundantly and punctually before us. I do not think anyone who looks at the Slave Trade as it exists in Africa, or who has given any attention whatever to the subject, but must be struck with the frightful cruelties that accompany it. It is a traffic associated with every imaginable crime, and murder, rape, and the unsexing of males are among the chief atrocities perpetrated. When the hon. Member for Poplar alluded to the fact that only one in 30 of the slaves originally captured reach the slave market, I was much struck with the figures, and they remind me of other figures given by a man well acquainted with the interior of Africa and the Soudan, and an acknowledged authority, Mr. Wylde, who states that for each eunuch that is made 200 human beings lose their lives in the performance of the horrible operation. So that the 500 eunuchs now in Cairo have been obtained by the sacrifice of 100,000 human lives in the Soudan. It is not only for domestic purposes the Slave Trade in Africa is carried on; the Arab dealers employ slaves by the thousand as the means of transporting goods to the coast and inland markets, whole districts being depopulated to make beasts of burden of the inhabitants. Therefore, I think we may justifiably look forward to increasing civilization in Africa and the introduction of better means of transport as one means of cutting off one of the great sources of the Slave Trade. An International Conference is wanted in order that effective measures may bring about an effective blockade; it cannot be said that the present blockade is effective. In my opinion there should be a great International Preventive Service. Though I know many argue that the existence of the blockade is mischievous in its tendency, I cannot but think that if all the Powers of Europe used their vessels as a great
      900
      International Police it would do a great deal towards stopping the export trade in slaves. But, after all, the export trade is but a small fragment of the trade as a whole. Commander Cameron, with whom I have had the honour of conversing, told me that he estimated that the export by sea was only about a thirtieth of the whole Slave Trade. I also think with the hon. Member for Poplar that the punishment of Arab slave dealers should be made a matter of international concern. There are other points to which the attention of the House and the Government should be directed, and one of these is the difference in the method adopted by different nations in dealing with fugitive slaves. Even our own method is sometimes open to comment. If hon. Members will peruse the Blue Book issued in 1888 they will find numerous instances recorded of fugitive slaves having come on board English men-of-war and where the commander of the vessel has been perplexed, by the conflicting instructions, how to act, and seems almost to apologize for giving runaway slaves their freedom. A most flagrant case of the kind was reported not long ago by an officer on board one of Her Majesty's ships on an African station, and deserves, I think, the attention of the House. An account of the circumstances appeared in the United Service Gazette of September 8 last year. The ship was lying off Muscat, and at daybreak a poor black fellow swam from the shore and climbing on board fell exhausted on deck. He described through an interpreter how he had escaped from a dhow in which he had made a passage from Zanzibar. Further, he said two more dhows with slaves were expected, but no advantage was taken of this information. To the horror of the black fugitive, when the commander of the vessel appeared he ordered the man overboard at once, without listening to his story, and told the quartermaster he had grievously exceeded his duty by allowing him on board. When the hon. Member for Falmouth called attention to the incident, the First Lord of the Admiralty declared that the report was incredible in view of the definite instructions given to commanders, and so it may appear to many Members, but nevertheless the editor of the Western Morning News has declared that he can

      901
      produce the officer's letter, and will disclose the name if his correspondent is guaranteed against any punishment for breach of regulations for writing to a newspaper on such a matter. I do not know whether the Admiralty have any further information on this subject. This right of refuge is one of the points to which the attention of a Conference would be directed. There is no need for me to make any references to the history of the Slave Circulars. I am sure that if the country knew that any doubt exists about whether a fugitive slave becomes free when setting foot on an English vessel it would at once insist on the issue of instructions removing any doubt whatever on the point. I believe Italy, Germany, and certainly the United States, agree in regarding a slave as perfectly free immediately he gets on board one of their vessels. A Secretary to the United States Navy has asserted that most emphatically, in these words—
      "No officer would for a moment think of giving up a slave who had taken refuge on hoard his vessel, in order that he might return to a condition of slavery."
      I do not think we should be behind our American cousins in this matter. Another matter is the enforcement of Treaties which already exist with semi-civilized Powers, like Abyssinia and Zanzibar, in which Treaties they have pledged themselves to deny the legal status of slavery. Cargoes of slaves have been run into Pemba under the very nose of an English man-of war, but because the French flag was flying we have been unable to interfere. It is a monstrous anomaly that the mere flying of the French flag or of any flag should limit our right to search any vessel that may be engaged in the Slave Trade, whilst we permit, and the French give instructions for, the searching of any native vessels under our flag. I have a letter from an officer in the Navy, whose name I am afraid to give, because I suppose making public matters of this kind is an irregularity in the Service. He says—
      "At Zanzibar there is an excellent French Consul, who very rarely, if ever, gives the protection of the flag; but I am convinced that the flag is obtained with the greatest facility at Mayotte, Nossi Bé, the Comoro Islands, and possibly also Madagascar. The sum charged is about £6 per year per dhow."
      902
      The fact that the French flag shelters the worst slave trading in the world is a curious comment upon Cardinal Lavigerie's crusade; and although I most heartily sympathize with that noble man in his efforts to put down the Slave Trade, yet I think the first lesson needed is for him to teach the French nation and the French Republic that they should do something to prevent the carrying on of the Slav© Trade under the French flag. The subject has been dealt with so exhaustively by previous speakers that I need not add more to these few words in support of the Resolution.
      *SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I think the House must feel it a pleasure to get away from virulent Party attacks, and to turn to a subject which must awaken in all English breasts a feeling of generosity and hope. Previous speakers have touched but lightly on the losses we have sustained in the Dark Continent; and I might mention that on this very day we have heard of the loss of a man who did good service to his country, not only in office at home, but in Suakin and other places in Africa—namely, Mr. Guy Dawnay, whose loss we all deplore. In placing before the House a few considerations as to the shortcomings of this country with regard to the Slave Trade, I may mention, first, the question of the Soudan; secondly, the question of Zanzibar and the coast below Zanzibar; thirdly, the question of the Congo; and, fourthly, the question of the Gold Coast. I would ask any fair and honest man in this House whether any greater encouragement was ever given to the Slave Trade than was given to it by the abandonment of the Soudan? Surely, even if it was thought by some people to be right that the Soudan and the Egyptian garrisons should be given up, our duty still was clear in regard to the Slave Trade. We have lost a Gordon, but there is one of his lieutenants still remaining—Emin Pasha—who still occupies the Equatorial Provinces, has done his duty nobly and gallantly maintaining civilization in the country which we abandoned. What ought to have been our great object with regard to all that country? If we had had the pluck to do what a great nation ought to have done, we should not only have under

      903
      our control the whole country up to Khartoum, now again the centre of the Slave Trade, but we should be able to go through the 500 miles of independent country between Emin Pasha and the Congo River. When Belgium undertook great commercial interest on the Congo, it might have been thought that Belgium would determine that slavery should be put a stop to; but when Stanley started from Zanzibar to relieve Emin Pasha, he took with him Tippoo Tib, the greatest slave trader in the world. Tippoo Tib has since been appointed Governor of Stanley Palls, and, instead of giving up the Slave Trade, does just as he did before, to the great disgrace and discredit of those who employed him. Then, what has taken place at Zanzibar? Mr. Stanley has stated clearly that when he got to Zanzibar he was astonished at the state of affairs there. He found that the Germans had been placed in possession of a large tract of coast. The trade with which we had been connected had been entirely destroyed, and the colonization of the Germans, however well-intentioned, had ended in a stupendous blow being dealt not against, but in favour of, the Slave Trade. We ought to have demanded compensation for the injuries which our British-Indian subjects have suffered. That is a subject which demands the serious consideration of this country, and we ought to do everything in our power to protect their interests. It is not too late even now, and I venture to hope the Government will have the courage to demand from Germany that compensation which our British-Indian subjects so fully deserve. And briefly now let me touch upon this question as it concerns the Gold Coast. What is the town in the neighbourhood—in the immediate neighbourhood—of the Gold Coast, which furnishes the largest number of slaves for sale in the course of the year? Why, it is the town of Salagha, 120 miles from our frontier. There are never less than 20,000 slaves sold there every year. Even our own people are in the habit of buying 6,000 or 8,000 slaves, who are taken back to the Gold Coast, and the authorities know it to be done; but, because these slaves are exchanged for goods and the trade is prosperous, it is allowed to go on. Why should we not
      904
      do as we did before in the case of our Possessions in the West Indies, and put a stop to this horrible trade? The largest town in our Protectorate near the Slave Market is Panto, containing 5,000 inhabitants. My authority was in Salagha in time to see the arrival of two caravans, the one containing 400, the other 500 slaves. He saw an old woman of 80 bought for a few cowries of the value of 8s., to look after five or six little children from two to ten years old, who were sold at the same time. The men to be sold came in after a march of two or three months, with their right hands tied in a knot behind their necks, and from the first to the last a rope was passed through, so that the Arab dealers, if they pulled it, could drag down all these men at once. To the north and north-west of our Gold Coast there is a country densely populated, but which has never been explored by Europeans. The people there are all pagans, and there is a certain King Jaberima there, who has 15,000 men, mostly mounted, and all well armed. They are Mahommedans. With them he besieges villages and towns, carries off the men, women, and children, and kill the men who resist. All the men who fight he mows down unmercifully. Salagha is comparatively close to our frontier, and we ought to show our willingness to forego anything we might otherwise gain, and make a start and do something in the interest of those unfortunate creatures. All these facts can be verified by two gentlemen in this country at present. I do not like to weary the House by too many statements of this kind, because there will be many hon. Members anxious to speak, but these are matters which certainly deserve our most serious consideration. There is another subject which is of interest to the House in which I would say a word. I hold in my hand a letter written in August by Mr. Bonner to Mr. Jamieson, which states that Mr. Stanley has arrived at Unana, some 500 or 600 miles from Stanley Falls, bringing with him 130 Zanzibarese, and 66 of Emin Pasha's porters. That shows that Emin Pasha was able to give him a certain number of porters. All Stanley's own followers would appear to have been dissipated in some way or other, but it would seem that Emin

      905
      Pasha has been able not only to hold his own, but has been in a position to give Stanley a certain number of porters. I will not read anything further in the letter, as it is a sad subject to me. I feel most grateful to all my friends who have so kindly expressed their sympathy to me in my terrible loss, and I certainly feel grateful to my country for having valued as it has done the services of my poor son. This brings me to the great question of what must be done in the present condition of affairs. It seems to me that the first thing is to determine, and having determined, to maintain those spheres of influence which we have laid down for ourselves. I am one of those who are bold enough to think that this is not a policy too great for this country. We ought to know our own minds, and not to give in to any other nation. We have said that our sphere of influence should extend from the south to the Zambesi, the magnificent waterway up which so many of our missionaries have lost their lives. Our missionaries, with the Bible in their hands, whom we as a nation are bound in every way to protect, have been the pioneers into those regions. I am proud in this connection to mention a Sussex man, Bishop Hannington, sans peur et sans reproche, who has done everything that a good and religious man could do for the work he took in hand. But he is only a type of those who have gone forth to proclaim the glad tidings to those unfortunate people whom, I hope, we shall never neglect. Portugal is a country we should help in every way in our power; but she is not a colonizing country like England. I say, with pride, that there is no other nation which has the same gift of colonization as the English nation has. We ought to deal liberally with Portugal, but at the same time we should ask for Delagoa Bay. We have lands on the West Coast we could well exchange with Portugal. It is only by stating what we want and what lands we are prepared to throw our protecting shield over that a great country like ours can do its duty. But there is another question. Operations by land have been talked about—though they have been touched upon very lightly, because the question, as everyone knows, is a difficult one. Such operations may in certain eventualities from time to time be necessary, but I
      906
      will put that question aside. We have companies, the East Africa Company, for example, at this moment anxious to do their duty. The East Africa Company has a large tract of land running up to the Albert Nyanza, and we know from Mr. Mackenzie that nothing has been left undone on their part to obtain the affections of the natives. That is the best civilizing influence that can be used. We are bound to give these countries every aid and protection in our power, especially by sea. Well, there is another company proposed to operate in the neighbourhood of Suakin. Nothing, it seems to me, would do more good to the neighbourhood of Suakin than if we could get a company to go there. I deeply regret that the railway between that place and Berber has never been carried out. If we had had the pluck which some of our ancestors possessed, we might have sent a little expedition across the country, and then Gordon would have been still alive; and if we had the railway, though we should prevent a good deal of traffic going down the Nile, we should have turned it in a direction where it would be a great deal more profitable, and where it would operate as a material safeguard against the Slave Trade. It is because I believe that companies are anxious to undertake the arduous duty of extending the civilizing influence of this country and will carry out the duty loyally that I press this particular question on Her Majesty's Government. I will only say in conclusion that, as one of the greatest nations in the world, as the country which has done more than any other to promote civilization, we ought to do all that lies in our power to promote the peace, civilization, prosperity, and happiness of these people.
      MR. MACNEILL: The hon. Member who has moved this Resolution possesses an hereditary interest in this question, and I personally cannot but feel a national interest in it, as I remember that the great man who for 13 years in this House fought the battle of freedom acknowledged his obligations to the Irish Members of the Unreformed Parliament of that day. As far as I remember, this Resolution is in the very words of the Resolution which stirred the great heart of humanity and the conscience of the world at the great meeting held in Prince's Hall when

      907
      Cardinal Lavigerie made his magnificent speech. Bishop Hannington, whom I have the honour of knowing, and Bishop Smythies, who knows more of this portion of Africa than any other man, are in exact accord with the Mover of the Resolution, that no great good is to be expected from armed expeditions into the interior. Bishop Smythies writes that where a British mission is established, there slavery gradually disappears in all its worst forms, and that missionary zeal is the only effective remedy for the evil. The Bishop further writes that great good will also combine to declare the Slave Trade piracy and to act on the declaration. I believe also that we might reckon on the co-operation of Mahommedan Powers. It is true that the Koran recognizes domestic slavery; but the sanctity of the conjugal tie is respected and children are not separated from their parents. In spite of the many revolting features of American slavery the owners always had regard to the health and productive capabilities of their slaves. But no such mitigating circumstances exists in the hideous traffic in Africa with which this country has so long contended. There ought to be no difficulty in obtaining a Conference of the European Powers, for on this question there are no jealousies of nationality, no parties, no conflicting interests. It is a question upon which all the countries of Europe are united by the bonds of human sympathy. I have great pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
      *SIR L. PELLY: There is no question concerning the evils of slavery, although the domestic slavery in Asia is not, perhaps, so cruel a crime as was that of predial slavery in the West, where a white man might drive a nigger to death for the sake of enhanced profits in sugar, or what not. Still, whatever may be the shades of difference in slavery, slavery is everywhere so great an evil, that every man in this House will do his utmost to put a stop, not only to the Slave Trade, but to the status of slavery. But how is this to be done? It does not necessarily follow that, because this widely-spread evil pervades two Continents, therefore the Government of these Islands should feel itself bound to cope with and able to destroy it. Nevertheless, we have done what we could in many ways. We have for generations past maintained
      908
      Her Majesty's ships along the East Coast of Africa, watching the slave craft, destroying dhows, and enfranchising slaves. I know from my own official experience in the territories of Zanzibar that so long ago as 1861 this country was assured that if it would only persevere in its naval operations against the Slave Trade for a few years longer, that trade would be extinguished. Yet now, in 1889, we are told on authority that the Slave Trade is more active and thriving than ever, and the Resolution now before us declares, on the face of it, that it is in consequence of the increase and extension of the trade that the Resolution itself is framed, and that it is because the time is opportune that the Resolution proposes an International Conference, and expresses a hope that countries like Turkey, Arabia, and Persia may be induced to abolish the status of slavery. Well, one thing is plain, that the use of naval force during a generation, along the East Coast of Africa has admittedly failed. No doubt the ships we are now able to station between the Mozambique Channel and the Gulf of Aden are both swifter and in every way superior to the five-knot gunboats that used to steam with green wood after swift dhows in 1861. But still it is absurd to suppose that half a dozen vessels, dependent upon coal, can successfully watch the indentations of a savage coast-line, beset with coral reefs and rapid currents, and extending from 18 degrees south latitude to 11 degrees north. Nor is it to be expected that the Admiralty will permanently retain on the East Coast the force with which they have complemented the German Squadron in the blockade. I am aware it is understood that the Islands of Pemba and Zanzibar are now to be blockaded, and no doubt the present blockading squadron can lay out their boats and encircle these Islands, and drive the Arabs there ashore up into a corner. But what then? Suppose you find the Arabs, you cannot touch them. They will embark in their craft under your very noses, and sail off to the mainland, where they will again prosecute their nefarious trade. But to return to the Resolution. I confess my inability to concur with the Mover that the present time is particularly opportune for Her Majesty's Government

      909
      volunteering a leading part in an International Conference for the suppression of slavery in the East. There was a time, and I witnessed it, when the representation of the United Kingdom was tenfold more powerful than it is at present. Aye, from the Indus along the coast of Mekran, round the shore line of the Gulfs of Persia and Oman, along the coast of the Arabian Peninsular, thence across to Capo Guardafui, and so along the East Coast of Africa to the borders of the Portuguese Settlements, the word of the British Representative was almost law. But those days are gone. I do not attribute the decadence to any question connected with the Slave Trade in particular, but rather to the evolution of European States, and to the opening of the Suez Canal. But the fact remains that in Asia and Africa we are not what we were, and that the present day, as compared with days gone by, cannot be regarded as opportune. Again, the Mover of the Resolution suggests the most desirable object of inducing Turkey, Arabia, and Persia to abolish within their several territories the status of slavery, for he, doubtless, feels that in this, as in other trades, supply will endeavour to follow demand. It is likely that, if powerful combined pressure be brought to bear on Persia she will make promises, but will she, can she, fulfil them? Her slave demand is one which rests upon national opinion, and I venture to question whether there be any sudden, exterior cure for an ancient social disease. Anyway, if Persia does crush the slave status, she has become a very different country from what she was when I resided 11 years within her limits. Nevertheless, by all means try a Conference; try moral force, as physical force has failed. One hon. Member has cited an instance in which the commander of a British man-of-war, lying in the Cove of Muscat, ordered a fugitive slave off his deck. Well, he was lying in territorial waters, and his proper course would have been to communicate with the British Consul and the Sultan. But if you will neither apply to your own civil authority, nor to the head of the State, nor to his functionaries, what can you expect? I can only say that the Sultan of Muscat has never failed to respond to my wishes when I have made a similar
      910
      application to him. But, be all that as it may, of this rest assured—that boats scouring along the shore line of the East Coast of Africa will incur many dangers, will harass trade, and, as experience has amply shown, achieve no practical permanent good.
      MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: The House must feel the force of the observations of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. The weight of experience and the great knowledge which he possesses on this question entitle us to regard with the greatest respect whatever falls from him upon this question. A Conference limited in its operations and kept within well-defined limits might be valuable, but a Conference such as has been suggested, not in this but in previous debates, might give rise to serious commercial and political complications, which might be extremely detrimental and prejudicial to the object which we have in view. Where is the Slave Trade, and where is it to be dealt with? I suppose it may be assumed that, at any rate at present, it is impossible to reach the Slave Trade at its source. You can only do that by a gradual process of civilization. Therefore, you are compelled to grapple with the Slave Trade at its outset, which is almost entirely confined to the littoral of the Red Sea. It is perfectly true that there is a considerable Slave Trade along the coast of Zanzibar, I think it would not be a difficult thing for the Government to conclude a Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, whereby a system of registration might be introduced, and the gradual extinction of the Slave Trade so effected. I understand from authoritative sources that the Sultan of Zanzibar is disposed to treat with the English Power and with no other European Powers. But where is this great evil of the Slave Trade chiefly to be found? Along the Red Sea, and its destination is Jeddah, and it is distributed by various channels through a large extent of Asia Minor. Considering the relations which we hold with Turkey, it is a perfect scandal that an open slave market should be permitted to exist at Jeddah. I ask the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Fergusson) whether it is possible for Her Majesty's Government to make such representations to the Sultan of Turkey as will finally stop this slave market at Jeddah? The traffic is carried on by

      911
      means of dhows, which chiefly convey the slaves across the Red Sea at night time. The means of suppressing the Slave Trade consists of some five gunboats which steam at the rate of about five knots. I would suggest to the hon. Baronet the necessity of organizing an Intelligence Department, whereby information would be afforded as to the movements of slave dhows along the coast. Now, from information which recently appeared in the French journals, it would appear that the Arab slave dealers have the most perfect system of information. They know the whereabouts of Her Majesty's boats, and the information is conveyed through various channels along the coast, and they seize the time for transmitting their slaves across the channel, when they know there is no probability of an effective prevention by Her Majesty's vessels. I should wish to point out that for immediate purposes something of a useful character might be effected by the organization on the part of the Government of an Intelligence Department which could employ gunboats steaming rapidly along the coast, and performing duties that would put a stop to the Slave Market at Jeddah. I do not think there would be any difficulty in putting an end to the present abuse of the French flag, and I trust that the right hon. Baronet will be able to state that a Convention will speedily be concluded between Her Majesty's Government and that of France, whereby that abuse will once for all be stopped.
      *SIR R. TEMPLE: As the House is aware, I never rise to address it unless I have had some experience—often of a hard and laborious character—in regard to at least some portion of the subject under debate. Of course, I cannot pretend to a knowledge of the vast region, comprised in this debate, extending from about 1,500 south of the Equator to about 1,500 miles north of the Line; but, at any rate, I do know something of the North East Coast of the African Continent, inasmuch as I have had to govern Aden, which is a coaling station and port opposite the north-eastern corner, and also the islands of Socotra outside, and of Perim, a maritime station inside the strait of the Red Sea. I have had to do with the political affairs of the Red Sea and the Persian
      912
      Gulf, and especially the Consulate of Jeddah. Therefore, I have had some practical experience in relation to the question under discussion, and I cannot but express the hope that, whatever may be the result of this debate, whether it may lead to a Conference or not, whether we decide on stopping the slave traffic at its source, or on arresting it at its outlets, at all events it will go forth to England and to the world at large that the British House of Commons does, from the bottom of its heart, denounce this African slavery as the greatest of all crimes perpetrated under Heaven in this, the nineteenth century. I trust also that it will this evening register a vow that, as far as in it lies, it will do its very utmost to suppress this most inhuman and infernal traffic. This country has preponderating power in the north-west of Africa, and we are one of the several Powers among which the control of the central continent is divided. In the first place we have, most honourably to ourselves, created and maintained missionary establishments throughout the length and breadth of the country. These missionaries fortunately have friends in England who can make their voices heard within the walls of this House. We have establishments on the Zambesi, we have influence on the Congo, we have jurisdiction on the Gold Coast and on the Niger, we have domination over Egypt, and last December we resolved to keep Suakin. Whether our resolve in this latter respect was right or wrong, having decided to keep Suakin, we are bound to fulfil the responsibilities of that position, and the most important of these has reference to the Slave Trade. Now this hateful traffic exists from one end of that vast continent to the other, and it is said to be on the increase. To this description the southern part of the Continent under British influence or jurisdiction is the sole exception. It is most truly heartrending to read the tales, which are told, as I believe, with scarcely a tinge of exaggeration, of the horrors attending, not so much the Slave Trade, as the process of slave capture, and the bringing away of the victims from the interior of the country to the coast with a terrific loss of African life. From numerous regions in Africa, from the sources of the Zambesi, from the

      913
      upper reaches of the Congo, where Livingstone once laboured, from the heart of the Dark Continent itself, from the sources of the Niger, from the shores of Lake Tchad, from the head waters of the Nile and its lower mid-valley, from the coast of Zanzibar—from each and all of these portions of the great African territory the blood of murdered Africans cries aloud to Heaven. We have listened to the testimony of African travellers, such as Speke and Grant, and Livingstone and Cameron—all of whom furnish ample evidence of the extent to which this abominable traffic prevails. Besides our power in Africa we possess much influence elsewhere. We have influence with Turkey, Arabia, Persia, and other Asiatic regions, and that influence we are bound to exercise in order to put down this nefarious trade which is carried on by the Arabs, a race which forms the most important factor in Africa. Born beneath the cloudless skies of Arabia, in a climate that nerves the physical energies, and hardens the character, they have left their arid fatherland and crossed the Red Sea to the fertile tracts of Africa. Thus they have acquired a domination over the whole of the Northern and Central Continent, which for centuries they have held. Not more surely does the Indian tiger track down and prey upon the deer, the antelope, and the gazelle than do these Arab hunters—I will not call them traders—pursue and prey upon the flesh and blood and muscle—nay upon the very lives—of these poor Africans. The Arabs constitute indeed a prime mover in most of the political movements connected with the African Continent. What is it that has disturbed the relations between the German Establishment near Zanzibar and the natives? The slave trade and the influence of the Arabs. What was it that made Egyptian rule impossible in the Soudan? The slave trade and the Arabs. What was it that nerved the soldiers of the Mahdi in the gallant resistance they offered to the trained discipline and scientific arms of our English troops? Why, the slave trade. Every one of the men who thus opposed us was either a slave holder or a slave trader, or both combined. These Arab hordes come swooping down like the simoom wind of their Arabian deserts, on the villages of
      914
      the native races—carrying off the women and children when the men are away at work, so the men return home at eventide to find their cottages desolate. Or, haply, the Arabs, coming across the men when they are engaged in the fields, bear them straight away, leaving the women and children to mourn the husbands and fathers who will never return. What then happens we are too well acquainted with. The victims of both sexes thus seized and captured are marched first through the moist and temperate regions, where they are still in their native climate; then they are dragged across the dry and torrid portions of the country, where they sink and faint by the way, or are slaughtered to save the cost of transport. A remnant at last reaches the mid-valley of the Nile, where they are packed on board the river boats like herrings in a barrel, where most of them die of putrid fever, the result being that only about one in 30 of those originally captured are actually sold into slavery and sent to foreign countries. Now, Sir, we have heard from the hon. Member for Hackney that the real cause of the slave trade is the demand for slaves in Asiatic countries. The demand in the interior of Africa is very great and beyond control, and until civilization shall be spread throughout that continent, I know of no way in which it can be stopped, except, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of the British Gold Coast border, as mentioned by the hon. Baronet. But something may be done for Asiatic countries; and may I ask the attention of the House to this subject from a geographical point of view? In that regard we have two points at which we might stop the traffic—the mouth of the Bed Sea and the entrance of the Persian Gulf. The Bed Sea is like a bottle, of which the strait of Babel Mandeb is the neck. Inside the neck is the Island of Perim, which I have already mentioned. The Persian Gulf is also like a bottle, opening out into the Sea of Oman. Its neck is formed by a promontory of Arabia jutting out right opposite the territory of Mekran. Both straits are narrow, only a few miles in breadth. The necks of these two bottles could, if England chose, be stopped against the slave trade by her gunboats and cruisers. I may be asked why I did not do that

      915
      when I had the power. When I was Governor of Bombay I never had at my disposal a sufficient maritime force for that purpose. We had but 13 or 14 vessels for all the East Indian Seas. The Member for Hackney, who spoke despondingly somewhat, mentioned a miserable force only of a very few gunboats. Of course, we could not check the slave trade without some maritime force being detailed for the purpose. If I had now placed at my disposal such limited naval force as I might ask for, I would undertake to stop any slaver entering the Red Sea or Persian Gulf, and if they do not enter there I do not see how these human cargoes are to be got into Asia. It may be said that between the mouth of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf there is a long stretch of Hadramant territory, but there are few facilities for landing on that coast, and we might almost certainly stop the slave trade there. There, too, is situated Muscat, where the ruler (as mentioned by the Member for Hackney) can be induced to co-operate. In the Red Sea there are the two ports of Massowah and Suakin. The former is in the hands of the Italians, whose co-operation may be secured, and the latter is in our own. Then there is the great slave market of Jeddah. The fact that it is a great slave market is one of the principal reasons that a British Consulate has been established there for the purpose of putting a spoke in the wheel of the slave traders, and nothing could be easier than for our gunboats and cruisers to bar the entrance to Jeddah. Much might be done in this direction by diplomatic negotiations in Asiatic countries where we have influence. Of course too much reliance must not be placed in Mahommedans in a matter of this sort; as observed by a preceding speaker, they are too apt to make promises which they cannot fulfil. I do not know whether there is any text in the Koran approving slavery, but it must be remembered that wherever Mahommedanism has existed, slave-owning also has prevailed. With regard to vessels sailing under the flag of France, it is important to come to an understanding with her; if we allow slavers bearing our flag to be searched, she might allow the same for slavers carrying her flag. In dealing with the slave trade, I may add that we require
      916
      steam launches of small draught, so that we might pursue the dhows in shallow water and capture them. Certainly, as remarked by the hon. Proposer of the Resolution, we need legal power to treat slaver crews as pirates. As to arms, as mentioned by the hon. Member, it was shown in the debates of last December that, but for our prevention, Suakin would drive a roaring trade, the exports being human creatures, the imports being guns, shot, and shell! In conclusion, I desire to express the hope that the country may be assured, by the passing of some Resolution, that the House is unanimous in its practical detestation of the evil of the slave trade, and is determined to put an end to it so far as the means available to us will permit. The action taken in years past by Members of the Liberal Party for the suppression of the slave trade may be numbered among the most glorious traditions of the Liberal Party and among the brightest jewels of the Liberal crown. But I must not attribute to them a monopoly in a good cause. As my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London reminds me, there were heroes of humanity on the Conservative side of the House also. As these humane principles of the past generation seem to be still preserved by the Liberal Party, so they are also by the Conservative Party, and if the pleas for suffering humanity are sounded on the opposite side of the House, they find an echo from the Ministerial Benches.
      *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The debate which has been raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar has been somewhat remarkable, as it has attracted an unanimous expression from all parts of the House. Such a debate cannot be without advantage, because, however desirous any Government may be to advance in the path in which their Predecessors have done so much, it requires, no doubt, a popular impulse to strengthen their hands, even in a national policy. Sir, although there has been little difference of opinion expressed the question has been regarded from many points of view. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion had, as has been justly observed, an hereditary right to take an interest in this subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, who seconded the Motion, has not this

      917
      evening for the first time attempted to excite the interest of the House in the cause of the suppression of the slave trade. It is well that from time to time we should be reminded of our duties in this matter. The hon. Member for Poplar has kindly recognized the fact that Her Majesty's Government have not been indifferent to this cause; and he has referred to the despatch which Lord Salisbury addressed to the Government of Belgium in September last, and which was undoubtedly a fresh departure in this matter. Well, Sir, that despatch indicated a desire on the part of the Government to secure the co-operation of the other Powers who had previously been allied with this country in the suppression of the slave trade in a fresh endeavour suited to the times. The hon. Member, while approving of that step, referred to another matter; he touched upon the great step which was taken by the Government in the course of last autumn, along with Germany, for the more active suppression of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa—namely, the joint naval operations in that quarter. I could have wished that the hon. Member had not dropped one sentence in which he expressed some want of faith in the sincerity of our allies. If, however faintly, that sentiment was expressed, the hon. Member subsequently answered himself on that point in the latter part of his speech, because he pointed out that Prince Bismarck had also sought the co-operation of the other Powers of Europe. I cannot understand with what justice we can assume for ourselves entire honesty, sincerity, and disinterestedness in our endeavours to suppress the slave trade if, at the same time, we throw doubts on the sincerity of other Powers. I do not know why we should be regarded as the only people sincerely desirous of suppressing the slave trade. Christianity and humane sentiments are not confined to ourselves, I suppose, and at all events, Her Majesty's Government could not have done otherwise than accept the co-operation which was extended to us by the German Government for more active operations on the East Coast of Africa. Now, Sir, the hon. Member referred to the hindrances to beneficial operations that have resulted from the collision between the German East African Company and the Arabs, and he has spoken
      918
      of the Germans as an irritant influence in that quarter. I do not wish in the least to shrink from distinct reference to the subject. Let it be remembered that we have had great experience in dealing with Oriental nations, yet our contact with Eastern nations has not always been attended with success; but by long acquaintance with them we have been able to maintain relations with and to control Oriental Powers without humiliating ourselves, and so our new efforts at colonization may have met with more success than those of other nations. But it is natural that other Christian Powers should also have the desire for expansion and colonization; and when the great Empire of Germany was formed, it was only natural that the people of that Empire should feel a desire to form colonies as we had done. They are a kindred race to us, and there is no reason why they should not be as successful in colonization as we have been. In the British Colonies, where I have had the honour to hold a commission as Governor, I found the Germans among the most useful, enterprizing, and orderly of colonists; and it is natural to suppose that those who have done so well under our flag and under that of the United States should also form Colonies of their own which should become to their Empire a Germany beyond the sea. Let us hope that the troubles which have attended the first operations of the German East African Company will come to an end, and that they will be enabled to extend the blessings of civilization and commerce in that continent as we have to some extent been able to do ourselves. We may hope that the Imperial Commissioner who has gone there to control operations will be able to bring to an end the unfortunate collisions that have occurred. Now, Sir, the hon. Member spoke as if there had been, in consequence of these unhappy events, a failure of our operations on the coast, but that is far from being the case. Happily we have had as yet few troubles in the sphere of our own interests. It would be premature to speak of what might happen in the future among the excitable races we have to deal with; but at present there has been a good foundation laid for colonizing operations in East Africa by means of the chartered company which we have established there. And as to the

      919
      suppression of the slave trade by means of our operations in concert with those of Germany, there has been an almost entire cessation of the seaboard slave trade for several months past. I believe Her Majesty's ships have visited between 600 and 700 craft on the coast within the last few months, and have not found a single slave on board. That shows that the more active operations which have been lately taking place have not been without result. The season is approaching in which the slave traders are usually more active, and their operations will require the close attention of our ships and their officers to prevent an increase in the slave trade. But these measures cannot be taken without great exertions and considerable expense. When hon. Members talk so easily of the suppression of the Slave Trade, and of occupying important points on the coast, they must remember it would require a larger number of Her Majesty's ships than could well be spared. These things must be done on system, and your net could not be so wide as to close a traffic which has gone on so long, and in which so many are, unfortunately, interested. Now, Sir, I do not like to omit noticing another point taken by the hon. Member for Poplar, and I hardly think it was worth his while to refer to the fact that, at the Congress of Berlin, the British Representatives declined to enter into the question of the Slave Trade with some people who went over to Berlin for the purpose of directing the attention of the Plenipotentiaries to it. Remember, their attention was really engrossed by other subjects, and that rendered the discussion of the Slave Trade inopportune. During the last 15 years Her Majesty's Government, of whatever Party, have given no reason to believe that there has been indifference to the hereditary duty of repressing and suppressing the Slave Trade—a matter in which we know no Parties. In 1871 there was an inquiry by a Committee of this House, and the result of it was the expedition of the late Sir Bartle Frere to Zanzibar, and a better understanding of the mischiefs of the Slave Trade than ever existed before. Following on that visit a ship was permanently stationed at Zanzibar, from which boats were continually sent to intercept slave traders leaving the ports of Africa. Although the London has been
      920
      withdrawn, both from motives of economy and efficiency, it is an open question whether the system adopted since has been more satisfactory and, in the end, more economical than the system of having a stationary ship. In order to carry on the blockade of the coast against the exportation of slaves and the importation of arms, we have had to concentrate a number of vessels on that coast, which it is impossible for us to permanently maintain there; and therefore it is questionable whether it would be judicious again to have a stationary ship or some barracks on shore, from which swift vessels could go out to intercept the departure of the dhows from the mainland. Since 1873 there have also been conventions with Egypt and with Turkey for the entire suppression of the slave trade, and it has been acknowledged that this has conduced to very efficient results in the diminution of slavery in those countries. Something has been said as to the insincerity of the Ottoman Government in their undertaking to suppress the slave trade, and it has been pointed out that a large part of the Turkish dominions contains the chief market for the slaves from the coast of Africa. It is undoubtedly the fact that the Arabian coast is the great slave market, and that a large portion of it is under the protectorate of the Turkish Government. But I do not think that it is possible to hold the Turkish Government responsible for all the violation of the conventions in that respect. In a previous debate on this subject—I think in the month of November—I told the House that there had undoubtedly been an increase of activity on the part of Turkish officers in the neighbourhood of Jeddah to suppress the Slave Trade, and I am now glad to say that about ten days ago the Government heard of very active steps having been taken by a Governor in that district to discover where slaves were concealed who had been run across the Red Sea. A raid was made on Mecca, Jeddah, and some other places, resulting in the discovery of several hundred slaves, who received their manumission. Undoubtedly we have many difficulties both by land and sea to contend with. One of the great difficulties we have to encounter is the refusal of the French Government to join the other Christian nations in allowing mutual right of search and the capture

      921
      of vessels under the French flag who are found to be engaged in the Slave Trade. The Treaty of 1841 between Austria, Great Britain, France, Prussia, and Russia for the suppression of the African Slave Trade was assented to by the representative of France; but the Government of France did not ratify the Treaty. France has always been jealous of permitting the ships of other nations to visit vessels flying her flag and, in the case of the Slave Trade, to exercise the right of capture. That is a very unfortunate circumstance, because there are great numbers of native vessels which obtain licences from French Consular Agents on account of the protection which the French flag legitimately gives, and which abuse it. The abuse of the French flag in the way of slavery is not a thing of yesterday. For half a century it has been a matter of frequent report and complaint. I believe that the French Government and people are by no means wanting in the sense of disgrace which attaches to their flag by this abuse, and I know that there are French Consular and Naval officers on the East Coast of Africa who were active in endeavouring to suppress the abuse. But, nevertheless, the fact exists that one of the great hindrances to the proceedings of the German and the British Naval officers on the East Coast of Africa has been the prevalence of vessels flying the French flag. They have only to display their papers to secure immunity from capture, and slaves have been landed in the Island of Pemba, and other places, within sight of the British and German cruisers. Something has also been said about the blockade not having been useful in the suppression of the Slave Trade, and having operated as a hindrance. That is a mistake. Had it not been for the proclamation of a blockade, according to the law of nations, we should have had no right to search French vessels, but the blockade having been established along the great line of coast, all vessels can be visited, and it is open to cruisers to seize any vessels having slaves on board, and take them into Zanzibar; and the result of that power has been to paralyze the seaborne Slave Trade on that coast. But other remedies are undoubtedly needed. The hon. Member for Poplar and others have pointed out the necessity of something much
      922
      more vigorous being required to deter persons from continuing this cruel and devastating trade. It has been suggested that it should be made punishable as piracy to carry slaves, and that persons engaged in the trade should be sentenced to death. At present, as the House knows well, we have a Treaty with many nations which engaged us to declare the Slave Trade piracy, which gives us mutual right of search, and enables us to carry vessels found with slaves on board into port; but the traders can only be tried according to the law of their own country. In the United States men have been executed for the crime. It is highly desirable that the slave-trader should be punishable by the country whose ship has captured him and that the penalty of death should be attached to the offence, which involves not only murder, but the murder of many human beings for the enslavement of one. Then, again, it is exceedingly necessary there should be a general agreement; we should be glad, therefore, if the Powers of Europe could be induced to meet and deliberate upon the most suitable measures for the purpose which they have long had in common, and if the Government of France could be induced to join on equal terms with other nations and to surrender an immunity which does them no honour. The question of prohibition of arms into Africa is a very difficult question. Cardinal Lavigerie, whose zeal and spirit of benevolence all have recognized, has made a proposal that a corps of Volunteers, supplied with funds to the extent of £40,000, should operate under an International Committee on the line of lakes in Central Africa and interfere with the passage of slave caravans. I must say I think a proposal of that kind does more honour to the Cardinal's heart than to his head. It would be exceedingly difficult and dangerous to carry out. It was not endorsed by the hon. Member for Poplar in his practical speech, and no other Member of the House has given his assent to it. But it does not follow that because Cardinal Lavigerie's scheme in that respect does not commend itself as practical that something in some measure upon its lines may not be thought of. Personally, I think it is not by plunging into the heart of such a country with a corps large or small,

      923
      which, must be supported in case of disaster, that we can best cope with this enormous traffic. Slave hunting in the interior of Africa is of immemorial usage, and seems to be ingrained in the habits of the people. They prey upon each other, and, perhaps, as in the case of the freebooters of old, it is as much for wild sport as from motives of plunder that they engage in it. But it is so widely spread and so deeply rooted in their habits that it cannot be put down by any sudden movement. It must be sapped and mined; it must be approached by gradual operations, by the advance of civilization from many points with a settled purpose, and with common views on the part of civilized nations. We are now operating by means of powerful companies, managed by men of great ability and public spirit, who are animated as much or more by philanthropic motives as by the desire for gain, and the operation of these companies, I believe, will in a few years produce a great effect on the warlike and predatory habits of the tribes of the interior of Africa. Now, the despatch addressed by Lord Salisbury to the Belgian Government in September last has been referred to. There is no doubt that any real effective measures ought to be based on united action. We must have a consensus of international purpose, and that can only be attained by avoiding all international jealousies. Had Her Majesty's Government themselves proposed a Conference to deal with this subject, I think we might possibly have such jealousies. No such feeling whatever has interfered with our co-operation with Germany in the matter; but we might possibly have excited doubts in the minds of some nations as to our altogether disinterested motives if we had ourselves proposed a Conference. At all events, it seemed to Her Majesty's Government more probable that such a proposal would produce beneficial results if made by what I may call a neutral Power. Hence Lord Salisbury, last September, directed Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels to propose to the Belgian Government that they should take the initiative in getting together the Powers interested in the suppression of the Slave Trade, in order to deliberate as to further united measures with that object. The proposal was cordially accepted. The King and the Government of Belgium were perfectly ready
      924
      to serve as an intermediary between the Powers. But, in the meantime, there occurred those unfortunate events on the East Coast of Africa which rendered the summoning of the Conference inopportune. It is, therefore, postponed, but not sine die. I think that the debate that has taken place to-night cannot fail to give a new impulse to the movement; and it was one of those impulses which, when supported by all Parties in the House, as this has been to-night, must produce a powerful effect in this country, and perhaps also abroad. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Kennaway) referred to the blockade of the East Coast of Africa, and hoped that it is approaching its end. I am glad to say that the objects of that blockade have been nearly attained. The effect of our vigorous measures cannot possibly but be felt. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Honiton Division, let me say that though it is obvious that good results cannot be expected from in ferior steamers, whose approach can be discerned by the slave dhows, yet good service has been done by the native vessels which have been fitted out for that service. It is only too true that a number of vessels have eluded observation, and that a great deal more must be done before the trade can be stopped. It is also true that the evacuation of the Soudan has led to a revival of the traffic General Gordon had suppressed the trade on the Upper Nile, but, unfortunately, since his death Khartoum has become a centre of the Slave Trade, and slaves are constantly being sent to the Red Sea. Valuable service has, indeed, been done by the enterprize and missionary zeal of Englishmen and Scotchmen in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa. The Government, however, unfortunately cannot guarantee these devoted men protection and succour; but we have expressed our interest in them, and we have, in their interests, represented to the Portuguese Government that they have claims upon us which we cannot disregard. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sussex has sadly earned a personal interest in African affairs. His allegations of participation in the Slave Trade of persons within our Protectorate on the Gold Coast will receive attention; but as to his remarks in reference to the action of Germany, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more than that I

      925
      firmly believe it was our duty to join with Germany in vigorous efforts to suppress the slave traffic on the East Coast; and after the painful experience we have had, I trust we may proceed on better lines to the accomplishment of the good work on which we have been engaged. As to the losses suffered by British Indian subjects, we much regret these; but it was beyond our power, beyond the power of anyone, to prevent those who are engaged in peaceful avocations from suffering loss when warlike operations are proceeding. These British Indian subjects have earned, I believe, the confidence of all parties; and I make no doubt that when quietness and order is restored their influence will continue. The descriptions of the horrors of the Slave Trade we have heard are not, I believe, in the least overdrawn. Our efforts to stop the traffic on land may not be effectual; but certainly we can make successful efforts to stop the trade at sea. Every possible opportunity will be taken to prevent the massacres and cruelties which have made that sunny land one of the blackest spots on the face of the earth. In that way we shall perform the duty handed down to us by our forefathers, and shall fulfil the just expectations of the country, which expects Her Majesty's Government to carry on this holy cause. And now let me say a few words on the Motion of the hon. Member. I hope that he will recognize that Her Majesty's Government are in no wise hostile to it. As the Motion runs, however, it would be hardly in accordance with diplomatic usage. It would be more convenient, I think, and more likely to attain the object of my hon. Friend, if he would leave out the words after "steps" down to "devise," so that the Motion would read—
      "That Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to take steps to ascertain whether the Powers signatory are willing to meet in Conference for the purpose of discussing such measures for its repression."
      If the hon. Member will be good enough to adopt these words, Her Majesty's Government will be very glad to accept the Motion.
      *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Just a word or two in reply. I need hardly say that I am glad the Government have so cordially accepted the Motion; and certainly I agree to the amended form proposed, and anticipate that it will be
      926
      accepted unanimously. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I may notice one omission: he did not touch, upon the question of the abolition of the status of slavery which we regard as one of the chief objects of an International Conference. I will only add that we recognize, as I am sure the country at large will, the intention of the Government to move in this matter, and that whether the Government make London the central home of the Conference or prefer to rely upon Belgium as an intermediary is to us equally satisfactory.
      *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: If I may be allowed, I would mention this omitted point to which the hon. Member has called my attention. I am afraid that there would be great difficulty in Her Majesty's Government proposing to Mahommedan countries to abolish the institution of slavery. Compulsory servitude of a domestic character is a different thing from the traffic in slaves, and these most important and necessary reforms must be gradual. We were unable to abolish slavery even in Her Majesty's Dominions without paying a large amount of compensation.
      *SIR R. FOWLER: I only rise to congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of his Motion, and I trust it may bear fruit and be of great service to the cause of humanity. My hon. Friend has worthily upheld the traditions of his family, as his grandfather advocated the cause in this House for a long course of years.
      *MR. DE LISLE: It is too late now to take up another subject; and I may be allowed a few words. I would endorse the views expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Barttelot), and urge Her Majesty's Government to take energetic steps against the Slave Trade carried on at the Gold Coast. I may mention that some years ago, when I had the honour of serving in the Malay Peninsular under Sir F. Weld, there were districts under the protection of Her Majesty the Queen where slavery in a most revolting form was practised by the natives upon women. Although he was assured that to interfere with a system which had so long had legal sanction would probably lead to rebellion, the Governor of the Straits Settlements came to the determination, after full consideration, that it should be put down, and in six months, and without any great difficulty, the system of

      927
      debt slavery for women was put an end to. Equally successful, I have no doubt, would be energetic measures on the Gold Coast; and I am sure the distinguished officer commanding there would be ready enough to give effect to the wishes expressed by Her Majesty's Government in this direction. As to other points, I may say I regard the suppression of the Slave Trade at Jeddah as of the utmost importance. If the Turkish Government cannot, or will not, use its influence for the suppression of the traffic, then a gunboat or two sent there, and preparations made to bombard the town, would, I am sure, have the desired effect. This infamous trade, especially the mutilation of youths of the male sex, without doubt, is fostered by the Caliph of the Mahomedan Empire, and, therefore, pressure should be applied to him, and the Sultan must be made to feel that his existence in Europe is simply tolerated with a view to the suppression of the Slave Trade. I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will induce France to act in conjunction with us in checking the trade in the Red Sea, and allow dhows carrying the French flag to be searched if suspected of carrying slaves.
      *SIR J. PEASE: With much pleasure I have heard the declaration of Her Majesty's Government as expressed by the Under Secretary, and I am sure the country will approve it. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tone and spirit of the debate which has been manifested on both sides.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      (1.) Resolved, That in view of the present increasing and extending desolations of Africa caused by the Slave Trade, and also of the large responsibilities which European Nations have now assumed in respect to that Continent, the time has come when full and complete effect should be given to those declarations against the Slave Trade which were delivered by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and by the Conference at Verona in 1822.
      (2.) Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to take steps to ascertain whether the Powers, Signatories to the Declarations against the Slave Trade, are willing to meet in Conference for the purpose of devising such measures for its repression as may be at the same time effective and in accordance with justice, and under the regulations of International Law.
      To be presented by Privy Councillors.

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. H. GARDNER: As time is short. I will only say that I have permission to state that Her Majesty's Government offer no objection to this Bill.
      MR. F. S. POWELL: I think we ought to have some explanation of it.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I may, perhaps, say, shortly, that the Government see no objection to the Bill. Its purpose is simply to avoid the necessity of issuing two rates; but it in no way alters the incidence of the rate or the power now vested in authorities. Simply, it proposes that one rate may be levied instead of two, and is, in fact, the application of a principle that has been adopted in previous legislation.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for April 4.

    ALDERMEN (COUNTY COUNCILS) ABOLITION BILL.

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. LONG: The Government cannot possibly accept the Second Reading of this Bill; and, looking at the time, I hope that no attempt will be made to proceed with it now.
      MR. J. ROWLANDS: I must press the Motion for Second Reading.
      Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be read a second time."
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Tomlinson,)
      Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
      The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 69.
      Words added.
      Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
      Second Reading put off for six months.
      And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

ARBITRATION (NO. 2) BILL. (NO. 31.)
A Bill to consolidate the law relating to arbitration—Was presented by The Lord Bramwell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Question proposed, "That Standing Order No. XXXV. be dispensed with for this day's Sitting."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask if the suspension of the Standing Orders applies to every Bill on the Minutes of this day. On the 4th August, 1879, they were suspended for the hurried passage of a Bill for limited liability to Banking Companies—no deliberation was allowed to the Bill by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), then Secretary of State for India—and it received the Royal Assent the day after it had been read a second time. I venture to think that this House ought to reject a Money Bill if it has been passed by the cloture. On the 10th of July, 1884, an extraordinary instance of an attempt at undue haste occurred; there were three Bills on the paper—the Bill appointing a Secretary of State for Scotland—a Bill for Women's Suffrage—and a Bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and the noble Earl (Earl Cairns) wrote to me to postpone the Women's Suffrage Bill, as the House would wish to divide before dinner on the Bill which was next on the minutes to the Women's Suffrage Bill. I did not consent, but all
814
business was suspended soon after. My Lords, with great difficulty I have established the fact that an Order for a Bill to be read on a certain day is, if the House be sitting, a real Order, to be carried out at the end of so many lunar months, and ever after upon Notice, if agreed to by the House. On the 18th March two Bills were postponed for six months. I wished the Order to be changed to two months, and handed a Notice to the Clerk of this House. He refused to issue it, but I believe it is not the duty of the Clerk to reject Notices, but to leave it to the House to alter or reject them. I have twice beaten two different Clerks as to Notices—and maintain my opinion. I would rather sit every day in the week and see Bills considerately carried than agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders, which has been too often resorted to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—Agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
Moved, "That the Earl Beauchamp do take the Chair in the Committee."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)—Agreed to.
House in Committee.
Bill reported without Amendment; read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING ACT, 1872, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill

  815
  I shall not trespass very long upon your Lordships, because the object of the measure is very clearly stated in the Bill itself. I may, in the first place, state that I am not actuated, as some seem to think, by any hostility to the licensed victuallers. They are a most respectable body of men, and men for whom I entertain the greatest possible respect. Some years ago I had the honour of carrying through your Lordships' House a measure interesting to them, and I well know how respectable a body of men they are. The Bill is presented in the interests of the large body of persons who are travellers by railway in this country. No one can deny that railway companies, in issuing tickets to their passengers, are bound to provide proper and reasonable accommodation beyond the undertaking to convey persons to their destination, and it seems to me that there ought to be no want of adequate shelter against wind and storm, and the inclemencies of the weather. I have no doubt when railways were first established waiting rooms were provided at every station, but by degrees they have been gradually diverted from their original purpose and have become refreshment rooms, which are not accessible to the ordinary passengers, in the way they enjoyed them before the change. As I have said, I am not actuated by any hostility to the licensed victuallers or to the refreshment rooms themselves. I will go farther, and say that I am the last person to initiate any legislation for the purpose of unduly controlling or limiting the enjoyments or amusements of the people of this country; but railway passengers are entitled to much better accommodation and protection against wind and weather than that which they obtain at a refreshment room. It cannot be denied that the accommodation is not always forthcoming. My Lords, the object of the Bill is to provide that from and after a certain date, the Justices, in granting or renewing licences for refreshment rooms at railway stations, shall not do so unless they are satisfied that proper accommodation is provided for passengers other than the accommodation for the sale of liquors. My Lords, that is the whole proposition involved in the Bill, and I think your Lordships will say it is a very simple one. Your Lordships may object to the
  816
  machinery for carrying out the provisions of the Bill; you may think that the penalties are too severe, or that the time for reverting to the old state of things is too short; you may think that limitations might be imposed so as to exclude more or less the Metropolitan area; but all those are matters of detail which do not affect the principle of the Bill. There is no doubt that a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors is a very valuable property to those to whom it is granted; and, therefore, I do not think it at all unreasonable or too much to ask that those to whom are granted should be called upon to take care that the licences should be used properly, and not to the annoyance of other persons. In many cases passengers are compelled to wait for long periods at railway stations; sometimes they arrive at a station too soon, sometimes too late, and at junctions the arrangements are such that passengers are often kept waiting a considerable time; and I think it certainly is a most serious grievance that they should, under those circumstances, be put to the great inconvenience and annoyance of waiting in a room where refreshments—including intoxicating liquors—are being served, and where, perhaps, all the company are not in that state of tranquillity or sobriety which might be desirable. Parliament has enacted conditions preliminary to the granting of licences, such as that the premises shall be of a certain value, that certain accommodation should be provided, and regulating the sale of liquors, and so forth; and I do not see why similar or the necessary provisoes should not be insisted on with regard to railway refreshment rooms, so that they should not be used to the inconvenience of the great body of railway passengers. Circulars have been sent out to the public, and it has been said that there is no widespread demand for this measure. My Lords, I have always wondered at the absence of complaints and at the apathy of the public; but of railway passengers it may be said that "sufferance is the badge of all their tribe," and the absence of complaint is probably due to the want of any kind of organization among railway passengers. Railway passengers are not an organized body, and it is obvious they cannot be,

  817
  But there is no reason whatever why Parliament should not take the circumstances of the case into their consideration, and relieve railway passengers of the inconvenience and annoyance to which they are exposed by the sale of intoxicating liquors in the only places of accommodation for waiting at railway stations. My Lords, we have been told that this grievance does not exist, and that waiting rooms are always provided, but such a statement could only be made by those who are not acquainted with the facts of the case. The cases of which I complain are either many or few. If they are many, I suppose that it will be conceded that the grievance requires a remedy; but if they are few, where is the hardship in requiring the few to bring up the level of the accommodation to the adequate arrangements of the many? My Lords, I do not think it necessary to encumber my case by further reference to the argument which is addressed to the invariable providing of waiting accommodation for railway passengers. I do not know whether it would be possible to obtain from the railway companies particulars with regard to the waiting accommodation they provide for the public, and also particulars as to the licences granted for those premises. It is a matter upon which it is hardly possible to get statistics which would be at all reliable. But when all is said and done, I think it is a matter which, in the interest of the public requires Parliamentary interference. My Lords, the principal objection to the Bill appears to be that it would include the stations in the Metropolitan area, but it is a matter for your Lordships to consider, and I should not withdraw the Bill if the Metropolitan area was excluded. It has been urged that the Bill means the suppression of the licences at all the Metropolitan stations, where no such accommodation as that mentioned in the Bill is required, because the stations are all covered in, and passengers have only a few minutes to wait. That argument really seems to me to concede the whole case, and one paper had said that it was impossible to tell what the result of this legislation might be if it was applied to the railways of the Metropolis. My Lords, I should have thought this was a very dangerous argument to advance, because it admits that they do provide refreshment
  818
  rooms, and they do not provide waiting rooms. The passengers, having only a few minutes to wait, have not much time to devote to taking refreshments; and it is obvious to all that immediately adjacent to every Metropolitan station there is ample accommodation for the sale of intoxicating liquors and refreshments. But if your Lordships see fit to exempt the Metropolitan area from the operation of this Bill, I, for one, do not think you should refuse to consult the convenience of railway passengers in this matter all over the United Kingdom. It is not my purpose to argue the question from a temperance point of view, but I do think it is rather hard, when you reflect upon the infirmity of purpose of many classes of mankind, that a man who has no particular desire for refreshments, and having, perhaps, an hour or so to wait for a train, should have to wait in a refreshment room. There might be misgivings in the mind of some as to the desirability of allowing such a state of things that people could not wait even a few minutes at a railway station without having intoxicating liquors brought immediately under their notice. I think it is desirable that persons who are merely waiting for a train, and desiring to obtain shelter from the weather, should be able to get it and to warm themselves at a fire without being exposed to temptation or being placed under an obligation to "take something for the good of the house." I hope your Lordships will see that in the passing of this Bill you will be promoting the convenience of the ordinary railway passengers, and that you will be removing from them a severe temptation to which there is no reason why they should be exposed. The paper of which I have spoken points out that railway companies let their rooms to contractors, and that it would be impossible to make them responsible for the waiting rooms. My Lords, if the railway companies have not sufficient control over these premises, I do not think that is any reason why your Lordships should not interfere, or refrain from making proper legislative arrangements in the matter. But that is all matter of arrangement; and as part of the scheme provision might be made, if it were thought proper, for the railway companies withdrawing those contracts with

  819
  regard to the refreshment rooms. The companies would be liable to compensate the licence holders, in case the contracts were put an end to, and Parliament will act most injudiciously if it refuses to entertain a Bill which is otherwise proper merely because the companies nave made arrangements for withdrawing their waiting-rooms from their own control. Railway companies have no right, for the sake of making valuable concessions of this kind, to deprive the ordinary travellers of the shelter and accommodation which is necessary. Providing refreshment rooms for the sale of intoxicating liquors is no part of the business of railway companies, and it is the convenience of the public alone which should be studied in this matter. My Lords, the position is shortly this—shelter is necessary as a part of the railway accommodation, and refreshment rooms are not a necessary part of the railway accommodation. They are a great convenience to the public, no doubt; but if we are called upon to choose whether proper shelter shall be afforded to railway passengers, or whether refreshments shall be provided for them, there is an advantage and an obligation in providing waiting rooms. If one of those things can be provided for, and not both, I think, my Lords, there can be no doubt that the shelter should be provided for the ordinary passengers, and that the refreshments should have to be sought at a little ins convenience by those who wished to drink elsewhere. My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships should give a Second Beading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  *LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, as no noble Lord appears disposed to rise I would like to say a few words on the public aspect of this Bill. I had hoped that the Government would have considered the difficulty of dealing with the Licensing Laws in a fragmentary manner, and would have undertaken the responsibility of moving the rejection of the measure. The noble Lord has stated that in promoting this Bill he is not actuated by any hostility to the licensed victuallers, and that his whole consideration is for the accommodation of the ordinary traveller. What I wish to point out, and what I think this
  820
  Bill proves, is that even those who are actuated by the most benevolent intentions very often in carrying them out produce the greatest inconvenience, especially when the object of those intentions is to interfere in some way or other with the public. Misdirected benevolence is sometimes productive of very great inconvenience. This Bill is very curious in this respect—it seeks to punish one party for the alleged misconduct of the other, and proposes that when railway companies have let to responsible persons refreshment rooms at their stations, those persons are to forfeit their licences if the railway companies do not afford proper accommodation for waiting rooms, adjacent to the refreshment rooms, over which the person possessing the licence has not the slightest control. That is a rather curious feature of the proposed legislation, which I do not think your Lordships will be at all disposed to adopt. The Bill is drawn in a most extraordinary manner; and, however good it might be to have waiting rooms everywhere, your Lordships, I think, must look at the question from a practical point of view. At many stations there is only the most limited accommodation possible, and I would ask your Lordships whether it really is a hardship for any one of the travelling public that he should be required to stand in the same room with a man who may be drinking half a pint of beer or a bottle of ginger-beer where only a limited space is allotted for refreshments? It is proposed that these licences should be forfeited rather than that anyone should be exposed to so slight an inconvenience. My Lords, it appears to me that this is an absolutely useless Bill, and only deals with a fragment of a very great subject, which your Lordships have already dealt with in one sense, and with which you will probably be called upon to deal again by transferring the granting of licences from one body to another. At the present moment the Licensing Justices make the fullest inquiry into every case—they invariably insist upon having plans of the premises sent to them, and it is not at all an easy matter sometimes to satisfy the requirements which the Justices impose. Almost in every case the licensed victuallers in the immediate neighbourhood of the station oppose to

  821
  the utmost of their power applications for licences to railway refreshment rooms, because they take away trade from themselves, and I should have almost suspected that my noble Friend is not actuated so much by zeal and love for the railway passengers as for the licensed victuallers who are robbed of a considerable amount of custom by these rooms. Railway travellers ought to be able to obtain refreshments without being driven to seek them outside the station, and at the same time obtain shelter while waiting for their trains in public-houses. Especially is that the case on the Metropolitan lines, where passengers ought not to be compelled to leave the stations and perhaps cross the muddy streets in all kinds of weather for the purpose of obtaining the refreshments they require. Now, what does my noble Friend practically say in supporting this Bill? Practically, it comes to this—that the Licensing Magistrates have not done their duty. My Lords, although it is said, that "you should never prophesy unless you know," I venture to prophesy that the County Councils will have to deal with these matters before long. It is not improbable that the powers now exercised by the magistrates will be transferred to the County Councils before long, and why should your Lordships overweight the County Councils with the extraordinary provisions of this Bill? I think your Lordships may be satisfied with the way the Councils would perform these duties; but why should you step in and by a little peddling, trifling piece of legislation like this hamper the action of these bodies? Some of the provisions of the Bill were really very extraordinary. I have not Lad the opportunity of seeing the paper to which my noble Friend has referred, and which, I have no doubt, contains much stronger arguments. But I almost wonder that my noble Friend did not go further, and propose that the railway companies should provide that hot water should be ready for any passenger who might desire to have it in a room apart without the addition of brandy and soda, or anything. What a condition those who should be responsible would be in under this legislation! A man might enter a refreshment-room at night and find no fire, and under those circumstances
  822
  the licence would be forfeited. This is not the kind of legislation your Lordships' House should indulge in or Parliament accept. It is totally unwarranted, is not asked for by a single individual, and would only cause considerable inconvenience. I have no doubt that my noble Friend's intentions are of the most benevolent character, as I should expect from him, but I do hope your Lordships will reject this legislation as not suitable to be entered upon by your Lordships' House, and as only inflicting a grievance on a not inconsiderable section of the public. My Lords, I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not give a Second Reading to the Bill. The noble Lord who brings it forward says there are no statistics known or possible to be given as to the numbers of refreshment rooms and waiting rooms on the Metropolitan Railways. I should think it is hardly necessary to go into that, but I may mention that on the Metropolitan District Railway there are three refreshment rooms which were put up for the special purpose of meeting demands made by the public after the railways had been started some length of time—namely, at Mansion House, Victoria Station, and Sloane Square Station. In addition to that, certain portions of the railway are used under joint powers between the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District, and on that portion there are also three refreshment rooms, namely, at South Kensington, Gloucester Road, and High Street, Kensington. That makes altogether six refreshment rooms on the Underground Railway. At all the stations, however, there is proper waiting room accommodation both for ladies and men. There is, consequently, no ground for saying the wants of the public are not properly looked after in this matter. If the Bill be passed, there is not much doubt that the refreshment rooms which I have enumerated would ultimately be taken away, because, by Clause 2, the powers are made retrospective; and it is provided that, unless it was proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates that these rooms have been properly kept up during the preceding twelve months, no licence is to be given or renewed.

  823
  The Metropolitan systems are different from any other railway system in this country; and I think I am within the mark when I say that some 500 trains pass through the stations in a day. The system of rapid traffic prevailing on the Underground Railways in London is one which does not require extensive waiting-room accommodation. The public do not go into a railway station simply to sit down and wait; the trains pass too frequently for that; and at all the stations, especially those on the higher level, there is ample accommodation in the way of waiting rooms.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, the noble Earl, in explaining the objects of the Bill, said it was for the purpose of inducing the licensing authorities to obtain proper information, before granting licences, as to the accommodation provided. Now, my Lords, as a matter of fact, the authorities do make very careful inquiries on the subject at the present time; but the noble Earl, by his Bill, seeks to throw the whole onus probandi upon the unfortunate person, who is anxious to lease the refreshment rooms, of proving that there is sufficient and proper separate waiting room for the accommodation of passengers of all classes—general accommodation for the passengers of the company. He expects information to be given to the Licensing Authorities by the person wishing to take a licence as to the accommodation afforded by railway companies for the many thousands of passengers travelling along their lines. I do not know how he is to get that unless the railway company supply the information. So much for Clause 2. Then Clause 3 seems to be a still more exacting provision. Clause 3 provides that the licensing authorities shall call upon the lessee to prove that this accommodation has been maintained during the whole period that the licence has been in force, and, in the case of a new licence, during the preceding year. I do not know how the lessee is to do this in the case of new licences required for new railways. The whole machinery of the Bill seems to be very cumbrous. Clause 4 is also very extraordinary. This clause says that if at any time the Company does not keep its waiting room in a proper condition, or the fire or gas is allowed to go out, the lessee is to be deprived of his licence, and to be deemed
  824
  to be selling intoxicating liquors on unlicensed premises. My Lords, I cannot see how such a clause as that could possibly be carried out; for it would give to any cantankerous passenger who happened to find a fire gone out the right of proceeding against the licence-holder to deprive him of his licence. The Bill, it seems to me, would be monstrously unjust, and I cannot conceive how the machinery could possibly work in any satisfactory way. Feeling that, and having heard the explanation of the noble Lord as to the way in which it would work, I must say, my Lords, that I cannot support this measure.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, although I can undoubtedly see strong objections to some of the details of the Bill, I am not altogether so strongly opposed to it as the noble Earl who has just spoken. I cannot help saying that I think there is something to be said in favour of the principle of the Bill. I do not think anyone will say that it is a desirable thing that the drinking bar at a railway station should be the only room to which passengers can resort. As a matter of principle that cannot be denied; but, whether it constitutes any large or crying grievance at the present time, I am not in a position to express any confident opinion. I think that the noble Earl who has brought forward the Bill is entitled to say that the object of it is a sound one in itself. With regard to the machinery of the Bill, some of the objections to it are very strong, though I cannot agree with all of them. It does not seem to me to be such a mischievous thing as was made out that the person applying for the licence should have the onus thrown upon him of proving that there is accommodation for the travelling public at the station, because, in point of fact, no one could apply for a licence without the concurrence and agreement of the railway company, who would consequently prove that there was proper waiting-room accommodation. I cannot see the slightest hardship in that. But beyond that I do not see any necessity to go. I can quite conceive that some Bill might be passed which would be of advantage in the direction pointed to by this measure; but I cannot vote for this Bill in regard to its machinery, nor do I think we have before us sufficient evidence as to the actual state of accommodation provided

  825
  by the railway companies to justify such legislation.
  *EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in reply, I would point out that the person applying for a licence is the agent or tenant of the railway company, and, therefore, I fail to recognize any hardship whatever in imposing on him the obligation, and showing that ample waiting-room accommodation is provided. Then it has been said that the magistrates satisfy themselves as to the accommodation afforded before granting a licence. It is true that the magistrates have to satisfy themselves as to the accommodation for refreshment rooms, but not as to proper accommodation outside the refreshment rooms for the general purposes of the public. My Lords, I am quite satisfied with the discussion, and recognize that it is a difficult subject on which to legislate properly. I would rather now, therefore, ask permission to withdraw the Bill, reserving the right to bring it forward in some other shape, fortified by the support I have received from the noble Earl on the front Opposition Bench (the Earl of Kimberley).
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Original Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

COMPANIES' RELIEF BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that it has been changed from the form in which I had the honour of introducing it last year. Certain modifications have been made in it, in order to meet the desire expressed at that time by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. In withdrawing the Bill last year, I said that I would ask your Lordships, when I introduced it this year, to refer it to a Select Committee.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel bound to say that the noble Lord has misunderstood me as expressing any approbation of the Bill. On the contrary, I thought that Bill was likely to be mischievous. I observe that this Bill goes somewhat further than the last, because the immunity of the Bill is extended to persons who have taken
  826
  shares up to the time of the passing of the Act. The settlement of the law on the point was pronounced in the beginning of last May. I think it would be a proper subject for the Committee to consider when they come to deal with the provisions of the Bill. That was the principal objection which I took to the Bill; but, inasmuch as the noble Lord has agreed that it shall go to a Committee who shall receive evidence, I do not at present oppose it.
  Bill read 2a.

  DECORATIONS FOR THE EGYPTIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1884–5.—QUESTION.
  *THE EARL OF STRAFFORD: My Lords, I have to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War whether any decorations of the Orders of the Medjidié and of the Osmanié were offered by the Egyptian Government to the officers of the British Army who served in the Nile and Desert Columns in the years 1884–5; and whether such offer had been accepted or declined by the military authorities at home? I believe that there is a feeling existing among the officers who composed the Nile and the Desert Columns in Egypt in 1884–5 that the Egyptian and Turkish Orders of the Medjidié and of the Osmanié, which had been granted to those who had fought in the Campaign of 1882–4, were, through some unintentional oversight on the part of the authorities at home, withheld from them. Your Lordships will remember that there have been three campaigns in Egypt. In the Campaign of 1882, conducted by Lord Wolseley, including the action of Tel-el-Kebir, the Turkish Orders of the Medjidié and Osmanié were conferred upon British officers. Two years later, in that of 1884, under Sir Gerald Graham, including the battles of Teb and Tamai, the decorations, which had been honourably won, were given to British officers. In 1885 the campaign undertaken for the relief of General Gordon comprised such well-fought actions as Abu Klea, Abu Kru, Metammeh, and Kirbekan; but to those who shared in these dangers and glories I believe the decorations, which had been conferred on their brethren of the Army and Navy for the campaigns previously fought in 1882 and the early part of 1884, were not granted

  827
  Although in all the elements of danger, hardship, and suffering the Nile and Desert Columns had a heavier strain to bear than those endured in 1882, the decorations had not been received which had been given in the previous campaigns. The services of the officers were not less distinguished than those of the officers in the previous campaigns. The Khedive recognized these facts, and issued the Khedivial bronze star. I have not been able to ascertain the exact number of deaths and casualties that took place in the Nile Column of the Campaign of 1884–5; but when I remind your Lordships that in the Desert Column they amounted to 14 officers killed and 23 wounded, and that the number of men killed was 115, and wounded 243, it will be recognized that all ranks showed the same discipline, gallantry, and endurance which have always characterized British troops; and I feel sure that it was owing to some oversight and mistake that those decorations have not been issued to those gallant officers.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): No such decorations appear to have been offered by the Egyptian Government to British officers for this campaign, except those employed with the Egyptian to Army.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I have to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War whether the subjoined extract from the Times of Wednesday, March 13, 1889, is an accurate account of the facts:—
  "Private Collins, of the Yorkshire Light Infantry, was yesterday removed from Gosport Barracks to undergo a sentence of five years' penal servitude. Collins was tried for striking a sergeant, and was sentenced to six months' hard labour. The sentence was read out on parade, when prisoner used a filthy expression to the adjutant; he was thereupon placed in the guard-room, and was afterwards tried for the second offence. The sentence of five years' penal servitude was promulgated yesterday, having been confirmed by the General commanding the district."
  LORD DE ROS: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State answers that question, I should like to express the opinion that both these offences were deserving of the most
  828
  severe punishment. It is impossible to enforce discipline in a regiment if a private is not severely punished for striking a sergeant. The second offence was using a filthy expression towards an officer. That would have been formerly an offence to visit with corporal punishment, and I am sorry that this form of punishment is abolished. The mitigation introduced within the last few years in the punishment for offences of this kind has had a most prejudicial effect. I feel certain that such power was much required, because it gave larger powers to the commanding officers to deal with irregularities of all kinds. At the same time, I do not think that your Lordships' House is a proper place for discussing questions of discipline of this description.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, if this be a true statement of the facts as they occurred, the sentence, in my opinion, was nothing short of monstrous and outrageous, and wholly unsuited to the offence mentioned in the question. When it is publicly stated that such a sentence has been passed, it will evoke a feeling that it was a most tremendous one, and I cannot see that such a sentence ought to be inflicted in any case unless under proper circumstances. Five years' penal servitude is a tremendous sentence for using even filthy language, and in this case seems to be out of all proportion to the offence.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the sentence was undeserved. I think it was perfectly just and proper. Offences against discipline in the Army are extremely serious.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I think this is another instance of the necessity for corporal punishment. Had corporal punishment been retained in the Army the second offence would probably never have been committed, and it is the abolition of corporal punishment that causes the necessity for these long terms of imprisonment. It seems to me, my Lords, that this was a very grave offence, which I do not think is quite appreciated by the civilian mind.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am not prepared to endorse the opinion of my noble and gallant Friend. I cannot say, from my personal point of view, that it is a desirable thing to ruin a man by the

  829
  infliction of such punishment upon him. However desirable corporal punishment may be for boys, I do not think it is desirable for grownup men, save in those cases in which it is expressly recognized by the law. Neither am I prepared to recognize that Parliament should under no circumstances whatever take an interest in the maintenance of discipline in the Army. But I do think that in so serious a matter as the discipline of the Army it is incumbent upon anyone, either in your Lordships' House or in the House of Commons, who wishes to make a question public with regard to the Army, that he should first inquire at head-quarters whether the statement on which he founds his question is correct or not. I have information that the extract from the Times is absolutely incorrect, and that there were very much stronger grounds in this case for the increase of punishment than are shown in the statement on which the question is founded. I think it would have been better had the noble Lord taken care to ascertain that the circumstances were such as to require a Parliamentary discussion on the matter in question. The question put to me by the noble Lord is whether a certain statement in the Times is accurate. It is not accurate as far as it goes. The statement is that Private Collins had his sentence of six months' hard labour for striking a sergeant increased to five years' penal servitude for using a filthy expression to the adjutant, and impliedly for no other offences. The facts are that he was tried and found guilty of (1) using insubordinate language to his superior officer (adjutant); (2) striking his superior officer (provost-sergeant), being in the execution of his duty; (3) using threatening language to the same; (4) striking his superior officer (lance-corporal). He had been twice previously convicted. In these circumstances I do not think the sentence was excessive. I am informed that Private Collins has served nearly ten years. With regard to the question of improvement in the percentage of punishments for offences in the Army, I am able to give the noble Lord some information as to the number of men in the Army who have been tried by court martial. They were, in 1885, ·74; in 1886, ·70; in 1887, ·56; in 1888, ·52. The number of minor punishments in the Army at home, exclusive
  830
  of Royal Artillery, was, in 1885, 134,912; in 1886, 129, 193; in 1887, 116,045; and in 1888, 104,765. The statistics of military prisons were as follows:—Brixton would hold 493, and on the 18th of March contained 117 prisoners; Gosport would hold 166, and contained 120; Taunton would hold 154, and contained 37; Aldershot would hold 162, and contained 52; Chester would hold 164, and contained 97; and Stirling would hold 48, and contained 25; the accommodation, therefore, being 1,187, and the total number of prisoners 448. These figures show a gradual decrease in the number of convictions. As to minor punishments, the figures had been reduced from 134,912 in 1885 to 104,017 in 1888. I am able to say that the military authorities are entirely satisfied with the decrease which has resulted from the summary dealing with military offences, and I hope and have no reason to doubt that the decrease, which I have been glad to state to the noble Lord, will continue in future years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, so far from finding fault with my noble Friend, ought to be glad of the opportunity which this question has afforded him of explaining the real facts of the case has afforded him. What has been the result in this matter? It has been shown that the sentence, which has been held out as one of great severity and hardship, was not given under the circumstances stated by the Times. I should have thought that was a most satisfactory conclusion to have been brought about, and it shows that my noble Friend was justified in asking the question. I congratulate the noble Lord on his having been able to make the very satisfactory statement he has made with regard to the decrease in military offences.
  LORD HARRIS: I am quite satisfied, my Lords, with the change that has taken place.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.