Sitting of 27 February 1890

QUESTIONS.

  ARTISANS' DWELLINGS.
  MR. SALT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is able to produce any statistics, or to lay any Reports upon the Table of the House, that will give reliable information as to the effect of the erection of artisans' dwellings, and of street improvements, during recent years, upon the poorest and most crowded portions of the population, who cannot afford to pay more than 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week for house accommodation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have endeavoured to collect information on this subject, and have made inquiries in various quarters, but they do not enable me to produce statistics, or to lay a Report upon the Table of a complete or reliable nature. I have no better information than was elicited by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, by whom, as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the subject of street improvements

  1319
  is dealt with, and full use is made of previous inquiries by the Select Committee of this House in 1881–2.

  THE STAFF COLLEGE.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that, though officers after entering the Staff College are permitted to study and pass out in Turkish, no provision is made for award of marks in Turkish at the entrance examination of the College; and whether, in view of the importance of encouraging the study of a wider range of modern languages, he will consider the advisability of placing Turkish, on the same footing as that now occupied by Hindustani and Russian in the entrance examinations of the Staff College?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: No provision is made at the Staff College either for the study of Turkish or for passing out in that language. The object of the College is primarily the advancement of knowledge of specific military science rather than of languages. Great importance is, however, attached to the knowledge of languages, and rewards of considerable value are offered to officers passing in them, but not through the Staff College.
  In reply to a further question by Sir R. PAGET,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid he should be glad to have the study of the Turkish language placed on the same footing in regard to War Office appointments as Hindustani and Russian.

  THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table all correspondence that has passed between the Board of Trade and the four southern Railway Companies with reference to the return of the running of their passenger trains recently presented to Parliament; whether he will find out if it is the custom of the southern Railway Companies to keep analyses of the punctuality of their trains, abstracted at regular intervals, for the information of the officers and the directors; and, if not, whether he will
  1320
  ascertain from what sources the figures in the above return were compiled; and, in the case of the South-Eastern Railway in particular, whether the times of arrival were taken at Cannon Street and Charing Cross respectively, or only as far as London Bridge?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OE TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I have no objection to lay on the Table the correspondence with the four southern Railway Companies with regard to the running of their trains. I understand from the South-Eastern Railway, the London and South-Western Railway, and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies that they do not make any abstracts or analyses of the punctuality of their trains. The figures in the Return were compiled from the guards' daily reports. The South-Eastern Railway Company further state that the times of arrival were taken at Charing Cross and Cannon Street respectively, and not at London Bridge.

  BOMBAY—FACTORY LABOUR.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any action has yet been taken on the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of the factory workers in Bombay; whether he is aware that the average time worked in the Indian cotton mills is 80 hours per week, as against 56 hours in Lancashire, and that great indignation exists among the Lancashire operatives at the competition to which they are exposed by labour working 80 hours per week in one part of the Empire while they are restricted by law to 56 hours; whether he is aware that, on 24th October last year, a petition was sent to the Indian Government by the Bombay factory workers asking for a reduction of their excessive hours of labour, and that in the future they claim that all mill hands be allowed one day's rest on Sunday, and that half an hour's rest be allowed them at noon; that all mills should commence work at 6.30 a.m., and cease working at sunset; and that compensation should be afforded for accidents; whether he is aware that very young children are employed 80 hours per week, to the extreme detriment of their health; whether he is aware that one mill manager writes—

  1321
  "That he had seen children so small, working 80 hours per week, that he had taken them up in his arms, put them in the scales, and found them to weigh from 42 to 45 pounds only,"
  and that factory managers in Bombay who have had experience of slavery in South America say that such slavery is mild compared with that which exists in the factory system of Bombay; and whether the Government will undertake that the recommendations of the Factory Commission shall promptly be carried out?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: My answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. A Bill on the lines stated last Session in Parliamentary Paper 162 was introduced into the Indian Legislature on the 31st of January last. My answer to the second paragraph of the question is that the hours of labour of adult males in India are as unrestricted as they are in Lancashire. My answer to the third paragraph is that such a petition may have been received by the Government of India, who would give it every consideration, but it has not been forwarded to the Secretary of State. My answer to the fourth paragraph of the hon. Member's question is that according to the existing law no child can be employed in Indian factories for more than 54 hours a week, and the Secretary of State cannot understand how such a case as that described in paragraph 5 can have occurred. But if the hon. Member will furnish his authority the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made. In regard to the last paragraph of the question the Bill for commending the Indian Factory Act in the sense I have indicated is now before the Indian Legislature.
  MR. S. SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Bill now before the Government of India raises the ages of children entering mills from 7 to 9 years, and allows them to work 11 hours a day, from 9 to 12, while in Lancashire they only work 5 J hours a day?
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that I cannot answer any question as to the contents of the Bill in question without notice. The hon. Member had better put a notice down on the Paper.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no restriction in regard to the hours of labour exists in India? Is it in his power to advise the Indian Government to introduce some law whereby Her Majesty's subjects in different parts of the Empire shall not be reduced to slavery?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that question.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—THE LAINETER.
  MR. JARVIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawnt to the prosecution of William Laine, captain of a Foreign ship named the Laineter (as reported in the Shipping Gazette of 17th February), who was charged at King's Lynn with breaking the Merchant Shipping Act by carrying a deck cargo of 32,000 cubic feet of pitch pine, which would weigh about 32 tons; and why the Board of Trade was content with so small a penalty as £5 and costs for the infringement of English Law when he was liable to a penalty of £5 per ton, and it is probable that a much larger sum had been made by breaking the law?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to the newspaper report to which the hon. Member refers with regard to the prosecution of the captain of the Laineter. It is in more than one respect inaccurate. The deck cargo consisted of 3,200 (not 32,000) cubic feet, and the maximum penalty under the Act is £100. The representative of the Board of Trade did not press for a heavier penalty than £5, because it was the first offence of the kind for which the master had been summoned. He was prosecuted summarily, and the magistrates in their discretion imposed that penalty and costs.

  RABBIT COURSING.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the continuance of the practice of rabbit coursing, particularly to what took place at the Crown Inn at Saltford on 3rd February, as narrated in the Bath Chronicle of 13th

  1323
  February, in which the proceedings are thus described—
  "Each round being a match between two dogs, a couple of terriers were let loose and set on a rabbit, which they seized. One dog was tearing the live rabbit on the side of the head and body, whilst the second dog fixed its teeth in the flesh on the other side, both dogs pulling at the rabbit in opposite directions, till the unfortunate animal was torn, mangled, and worried to death. In some instances the rabbits' backs were broken by the dogs; and again a mutilated and half-dead rabbit was carried round the field for five minutes in the dog's mouth. About a hundred rabbits were maimed and subsequently worried to death in this manner;"
  and whether he will now re-consider his statement of 9th August, 1889, and introduce legislation to render such practices illegal?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the North of England coursing, and especially rabbit coursing, conducted under recognised and established regulations, affords pastime to large masses of the industrial population who are unable to indulge in more expensive forms of sport; and whether he considers it desirable, on ex parte statements, to commit the House to an opinion on the subject?
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he has not received Petitions on the subject not merely from the West of England, but also from the North, of England, complaining of the gross cruelty which goes on in connection with this so-called sport.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have directed the Chief Constable to make inquiry and report as to the allegations contained in the paragraph quoted. Legislation on the subject of cruelty to wild animals is surrounded with difficulties, and I cannot promise to introduce it. I feel confident, however, that public opinion is growing on the question, and will not to rate that cruelties should be permitted in the name of sport. With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend, I am not acquainted with the habits of the population in the North of England with regard to rabbit coursing.

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received communications complaining that "The Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1881," is in great measure inoperative; and whether he will introduce a Bill this Session to amend that Act?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I have recently received a communication to the effect stated in the question of the hon. Member. I cannot at present give any undertaking as to the introduction of an amending Bill this Session, and this must depend upon the progress of other business.

  POST OFFICE ORDERS.
  MR. LEATHAM BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Junior Lord of the Treasury whether it is a fact that a post office order signed by an agent of the Government is not a negotiable security; whether the Government are aware that a serious case has occurred in New Zealand of an advance of money having been made against post office orders, the payment of which money was repudiated; whether the Government is aware that the credit of the Post Office has suffered severely in the Colony by the above case of Mr. Cairns, of Auckland; and whether the Government will take any steps to remedy the grievance?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: With the permission of the hon. Member, I shall reply to the question. The Post Office is not in possession of any information as to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member; but if he will be good enough to give the Postmaster General the particulars of the case which he has in view he will be happy to cause inquiry to be made on the subject. Under the regulations governing the exchange of money orders between the United Kingdom and the colonies money orders are not negotiable. They are payable only to the persons in whose favour they are drawn by the senders, unless they are passed through a bank. This is not so much a matter for the British as for the New Zealand Post Office, which has the power to make its

  1325
  own regulations, subject, of course, to any agreement made with this country.

  BI-METALLISM.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is true that repeated applications were made to Mr. Giffen by the Royal Commission on Gold and Silver to assist them in their investigations into the theory and practice of Bimetallism; and whether Mr. Giffen declined to give such assistance; and, if so, upon what grounds?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is nothing in the Report of the Commissioners which in any way suggests that they considered that Mr. Giffen did not render them all the assistance they required from him in their inquiry which is not, I think, accurately described by the hon. Member as an investigation into the theory and practice of Bi-metallism. As a matter of fact, he gave two days' elaborate evidence, besides assisting them in other ways in his official character. I am, however, informed by Mr. Giffen that he was subsequently asked to go beyond this and to appear before them as the champion of Monometallism. He considered this to be outside his official duty, and was left free by Lord Stanley, then President of the Board of Trade, to decline the request, which he did, mainly for reasons of a private character.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: Before Mr. Giffen published a series of letters in the Times commenting on the Report of the Royal Commission, did he ask and receive permission of his official superiors in the Board of Trade?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand that Mr. Giffen, when he accepted the office which he at present holds with great advantage to the Public Service, stipulated that he should be allowed to write on subjects outside his official duties, and his stipulation was conceded. He therefore did not ask my permission before publishing these letters; but it appears to me that the publication of the letters has been very much to the advantage of the Public Service.

  IRELAND—THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the statement of the Educational Committee
  1326
  of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, just issued, dealing with the system of education in the Queen's Colleges, and the relation of Presbyterians to Queen's College, Belfast, in which it is stated that—
  "The education imparted in the Queen's Colleges" is "undenominational and unsectarian;" and "as to the Queen's College, Belfast, Presbyterians have no rights or privileges whatever in connection with it that Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Methodists have not;"
  whether he is aware that, in consequence of the growing prosperity of Queen's College, Belfast, some of the class-rooms are now too small and need to be enlarged, and other improvements are necessary to the efficiency of the college; and whether, considering the serious disadvantages under which the college thus labours from want of proper accommodation and equipment, he will consider the propriety of recommending a Government grant to promote such enlargement as the success of the college and the growth of Belfast render necessary?
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary if his attention had been recently drawn to the urgent necessity that exists for a grant to be made to the Queen's College, Belfast, for the purpose of extending its accommodation and perfecting its equipment; and considering that large Government grants had lately been given to the Scotch Colleges and the Royal University in Dublin, and having regard to the fact that the City of Belfast contributes so largely to the Imperial revenue, would he give some assurance that an outlay would be sanctioned adequate to extend the accommodation so as to enable the Professors to discharge their duties to the students under their control in some other way than, as at present, in detachments?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I will answer the question of the hon. Member for East Belfast at the same time. I believe it to be the fact, as stated in the question, that the deficient accommodation in Queen's College, Belfast, is a source of inconvenience, and I am also aware that the college, like the city in which it is situated, is growing in size and prosperity.

  1327
  If the alterations desired by my hon. Friends are merely of the relatively restricted kind contemplated as being from time to time necessary under the Statutes by which the Queen's Colleges were established, questions relating to them should be addressed to the Minister who answers for the Board of Works. If, on the other hand, some larger scheme is contemplated, such as I myself would desire to see carried into effect, I am afraid it will not be possible for me to make proposals on the subject to Parliament until some agreement is arrived at with regard to the difficult problems connected with higher education in Ireland.

  CROFTER EMIGRANTS TO MANITOBA
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statements in the Canadian newspapers, that "great destitution exists among the crofters recently settled in Manitoba;" whether the Rev. Dr. Robertson, the superintendent of the North-West Presbyterian Missions, has appealed to the public in Canada for aid to these distressed settlers; whether the statement of the Rev. Dr. Robertson, that some of the crofter settlers are from 65 to 70 years of age, and some were in bad health before leaving Scotland, are accurate; whether St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at Toronto has opened a fund for clothing and money to relieve the destitute crofters; and whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: When the statements referred to in the first part of the question appeared in the newspapers the Colonization Board at once telegraphed for information, and the reply stated that there was no foundation for the reports. The Government are not aware that any such appeal as is mentioned in the second part of the question was made. The statement in the third query is inaccurate. Only one emigrant is over 60 years of age, his age being 64. The crofters were apparently in good health when they started, and are now reported to be in vigorous health. The Government have no information to show that a fund has been opened at Toronto as suggested, but the clothing of some of the crofters has been supplemented by contributions from Winnipeg.
  1328
  The Government do not think it necessary to take any action on the reports referred to.

  GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the following letter, alleged to have been sent to the editor of the Carlow Nationalist in reply to an application made by that gentleman to the Commissioners of Irish Fisheries for advertisements for his newspaper:—
  "Office of Irish Fisheries,
  "Dublin Castle, 21st Feb. 1889.
  "Sir,—I have received instructions to inform you, in reference to your letter of the 18th ultimo, that you are under a misapprehension in 'supposing that the advocacy of particular political opinions is any reason for giving or withholding Government advertisements, and that, if such advertisements have been withheld from the Nationalist and Leinster Times, it was solely because that paper continued to violate the law.
  "I am, sir, your obedient servant,
  "M. P. DOWLING.
  "P. J. Conlan, Esq., Nationalist and Leinster Times, Carlow."
  Whether he will state the name of the official or Member of the Government who instructed this letter to be written; whether he will explain how the Carlow Nationalist continues to violate the law; and whether any instructions, and, if any, what instructions have been issued to the Government Departments in Ireland to inquire into the character of the contents of newspapers in that country before giving or refusing those newspapers public advertisements?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The letter mentioned was written by direction of the Government. The newspaper in question continues to violate the law by publishing the alleged proceedings of the local branch of the National League, which has been suppressed in that district as an unlawful Association. Government advertisements are not given to any newspaper which violates the law. Departments are so instructed.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any of the questions I put to him. Have any instructions been issued by the Government on this subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had answered the hon. Gentleman's questions when I stated that I was responsible for the action of the Government. I stated that the Carlow Nationalist had offended against the law by reporting the proceedings of a suppressed meeting.
  MR. CLANCY: If the Carlow Nationalist violated the law, why has it not been prosecuted?
  MR. SEXTON: As this is a matter which occurred about a year ago, may I ask how long the official boycotting of an Irish newspaper is to continue, and by whose authority this course of action has boon decided upon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Instead of being a year ago the last offence was committed on the 8th of February.
  MR. SEXTON: This year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not inquired into the facts; but if the hon. Gentleman says there is any doubt I will do so.

  FAIR RENTS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that nearly 50 tenants living in the district of Rush, County Dublin, lodged nearly two years ago applications to have fair rents fixed, and have since been unable to get their cases heard by the Land Commission; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to expedite the hearing of the cases of those tenants, and of other tenants in the County of Dublin who have served originating notices?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that there are but 57 cases outstanding from the whole union of Balrothery, County Dublin, which includes the Rush district referred to, in respect of which applications to fix judicial rents were received prior to the 31st of December, 1888. A Sub-Commission will again sit for cases from this union at an early date. The Commissioners are making every exertion to have outstanding cases disposed of.

  DEATH FROM VACCINATION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Emily Maud Child, an infant, whose parents
  1330
  live at Arthington, near Leeds, was vaccinated on 26th March, 1889, when three months old, and died on 1st July, 1889, but previously to vaccination the child was perfectly healthy; and whether a medical examination proved that the parents were perfectly healthy too; and at the inquest subsequently held, the jury found a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence, that "the deceased died from syphilis acquired at or from vaccination;" whether the mother specially requested that calf lymph might be used in the vaccination; whether the gentleman who performed the operation, according to his own words at the inquest, "avoided the question by saying it would be pure lymph;" and whether the Local Government Board has made any. inquiry into this case; and, if so, whether the evidence so obtained will be laid before the Royal Commission on Vaccination now sitting?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am aware of the facts as regards the child referred to in the question. The child was, as I understand, vaccinated on the 26th of March, 1889. The age is recorded as four months. According to the evidence at the inquest the child was healthy prior to vaccination, and there was no evidence before the coroner that the parents were not healthy. The medical evidence at the inquest was that the weight of evidence was in favour of the view that the syphilis was acquired and not congenital. The verdict of the jury was as stated. The facts as regards the request of the mother, and the statement of the vaccinator as to the lymph, appear to be substantially the same as those given in the question. An inquiry has been made by an Inspector of the Board with regard to the case. His conclusions are not the same as those arrived at at the inquest. He states that the child in question was the only sufferer from subsequent syphilis among all the children he reached and whom he saw that had been vaccinated with the same or any other lymph in the whole course of the vaccinator's March vaccinations; and, further, that the entire family to which the alleged vaccinated belonged were, as far as he could discover by examination of them, free from any syphilitic taint or suspicion of such taint. The Report of

  1331
  the Inspector will be at the disposal of the Royal Commission on Vaccination.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what we are to understand by the term "pure lymph?"
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that it would take up too much of the time of the House to enter into an explanation.

  IRELAND—TREATMENT OF JOHN DALY.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the nature of the inquiry he has instituted into the prison treatment of John Daly, and what is the result; and, whether, having regard to the admitted fact that an overdose of belladonna was administered to him, any independent medical inquiry has been or will be made with regard to the nature of his medical treatment and condition?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The inquiry will be conducted by the prison visitors, who are quite independent of the Prison Department, and I hope it will commence at the end of this week or the beginning of next. The inquiry will, in the ordinary course, include the whole question of the prisoner's medical treatment and condition.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the evidence taken by these visitors and the Report be laid upon the Table, and what opportunity will be afforded for calling attention to this matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to postpone that question until the Report has been made.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the offence for which this man was in prison?
  MR. SEXTON: No matter what he was in prison for, I wish to give notice that on the earliest opportunity I shall press for the production of the evidence and Report of this inquiry.

  TORY ISLAND.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the difficulty and delay in the establishment of a signal station at Tory Island is caused by the price, namely, £480, demanded by the landlord for an acre of rocky land from Lloyd's,
  1332
  who are willing to erect and work the station; and whether the Board of Trade have compulsory powers for obtaining land for such purposes; and, if so, will they exercise those powers in this, case?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Lloyd's have informed me that the proprietor of Tory Island has demanded excessive terms for the land necessary for a signal station, but there is also some difficulty about the cost of a telegraph cable. Powers to obtain compulsorily land for signal stations have been granted by Parliament to Lloyd's, and not to the Board of Trade.

  THE RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to submit to Parliament, in pursuance of Section 31, Sub-section 4, of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," a Report of complaints made to the Board of Trade under that section, and of the other particulars referred to in that sub-section?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I expect shortly to lay a Report before Parliament in compliance with the provisions of the section to which the hon. Member refers.

  THE TURKISH COURTS AT ALEPPO.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the complaints of the continued denial of justice, practised in and through the Turkish Courts at Aleppo, to Mrs. Barker, a British subject owning property there, of which she has been violently dispossessed, and thereby reduced to destitution; and whether the Government will take prompt action in the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE For FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FEEGUSSON,: Mrs. Barker has had, during her protracted litigation, every assistance from the Embassy at Constantinople, and from the Consulate at Aleppo. She has adduced no proof of the alleged corruption of the Turkish Courts. She has had recourse to two processes in respect of her complaint, one in the Criminal Court on

  1333
  account of violence on the part of her opponent, in which she was successful, the other in a suit concerning the right to property, in which she has failed. She will continue to receive advice and assistance; but her ease cannot be withdrawn from the legitimate jurisdiction of the Turkish tribunals.

  THE WATERFORD ARTILLERY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is a fact that during the non-training period the battery sergeant-majors and sergeants of the Waterford Artillery are obliged to show their kits once a month, and shake out their shirts, socks, &c, side by side with the trumpeters, and in view of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Cavalry in the barracks; if it is usual for battery sergeant-majors of the Royal Artillery or colour-sergeants of the line to show kits with the men of their corps; if it is true the noncommissioned officers of the corps in question made a representation on the subject complained of in 1885, to Colonel Shortland, R.A., Commanding Auxiliary Artillery, Cork District; whether he gave orders it should be discontinued; and whether this was done while he remained in command?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The marching order kits of all the staff of the Waterford Artillery—which includes five trumpeters—are examined together once a month in a room in barracks, but not in view of the Cavalry. The inspection of their other clothing takes place at their quarters. Colonel Shortland is in India, but I cannot find that any formal representation was made to him. The adjutant communicated with him, and apparently some relaxation in the rules for inspection was made. Lately the commanding officer has found it necessary to be more strict again, as several non-commissioned officers were found to be parading without complete marching order kits.

  THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the effect of the decisions in the matter of rents in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, pronounced by the
  1334
  Crofter Commissioners, upon the electorate for the School Boards; whether he is aware that the mumbers entitled to vote according to Clause 12, Sub-section 2, of the Education Act of 1872 has greatly diminished; and that in one case, namely, the parish of Lochs, with a population of upwards of 6,000, the electorate for the current year has fallen down to 33 persons; and whether the Government will introduce a measure to assimilate the School Board with the Parliamentary franchise?
  DR. MACDONALD: I have also to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in Barvas parish, in Lewis, owing to the rents being reduced below £4, only two crofters now have votes, whereas 67 had votes formerly for School Board elections; whether he is aware that the said elections are now in the hands of 13 other voters, who are mainly large farmers and estate officials and servants; whether only five crofters have votes in the parish of Lochs, with a population of 6,000 persons, 19–20ths of whom were crofters; whether a similar state of matters exists all over Levis and the Highlands generally; and what: steps the Government propose to take to put such elections on a popular basis, instead of being, as now, in the hands of a few well-to-do people?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I propose to reply to this question and that of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty in the same answer. While the result of the reductions of rent in the Lewis has been to diminish to a large extent the number of persons entered on the valuation roll as owners or occupiers of the annual value of £1, and therefore qualified under the Act of 1872 as School Board electors, the reduction in the number has not, according to my information, been so great as is indicated in the questions of the hon. Gentlemen. The numbers in several school districts are as follows:—

  1888

  1890

  Barvas

  172

  98

  Lochs

  133

  70

  Uig

  178

  145

  Stornoway

  901

  991

  The existing constituencies contain a considerable representation of the crofting element, as there are numerous crofts still

  1335
  above £4 rental. It is only in a small number of parishes that the number of electors has been reduced in anything like this proportion, and the circumstances do not seem to justify a disturbance of the statutory qualification which is general over Scotland.

  METROPOLITAN ASSESSMENT RETURNS.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ash the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inland Revenue Board adhere to the terms of their letter with reference to Metropolitan Assessment Returns, addressed to the City Remembrancer on the 17th March, 1885, which states—?
  "I am now directed to inform you that the Board of Inland Revenue will not enforce penalties upon those who do not fill up Question No. 4, and further as regards No. 7, that they will be satisfied with a simple statement as to whether a premium has or has not been paid as consideration for the tenancy;"
  and, if not, will he explain for what reason?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The Board of Inland Revenue do adhere to the terms of their letter of the 17th of March, 1885.

  WRONGFUL CONVICTION—CASE OF FEELY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Recorder at the last Sessions of the Old Bailey, at the close of the trial of the man Seeley, who was found guilty of perjury in giving evidence against four innocent men, who were convicted on his false statements; whether complaints have reached him that Sergeant Adams, of the L Division, prevented witnesses from entering the Court to speak on behalf of prisoners; if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter; and if the four men convicted on Seeley's statement are still in prison; and, if not, have they received any compensation for false imprisonment?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The whole of this difficult and intricate case, including the conduct of Sergeant Adams, is now under consideration, and I am not in a position to say what will be done. The name of the man is Feely and not Seeley.

  THE FOOD AND DRUGS AND MARGARINE ACTS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the Return of cases under the Sale of Food and Drugs and Margarine Acts, which have been brought before the magistrates sitting at the Wandsworth Police Court during the past year, and to the small fines inflicted in the various cases, whether the Local Government Board have in several of their Annual Reports drawn attention to the varying and insufficient penalties imposed upon offenders under these Acts; and whether, having regard to the importance to the public of the efficient administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs and Margarine Acts, he will take such steps as he may deem advisable, with a view to uniformity of practice of the Police Magistrates in the Metropolis in dealing with offenders against the Acts in question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to those passages in the Annual Reports of the Local Government Board which comment upon the smallness of the fines frequently imposed in cases under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. I propose to draw the attention of the Chief Magistrate to this subject and to the complaints of the hon. Member, and to request him, in conference with his brother magistrates, to arrive, if possible, at some common understanding with a view to secure uniformity of practice in the administration of these Acts.

  EMIGRANTS TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of emigrants who have left the United Kingdom for Western Australia during each year from 1880 to 1889?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: It has been impossible to give these particulars at so short notice; but an endeavour will be made to obtain them at an early date.

  THE TRADE MARKS PROTECTION ACT—COLONIAL LEGISLATION.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

  1337
  Trade what colonies and other possessions have adopted the Trade Marks Protection Act, and what colonies propose to introduce legislation in the same direction?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The list of colonies and other possessions which have legislated, or proposed to legislate, in the direction indicated is a somewhat long one to read to the House, but I will send a copy to the hon. Member. India and 29 colonies have legislated; in seven others legislation is proposed. Cyprus has rejected it, and we have no answer from New South Wales.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what colonies have not adopted it?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Cyprus is the only one which has rejected it. We have had no answer from New South Wales. I believe that they are the only two colonies which have not adopted it, or taken steps in that direction.

  ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in any cases, and, if so, in how many, the capitation grant of 30s. had been drawn by members of the London Corps of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers who did not possess certificates of efficiency, and to what cause this was due; and whether it is contrary to the Regulations; and, if so, who is the official responsible for the breach of them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The capitation grant of 30s. has in no case over been drawn for any member of the London corps of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers who has not strictly complied with all the conditions for efficiency as laid down in the Admiralty Regulations. If any "efficient" member should not be in possession of his certificate of efficiency it is in consequence of his not having applied for the same. The certificate of efficiency is not issued annually as a matter of course. It is signed by the officer-instructor, the commanding officer of the battery, and the commanding officer of the brigade. The capitation grant is paid by the Accountant General, on the basis of the
  1338
  list of efficients rendered by the commanding officer of the corps through the Admiral Superintendent.

  IRELAND—THE ARREARS ACT, 1882.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what was the amount paid to Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., for the Counties of Westmeath, Roscommon, and Wexford, under the Arrears Act of 1882, on account of arrears alleged to be due by his tenant, Bernard Clogher, of Cartron, County Roscommon; (2) in the schedule sworn to by Mr. Magan, what was the amount alleged to be the annual rent; (3) in the same schedule, sworn to before Mr. C. Hancock, J.P. for Westmeath, on 28th November, 1882, what was the amount of arrears alleged to be due on 1st November, 1880; (4)is a landlord entitled under the Arrears Act to return in the schedule a reserved penal rent, being double the ordinary rent he was in the habit of receiving, or to receive a year's rent calculated on such reserved penal rent; and (5) when a landlord has received money under the Arrears Act, to which it can be shown he was not entitled, what steps can be taken to have such amount recovered and restored to the public fund from which it was paid?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: (1.) The Land Commissioners report that the amount referred to in the first paragraph was £15. (2.) The annual rent given in the schedule verified by the joint affidavit of the landlord and tenant was £15. (3.) The amount of arrears set forth was £30. (4.) The rent which the tenant was legally liable to pay during the period in which the antecedent arrears (as defined in the Arrears Act of 1882) accrued, formed the basis for the payment to which the landlord was entitled. No reference was made to a reserved penal rent in the case in question. The tenant, in his affidavit, stated that the arrears mentioned were justly duo. (5.) Provision is made under the 7th section of the Act to meet any claim which may have been falsely made.
  MR. HAYDEN: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he has not answered the fourth paragraph of my question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any further answer than I have given.

  GALWAY DOCKS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether complaints have reached him that the new dock lately constructed at Galway is totally unlighted at night; that the previously existing dock, also called the new dock, is very imperfectly lighted; and there have been three deaths by drowning within the last six months; is there evidence in the possession of the Harbour Commissioners to show whether any of the frequent drowning accidents at Galway Docks were occasioned by the defective lighting; is the Irish Board of Works responsible for the existing state of affairs; and will he get the opinion of the Galway Harbour Commissioners on this last point direct from the Galway Board?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no information as to the first four paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the latter part, I understand that the Board of Works has been in communication with the Galway Harbour Commissioners as to improving the lighting, and I am sure that any representation of the Harbour Commissioners will receive the most careful consideration.

  MR. JOHN SLATTERY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the imprisonment of Mr. John Slattery, of Cork, for six months (in default of giving bail), if he can now state under what section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act Mr. Slattery was convicted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: As this is a question relating to the administration of the law in Ireland I may be allowed to answer it. Mr. John Slattery, of Cork, was tried under the 2nd section of the Crimes Act of 1887, on a charge of using intimidation towards one Richard Quinlan. The magistrates held the charge proved, and made an order that the defendant should give security to be of good behaviour, or in default of bail be imprisoned for six months.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the power to hold to bail for good behaviour derived from the Crimes Act?
  MR. MADDEN: No; it is derived from the Statute of Edward III.; but as proceedings are being taken to test the legality of the decisions of the magistrates I think it is undesirable that I should enter further into the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how often this decision has been come to under the Coercion Act?
  MR. MADDEN: If the hon. Member wishes for statistics on the subject, and will put a notice on the Paper, I will consider whether it is practicable to give them.
  MR. ELYNN: AS an appeal is pending, will the right hon. Gentleman order the release of Mr. Slattery on bail?
  MR. MADDEN: It is not necessary for mo to give any special direction, nor am I competent to do so.
  MR. ELYNN: Then there is practically no appeal at all?
  MR. MADDEN: I did not say so. I said that proceedings were about to be taken to bring the matter before the Superior Courts. I understand from the newspapers that that is so; but I have no further information on the subject.

  WEST AFRICAN AFFAIRS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state when it will be possible to lay upon the Table of the House the Agreement concluded with France for the settlement of West African questions?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Agreement concluded with France for the settlement of West African questions was distributed to hon. Members in a Parliamentary Paper on the 13th of the present month.

  THE BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is correct that the Behring Sea dispute has been settled, and that Sir Julian Pauncefote has conceded the right of Americans to exclude British sealers from the waters of the Alaskan Company; and, if true, that damages to British vessels are to be settled by arbitration, and that a close time for the capture of seals is to be

  1341
  fixed alike for American and Canadian waters?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The statement that the Bohring Sea question has been settled is not correct. The negotiations are still going on.

  CRETE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any recent information as to the position of affairs in Crete and the prospects of a restoration of tranquillity in that Island; and, in particular, whether the Turkish Government intends to make any modification in the recently issued Firman?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The latest Reports from Her Majesty's officers in Crete, founded on personal observation in a lengthened tour, stats that the general state of the districts was quits quiet. "A stranger," one of them says, "would have been unaware that anything of an unusual nature had been going on." Inquiries made in every village showed an absence of complaints, except of a petty character. There would appear, therefore, to be in general a cessation of the acts of pillage and violence, before reported as having been committed by contending parties. On the other hand, there have been cases of policemen and detached troopers being shot; and inflammatory reports are disseminated in the towns, including some charges of atrocious conduct by the troops, which in some instances, which the British Consul and the British senior naval officer had an opportunity of investigating, proved to be entirely unfounded. Telegrams of the 20th and 27th of February state that certain refugees in Greece, though implicated in recent events, on returning to Crete have not been molested by the authorities, and the Turkish Consul General at the Piraeus has published a notice that all refugees, except 16 persons named, may freely return to Crete. The Government have no information of any intention on the part of the Porte to modify the late Firman; but the Vali of Crete has issued a Circular explaining its provisions, and the British Consul reports that if the views of the Vali are carried out, little cause of complaint would be left with regard to the Firman, bat that the people
  1342
  are stirred by the action of politicians. The general result at present is more hopeful.
  MR. BRYCE: Is the information in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman based entirely upon Reports of the British Consul, or does he derive it from any other source?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is also based on the Reports of the senior medical officer, who has been through the country. Papers will shortly be laid before the House.
  MR. BRYCE: How late will those Papers go?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: To a very late date indeed.

  DIVISION OF RATES.
  MR. SEALE-HAYJSTE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Times report of his speech of Friday last is correct, from which it appears that he said—
  "With regard to the question of the division of rates. The Government entirely agreed there should be a division between the owners and the occupiers, provided there was proper and adequate representation of the owners They were anxious to deal with the subject when time and opportunity could be found;"
  if so, whether the Government will introduce a Bill for the division of rates between owners and occupiers, or give facilities for the Second Reading of the Tenancies Rating Bill, which provides for such, division on the principle to which the Government agree?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is impossible for the Government to add to their programme of legislation a Bill on the subject referred to in the question. They cannot undertake to give the hon. Member facilities for the Second Reading of his Bill.

  IRELAND—THE CLONGOREY ARRESTS.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Tuesday last armed emergency men entered Mrs. Kelly's yard, and refused to leave, though requested by the owner to do so; whether the police in charge, instead of protecting the owner, arrested eight workmen who were engaged on the premises; and whether he can state by what authority emergency men, armed or unarmed, can

  1343
  enter upon premises in legal possession of the owner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that, so far as the police are aware, no armed emergency men entered Mrs. Kelly's yard on Tuesday last, nor did anything occur calling for police interference on behalf of Mrs. Kelly, who, as a matter of fact, was not on the premises. The police arrested four men that day, not eight, as alleged in the question. The men were arrested for refusing to desist from working after repeated cautions, and were subsequently discharged, to be summoned.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the police acted legally or illegally in breaking into the house of Mrs. Kelly; and whether, as the illegality in respect to the service of the precept is now admitted, the Government will order the release of Father Kinsella and the other persons now in prison?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the police had a warrant; and, if so, they had legal power to force open the door. Even if the service of the precept were wrong, that did not affect the question of unlawful assembly, because the way to test the legality of the precept was not to collect a number of persons to disobey it. I do not, however, wish to discuss the ease, as the trial for unlawful assembly is pending; but if the hon. Member forces me to give an answer I can only say that, in my opinion, an assembly to forcibly interfere with a precept cannot be justified because of some technical informality in the service of that precept. It is extremely undesirable to discuss the point, and I must respectfully decline to give any further answer.
  MR. CLANCY: Was not the forcing of the door absolutely illegal, seeing that the officers refused to produce the warrant when requested to do so by the persons inside?
  MR. MADDEN: My information leads me to infer that the forcing of the door was not illegal, as the police officers had a warrant in their hands at the time.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the warrant was asked for, and that the police officers refused to produce it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  THE CASE OF MR. HENRY O'CONNOR.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the conviction of Mr. Henry O'Connor, sub-editor of the Leinster Leader, for publishing reports of League branches, was yesterday quashed in the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, with costs against the magistrates who tried him; whether, after sentencing Mr. O'Connor to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, the magistrates were asked and refused to state a case, on the ground that the point raised was frivolous; whether Mr. O'Connor was kept in prison until a mandamus to compel the magistrates to state a case was obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench; whether one of those magistrates was Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, who, on Friday last, sentenced Father Kinsella and the other Clongorey prisoners to two months' imprisonment, and refused, when asked, to state a case on their behalf; and, whether the Government will take any steps to compensate Mr. O'Connor for his illegal detention in gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question, except that the Division of the High Court in which the case was heard is not correctly stated. It is not the fact that one of the magistrates was Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald. With regard to the last paragraph, I must wait for 'further information, the only facts within my cognisance in addition to those stated in the question being that the judgment of the Exchequer Division was on a purely technical point—one of the Judges stating at the time that there could be no moral doubt as to the substantial truth of the allegation, of which, in the opinion of the Court, strict legal proof had not been given.

  SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that School Boards in Scotland must obtain the sanction of the Scotch Education Department prior to the sanction of new schools, and whether application was made to the Department for sanction to the erection of a Board school in Lenzie prior to its erection; whether the School Boards

  1345
  concerned, in their application for such sanction, included, in the number of children requiring school accommodation, the total number of children of school age in Lenzie District; what was the number of children of school age in Lenzie District at the date of application; upon what date did the Department proceed in sanctioning the erection of school buildings to accommodate 560 children, seeing that the average attendance is only 201; what is the cause of this small attendance at this school; whether the school fees charged in Lenzie Board School are complained against as not being within the reasonable reach of children of the working classes resident in that district; whether the School Boards have made any provision, and, if so, what, and where, in Lenzie District, for providing free education in the compulsory standards; and whether provision for free education in schools outside the district of the children's residence (especially in the face of there being vacant places for 300 children in Lenzie School, specially built for the accommodation of children resident in Lenzie District) is a compliance with the condition precedent set forth in the Minute of the Department of 26th August?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: School Boards in Scotland must obtain the sanction of the Scotch Education Department to any loan for the erection of a new school. A long correspondence took place with regard to the school at Lenzie, extending from the year 1884, when a memorial was presented by the inhabitants of the district urging the necessity of a school at Lenzie, which was a rapidly-increasing district, paying large school rates. The two School Boards of Cadder and Kirkintilloch ultimately assented to the Petition of the inhabitants, and in the year 1887 presented an application for sanction to a loan for the provision of a school for the children residing within the districts of these two Boards at Lenzie, where they certified that there were 133 families at that date for whom no efficient school was available. This loan finally received the sanction of the Department in August, 1888. The Department do not know the cause of the present attendance at the school. I have already stated, in answer to the hon. Member, what representations have
  1346
  reached the Department with respect to the school fees at Lenzie Academy, as well as the assurances received from the School Boards as to the supply of free places for the district, upon the faith of which this school was sanctioned as a fee paying school; and I have also stated that the Department is prepared to consider any statistics showing that hardship exists, or that the representations of the School Board were unfounded.

  SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS AT BUCKINGHAM.
  CAFIAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, in view of the letter addressed by the Board on the 30th of January last to the Buckingham Rural Sanitary Authority, observing on the urgent need of a pure and sufficient water supply, on the absence of a hospital for infectious cases, and of proper means for disinfection, and also on the grave structural defects of the sewers, and wholly insufficient action of the Authority, the Local Government Board can compel this Authority to exercise their powers for the protection of the public health of their district; and, if so, whether the Board intends so to compel this Authority?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,: The Local Government Board, in the event of formal complaint being made to them under Section 299 of the Public Health Act that the Sanitary Authority have failed to provide their district with sufficient sewers or with an adequate supply of water, can direct a local inquiry on the subject; and if the complaint is substantiated can issue an order limiting the time within which the Sanitary Authority shall discharge their duty. If the authority fail to comply with the requirements of the order, the Board can apply to the High Court for a mandamus. In the case referred to in the question, the Board have not received any such complaint, and cannot therefore at present take the action indicated. If such a complaint were received it would meet with the Board's prompt attention. The Board are clearly of opinion that not only are the Authority failing in their duty, but that, as they have informed them, they are incurring serious responsibility in

  1347
  neglecting to exercise the powers with which they have been entrusted by the Legislature for the protection of the public health of their district.

  H.M.S. VICTORIA—THE 110-TON GUNS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Victoria is to be commissioned next month; whether the 110-ton guns have been strengthened to the satisfaction of the Admiralty; and, if so, whether orders have been given that they are not to be fired with the full charge; and what are the precise orders upon that point; and whether the Government will institute an independent inquiry into the utility and efficiency of these monster guns?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Victoria is to be commissioned next mouth. The two 110-ton guns of the Victoria have been strengthened to the satisfaction of the Ordnance Committee. No orders have been, or will be, given that they are not to be fired with the full or maximum charge. Only three ships in the Navy are armed, or are proposed to be armed, with these guns. The precise orders as regards practice are laid down in Regulations issued in July, 1888. The utility and efficiency of these heavy guns is so undoubted that there is no intention of instituting any further inquiry into the subject. In an official letter just received, dated February 5, 1890, the captain of the Benbow reports that—
  "The 110-ton guns mounted in that ship do not show the slightest sign of any weakness in their construction, and the officers and men have complete confidence in them."

  EXCISE PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. NBWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an exciseman at Great Wilbraham, Cambs., induced a carman named Dockerill to sell him half a pound of tobacco, and then issued a summons against him, with the result that Dockerill was fined £25 at the Bottisham Sessions on the 21st of October last; whether the Excise officer acted in accordance with his instructions; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstanees of the case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue inform me that the facts are these:—Complaints were received from local tradesmen in the neighbourhood of Great Wilbraham that illegal hawking of tobacco was being practised, and orders were given to the Excise officers to endeavour to prevent such infractions of the law. An Excise officer, having reason to believe that the carman Dockerill was one of the offenders, asked him if he did not sell tobacco, to which Dockerill replied in the affirmative, and then sold the officer half a pound. The magistrates who tried the case at first imposed a penalty of £50; but, with the consent of the Board of Inland Revenue, mitigated it to £25.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the New Code will be laid upon the Table and in the hands of Members of the House?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate the circumstances which have retarded the preparation of the Code. It will be formally laid upon the Table of the House within the usual period; but it will not be ready for distribution until a later date.

  THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Reports of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of further reductions in the Staff of the Supreme Court of Judicature?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The Reports for which the right hon. Gentleman asks are those not of an ordinary Departmental Committee, but of a confidential Committee appointed to advise the Government on certain points. Under these circumstances, I regret it is not in my power to give the information asked for; but I shall be glad to show the Reports to the right hon. Member confidentially. Perhaps, however, it would meet his views if, before the

  1349
  Supreme Court Estimate is discussed, there is laid on the Table a statement of what has been done, and what remains to be done, to carry out the recommendations of former Committees presided over by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, which were referred to in the debates of 1888.

  THE HORSE AND WHEEL TAX.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to his reply on the 10th August last to the hon. Member for North Herts—"that he did not at present see his way to meeting the views of the County Councils" (namely, as to the supplying the deficiency of county resources, caused by the abandonment of the Horse and Wheel Tax); whether he is now prepared to consider the propriety of dealing with the matter, and affording some assistance to the ratepayers in meeting the charge for maintenance of main roads, which is now borne exclusively by the rates?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: It appears that there is a growing regret at the loss of the blessing which I intended to confer on the ratepayer two years ago. I doubt whether that feeling is yet strong enough, or widespread enough, to admit of a revival of the Wheel and Van Tax. I do not think that it is perfectly correct to say that the ratepayers pay the cost of main roads exclusively, as there is the excess of the sum produced by licences as a set-off.
  SIR R. PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform us what further expression he desires to receive in order to satisfy himself of the desirability of introducing a measure?
  MR. GOSCHEN: AS soon as I can ascertain from the ordinary channels of information to which Ministers have recourse in order to ascertain the general feeling that there is the slightest chance of carrying a measure, I should be glad to introduce a Bill; but it would be useless to attempt to carry any measure of the kind unless there was a general agreement upon it. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to persuade his colleagues in some of the boroughs that such a measure ought to be passed.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government intend to introduce the Dublin Hospitals Bill during the present Session?
  MR. JACKSON: It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the Dublin Hospitals.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Bill be introduced soon?
  MR. JACKSON: As early as possible.

  SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM AT THEATRES
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the evening of the 7th January last, three non-commissioned officers of the Royal Horse Guards were refused admission, by the manager of Her Majesty's Theatre, to a box which had been specially given them by a General Officer commanding in the district; that the ground of such refusal was that the men were in uniform; and whether it is in his power to take steps to provide that soldiers in uniform shall, when frequenting places of public entertainment, enjoy the same right sand privileges as the civilian, and shall no longer be subjected to disabilities and vexations on account of their wearing the uniform of Her Majesty's Army?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My attention has been called to this case, and I should like to express my entire agreement with the view expressed by the noble Lord in the question—that it is intolerable that any disability should attach to wearing the Queen's uniform. I have no direct power in the matter, and the best means of dealing with it effectively require consideration. But, after consultation with the Lord Chamberlain, I propose, as a first step, to send him a Memorandum setting forth the views we entertain, and he has undertaken to circulate it to the theatres within his jurisdiction.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT ETTINGSHALL.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, when replacing the Post Office at Ettingshall, he would give the locality

  1351
  the advantage of a Telegraph Office at the same place, bearing in mind the considerable works in the immediate neighbourhood, employing large numbers of workmen?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General that he will be glad to inquire whether the circumstances will justify the establishment of a Telegraph Office at Ettingshall.

  THE TITHES BILL.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when we may hope to have the Tithes Bill in our hands?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope in the course of a few days to be able to circulate it.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
  Ordered, That the Army (Ordnance Factories (Supplementary Estimate), which was presented upon the 26th day of this instant February, be referred to the Committee of Supply, to be printed. (No. 72.)

  MAJOR GENERAL DOWNES (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Address for—
  "Copy of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for War and the Colonial Office with regard to the employment of Major General Downes."—(Mr. Henniker Seaton.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide a close time for Hares in England, Scotland, and Wales." [Hares Preservation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to abolish the Office of Secretary of Presentations, and to provide for the performance of the duties attached to that Office." [Crown Office Bill [Lords.]

MOTION.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) nominated of,—Mr. A. H. Acland, Mr. H. Anstruther, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Thomas
  1352
  Fielden, Mr. Flower, General Goldsworthy, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Cowley Lambert, Viscount Lewisham, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Sheil.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Herbert.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.

      CLASS VI.
      1. £8,101, Supplementary, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: I should like to receive from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury some information in reference to the offices of the Supreme Court. The reason I press for it is this: There was in 1880 a reorganisation of the offices, and the result was that a large number of persons drew considerable salaries without doing any work, the Government not being prepared to superannuate them nor to utilise their services. Two have since died, and three have been placed on the pension list, but for a long time they were kept on the books on full pay. It may be that there may be difficulties of the same kind hereafter, and it is to be hoped that some different arrangement will be made. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will inform us what has been done in regard to this matter.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am afraid I am hardly prepared to discuss the general question of re-organisation; but I may tell the hon. Gentleman that the re-organisation which has taken place has no elements in it likely to lead to difficulty such as he has described. It was no part of my duty to call on the gentlemen referred to to perform duties other than those for which they were originally engaged, and as those duties had lapsed they continued to draw their salaries as stated.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are two questions I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea-

      1353
      sury. One is as to pensions granted to two officers, one of £1,333, and the other of £1,233. I observe that the services rendered appear to have been about the same; but there is a difference of £100 a year in the pensions in the case of one who had served 27 years, against the other who served 36 years. I should like to know the reason for that. I should also like to hear from the hon. Gentleman what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the whole question of superannuation. The Commission appointed to inquire into the matter made an elaborate Report upon it and a Bill was brought in during the last week of last Session, when, however, there was not time to pass it into law. We have, I think, a right to ask Her Majesty's Government to deal with the matter this Session. The question is a very grave one, and one that involves the country in a very large expenditure.
      MR. JACKSON: I should prefer, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow it, that any discussion which it may be desirable to raise on the general question should be deferred until the introduction of a Bill, or until the general Estimates are reached. I believe it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a Bill on the subject. With regard to the question the right hon. Gentleman asked about two varying pensions for apparently equal services, the explanation is to be found in the additional allowances for professional qualifications.
      Vote agreed to.
      2. £828, Supplementary, Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.—(No. 112.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OE STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,: This Bill is introduced for the purpose of granting Responsible Government to Western Australia. It is, in form and substance, identical with the Bill passed in another place last year, and which for want of time we were unable to pass
      1354
      through this House. The delimitation of territory which the Bill proposes to give to the Responsible Government is the 26th parallel of south latitude. To the Responsible Government will be granted the whole area of the country; but within this delimitation certain regulations will be made relative to the sale or disposal of land, and this question with regard to the sale or leasing of land we propose to refer to a Select Committee representing all shades of opinion in this House. That being so, I do not think the House will want me to go into all the details of the Bill, but I wish especially to call attention to two or three clauses which are of great importance as embodying what I may call vital principles. The principal clauses of the Imperial Bill are:—Clause 3, vesting in the Local Legislature the management and control of Crown lands south of the 26th degree of south latitude; Clause 4, reserving to the Home Government the management of Crown lands north of the 26th degree of south latitude and providing for the application of the fund arising from the sale and lease of such lands; Clause 7, reserving power to Her Majesty to subdivide the colony hereafter; and Clause 8, reserving for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure any local Act that may hereafter be passed restricting the immigration of British subjects. This clause is, in my opinion, one of the most important in the Bill, because I have often heard it urged with great force that power should be reserved by the Imperial Legislature to prevent a newly enfranchised colony from prohibiting immigration. This clause absolutely prevents any such action by the colony, inasmuch as any local Act which might be framed—I do not suppose one ever would be—to prevent immigration could not become law without receiving in the first instance the assent of Her Majesty through the Secretary of State, There is another clause of great importance. We all know that in connection with our colonies one of our first duties is to protect to the utmost of our power the aboriginal races, and it has always been the endeavour—I hope the successful endeavour—of this House so to protect them. This duty has not been overlooked in this legislation. In Clause 70 of the local Bill passed by the

      1355
      Western Australia Legislature it is enacted that:—
      "There shall be payable to Her Majesty in every year out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of £5,000 mentioned in Schedule C to this Act, to be appropriated to the welfare of the aboriginal natives, and expended in providing them with food and clothing when they would otherwise he destitute, in promoting the education of aboriginal children (including half-castes), and in assisting generally to promote the preservation and well-being of the aborigines. The said annual sum shall be issued to the Aborigines Protection Board by the Treasurer on warrant under the hand of the Governor, and may be expended by the said Board at their discretion, under the sole control of the Governor, anything in the Aborigines Protection Act, 1886, to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always, that if and when the gross revenue of the colony shall exceed £500,000 in any financial year, an amount equal to 1 per cent, on such gross revenue shall, for the purpose of this section, be substituted for the said sum of £5,000 in and for the financial year next ensuing."
      I think this clause not only affords ample protection to the aboriginal natives, but it also affords the ways and means of providing substantially for the relief of any natives who may be destitute, and for the education of those who may need it. I would point out to the House that in no other Australian Constitution Act does this clause exist, and therefore this is a distinct advance on all other enactments; and I believe the House will regard the provision with special favour. I have heard it stated that one of the objections to this Bill is that the population of the country to which it is proposed to give Responsible Government is quite out of proportion to the area inhabited by it. I am quite prepared to admit that there is a vast discrepancy between the existing population of Western Australia and the large area over which they will have responsible control; but I would ask the House to remember that that must have been and has been the case with every one of our Australian colonies. At the inception of Responsible Government in those colonies there was naturally a very large disproportion between the population and the area which they were called upon to govern. But what was the result? Responsible Government having been granted, the discrepancy became less and less; the colonies did all in their power to increase the resources of the country; and as a result labour flowed in from
      1356
      other countries and prosperity followed. I hope and believe that will again be the result now, and I am warranted in that belief by a comparison of the condition of Western Australia now with the condition of Queensland when that colony was endowed with Responsible Government. Queensland was separated from New South Wales by Order in Council and established as a distinct colony in December, 1859. It had Responsible Government from the first; its area was 668,497 square miles; its population, exclusive of aboriginals, was, in December, 1859, 25,000, as against 40,000, the population of West Australia now, and in December, 1887, the population was 367,000. Its revenue and expenditure in 1860 were each about £180,000; they are now upwards of £3,000,000. In 1860 there were no railways or telegraphs; there are now over 2,000 miles of railway and 16,000 miles of telegraphs. I think that these facts afford an almost unanswerable argument against the views of those who say that Western Australia ought not to have Responsible Government because the population is so very small in proportion to the size of the territory. We can go even further. Recollect what the development of Australia has been and the comparatively short time in which that development has taken place. It is only 102 years ago since Australia became part of these dominions, and what changes have taken place in that vast continent in that time! Surely, if we are to reason by the light of facts, we are not justified in withholding Responsible Government from Western Australia on the bare ground that the population and the area are not in proportion. In addition to the fact that Ave have seen a rapid development in the different Australian colonies after the assumption by them of full responsibility, we must bear in mind that the great question which is at present agitating Australia is that of federation. The realisation of the project may be near or far distant, but the idea does exist, and it is welcomed by the Government, because they, in common with most politicians, believe that union represents strength. If Responsible Government, which exists everywhere in Australia except in Western Australia, be still withheld from that colony, it is evident that federation must of neces-

      1357
      sity be delayed. Again, we must remember that views with regard to granting Responsible Government to Western Australia have been expressed with absolute unanimity by nearly every portion of the Australian Dominions, to the effect that Responsible Government should be granted to Western Australia. Telegrams and despatches, the result of Conferences, have reached us from every part of Australia, all in the same direction. Five successive Secretaries of State have now expressed a similar opinion, and now that the Legislative Council of Western Australia has confirmed that opinion and passed a Bill, Her Majesty's Government ask the House of Commons to ratify its decision and to grant its request. There is one very important argument which I ought to impress upon the House. It is that the present system of Government in Western Australia is really not an efficient system. The Government is nearly always in the minority—a condition of things much to be regretted. I will shortly explain the Constitution under which the country is governed. The present Constitution comprises—
      "(1) The Governor; (2) the Executive Council holding office during pleasure, and composed of heads of Departments and one unofficial member; (3) a single Chamber—the Legislative Council—consisting of 26 members, nine nominated by the Crown and 17 elected; the nominated members include the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Public Works, the Surveyor General, who also are the official Members of the Executive Council. The Legislative Council has the fullest powers of discussion; private Members have the power of introducing measures (not being money Bills); the Governor takes no part in their debates, communicating with the House by message, and has the power to veto Bills.
      "This Constitution dates from 1870, when a local Act, passed under the power conferred by the Act 13 and 14 Vict., cap. 59, sec. 32, introduced elective members and increased the size of the Council. It was admittedly a transitional stage in the progress of the colony towards Responsible Government, and it was not long before the question of taking the final step began to be raised."
      The Government, as I have already observed, is in many instances in a minority, and that is a condition of affairs which cannot conduce to the good government or the well being of any country. I think that is a proposition which does not require any proof. Hon. Gentlemen will see from the constitution of this
      1358
      legislation that I was not incorrect in stating that in many instances the Executive Government must be in a minority, and that is a condition of affairs which cannot conduce to the good government or the well-being of any country. These, Mr. Speaker, are the main arguments which I think will induce the House to grant full Responsible Government to Western Australia. Australia may be said to be a type of what British energy, British independence of character, British intelligence can achieve. I do not think the whole history of the world can point to any such magnificent effects of colonisation as are shown in our Australian colonies. They have another advantage. They are the only colonies, or the only important ones, which have never been the cause of any war to this country. Not a shot has been fired in defence of Australia. It was founded in peace, it has grown in peace, and peace has always been maintained within its borders. Sir, that is a very important element to consider when granting such vast powers as these, for which I am now asking the House. It is one which, as I said before, cannot be sufficiently accentuated. But we may reasonably ask whether this great prosperity of Australia—a prosperity which has changed primeval forests and wildernesses into great cities and vast fields teeming with cattle—has produced any countervailing disadvantage. When we consider this prosperity, which has been developed surely and steadily, may we not ask ourselves whether any prejudicial results have accrued with regard to the relations between Australia and this country? The answer is, no. We find that the people are thoroughly contented and essentially loyal. Prosperity has not engendered either ingratitude or disloyalty. The pulsations of the heart of the Old Country vibrate in the arteries of the new; and when the time came for a practical test to be given of the loyalty of the Australian people, when England herself was involved in war, and danger threatened the old country, there was no hesitation on the part of the colonists, and New South Wales sent her contingent to serve side by side with their English brethren on the fields of Egypt. Surely, then, we need no further argu-

      1359
      ment in favour of granting greater powers of self-government to Western Australia. I have proved, if proof were needed, how loyal she is to the Mother Country. I have shown that Western Australia is as much entitled to Responsible Government as the other portions of that great continent, and I ask the House, in full confidence, to ratify the decision of the Legislature of Western Australia, and grant that responsibility of government which they now ask by reading this Bill a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Baron H. de Worms.)
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: Sir, if the Government desire to press on this Bill, I am very glad indeed that they have given us a fair opportunity of considering it. I am not quite sure that the House, as a body, was conscious that the measure was going to be discussed, looking at the state of the Benches around; but, at any rate, it is a source of satisfaction to find that the Government have given us a night on which we can discuss the subject. For my own part, I do not profess to know why the Government should have put this Bill in the very fore-front of their business, giving it precedence over every other measure. But I desire, on this, the Second Reading, to make a protest by way of caution, and to say that in assenting to the present stage we must not be taken as assenting to the principle of the Bill, which is the alienation from this country of the only temperate lands that now remain to us—of a territory as large as Europe—by handing it over to a handfull of colonists. I accept the suggestion that this matter shall be threshed out before a Special Committee, and I think that in making that suggestion the Government are treating us fairly. At the same ime I feel we shall be placed in a difficult position when we have read the Bill a second time, for the House has not the same command over a measure when it is asked to read it a third time that it has over it on previous stages. It must be thoroughly understood that in reading the Bill a second time we claim the right to the fullest discussion in Committee, and the fullest discussion when the Bill
      1360
      comes back again to the House. We must not be asked to part with the measure with any undue haste. I am a. little suspicious of the extreme rapidity with which the Government seem anxious to deal with the measure. We have very little information as to the nature of this enormous territory, which comprises about 1,100,000 square miles. I have tried very hard to get information, but have not succeeded, and I cannot but complain that Blue Books have not been circulated.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: The Blue Book was circulated, as the hon. Member will find if he refers to the Pink Paper.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: It is only the less, important Blue Books which are referred to on the Pink Paper, and I venture to say that nineteen-twentieths of the Members of this House have not seen the Blue Book dealing with this question. Now, I desire to say that while I recognise the propriety of referring this matter to a Select Committee, I have considerable doubt as to whether the Members who act on the Committee will have a fair opportunity of dealing with the subject. What I am afraid of is that all the evidence that will come before the Committee will be of a one-sided character. The Government, at home and abroad, are committed to the Bill, but I believe the people of Albany are not inclined to support it. The dominant party in Western Australia, of course, are in its favour, and so are the regular Opposition. But the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Munro) is, I am told, himself a large landowner and is naturally interested in the measure. We do not hear both sides of the question. I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the people of Ireland, but in this matter we are in the position in which we have often found ourselves when asked to spend money in Ireland. There is another view of the matter which seems to me to be a very serious one. We have the interests of the colonists on the one side, and to some extent the interests of the British Empire on the other—at all events we are not directly, so to speak, in the same boat with the colonists in this matter—and we are entitled to look to the Governor of the colony as the representative of British interests and as a man who is bound to safeguard British interests. I think it,

      1361
      therefore, a matter very greatly to be regretted that the Governor of this colony, Sir F. Napier Broome, has taken the part of a strong- partisan on this question. There is no doubt great temptation for a Governor to be carried away by the popularity which results from strongly and entirely espousing colonial interests. We have heard something of circumstances which, make us think that Western Australia has been not altogether a happy family. We have heard of the Governor and the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General, carrying on a sort of triangular duel; but, after all, the Governor who has espoused the cause of the colonists in this matter has left the colony in a blaze of glory. He seems to have begun by writing a very long letter to the Times, and he has accused the Members who opposed this Bill of something very like ignorance and obstruction. He has made use of expressions which I do not think a representative of Her Majesty's Government ought to have used. For instance, he said the tinkers and the tailors and apothecaries who hang about the towns should not be sent out to the colonies against the wish of the colonial Legislature, and that Western Australia is too poor to be answerable for pauper emigrants. I do not think he ought to make use of such expressions, for no one has proposed to do anything of the kind. At an entertainment given to him when he left the colony he said unkind things of the Members of this House, and writers in the Press in this country, who did not agree with him, and he seemed to be of opinion that Members of this House who were foolish enough to believe that the Return presented to the House last year, showing that single individuals held millions of acres in the colony, was accurate, were almost fools and idiots. It seems to mo to be a matter of very considerable regret that the Governor of the colony should have taken this strong partisan view, the more so because I think this Governor has to a certain extent sacrificed his independent position by accepting the post of paid delegate to this country. I have said we ought to obtain some knowledge of the physical aspect of this territory. I hoped we might have got it from the Australian Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr. Forrest. But what I find is that
      1362
      this officer has made himself a strong political partisan in the matter. It was even proposed to delegate him to go to the eastern colonies and get up an agitation there, and this proposal would have been carried out if the Secretary of State had not stepped in. Mr. Forrest has taken a great deal of trouble to show what fools are the Members of this House, and the writers in the Press, but the great object of a letter which has been written by him has been to get rid of the statistics presented to the House last year, showing that the land was held in enormous blocks. He tells us that as a matter of fact a great many of these holdings have accumulated in consequence of money having- been advanced on mortgage by banks, and so on. There may be some truth in that statement, but we certainly ought to be entitled to believe in the Return presented to Parliament, and all I gather from Mr. Forrest's letter is that the lands are very much in the same position as what are called tied public houses. He tells us we have been casting unjust and unfair reflections on the people of Western Australia, and talks about the people of Greater Britain having equal rights and privileges with those who remain at home. Equal rights and privileges, certainly, but I think we have some right to ah interest in these colonies, and that the few persons who own large tracts of land in Australia should not have it all to themselves. His arguments may be good or bad in the mouth of a delegate of Australia, but it seems to me to be very regrettable that this officer, whose duty it was to give us statistics, has given us instead mere polemical arguments. I find that all the statistics given in regard to this great territory are compressed into about half a page of the Blue Book, and they are of the vaguest, most general, and most attenuated character. The officer by whom they are prepared admits that 'a small South-Western part of Australia has fine territory, and excellent rainfall, very productive land, and very fine forests. He admits that the rainfall goes up to 45 inches, but I understand other people to say that it reaches 60 inches. I may mention, as an instance of the very loose way in which the statistics are presented, that in the next division we are told that the highest rainfall is 20 inches, the lowest

      1363
      10, inches, and the average 10 inches, which, of course, is a physical impossibility. I find that the size of this South West territory is 126,000 square miles. It is, therefore, 50 per cent. larger than Victoria, considerably larger than the whole colony of New Zealand, and considerably larger than these British Islands. We are told that this part of the colony is already occupied. Well, you have some 30,000 people there, and I find from a subsequent part of the Return that of the 30,000 some 20,000 are in the towns, leaving only some 10,000 occupying territory considerably larger than the British Isles. A resident, writing recently to a newspaper, tells us that the greater part of the land is occupied by squatters with very many thousands of acres each, and with flocks of sheep and cattle, and that side by side with them are the blacksmiths, the shoemakers, the wheelwrights, and other country tradesmen, each with a piece of land of his own, and with his own cart and bullock. These seem to be the only small proprietors. Beyond this territory it is admitted that there is an enormous eastern territory, extending to I think more than half-a-million miles, of which this Return tells us absolutely nothing. I find the rainfall is unknown, the average temperature is unknown, the highest temperature is unknown, the lowest temperature is unknown, and everything is unknown. I will ask the Government whether they propose that this land shall be handed over to a handful of colonists without any knowledge whatever of its condition or any explanation of any kind, or whether they are going to give us time to investigate the matter fully in the first instance. The Land Commissioner, I find, has given us certain statistics with regard to the amount of land which has been alienated. This is naturally not large because the price paid for it is 10s. an acre, whereas it can be rented at a farthing or half a farthing an acre, the consequence being that people prefer to rent on terms which some of them say are practically perpetual, the leases being renewable. I find that whereas the population of Western Australia in the last 31 or 32 years has only increased about 50 per cent., the quantity of land alienated has been something like
      1364
      20 times what it was 30 years ago. On the 1st of January, 1860, the alienation amounted to 5,275,000 acres, whilst on the 1st January, 1889, it amounted to 108,000,000. Supposing there are 20,000 or 21,000 people living on the land the result is that, on the average, 5,000 acres per head of the population have been alienated, or 25,000 acres per family. We are told that this is not a permanent alienation, but that the leases run only to the year 1907. That is no doubt true, but we have other statements coming from residents and others to the effect that the leases are renewable and that they are practically perpetual. I admit that when I come to look at the letter of the land laws the leases are not as good as freeholds, but on the other hand there is an enormously large compensation clause. There is no limitation whatever as to the nature of the improvements for which tenants are to receive compensation in the event of the land being' taken over. The tenants may also take up small holdings, and may thus take the eyes out of the territory, so that it will be impossible to find others to rent or buy the rest of the land. We may be pretty sure that dummy holding which has been well-known in other parts of Australia is not likely to be unknown in Western Australia. If we turn over the country to the Legislature of Western Australia they will, of course, be able to alter the land laws as they please, and it is an extremely difficult thing, unless you have a very strong administration, to stop dummy holding. My own belief is that whatever they may put on paper these great holdings are practically or very nearly perpetual holdings. The experience of other colonies in Australia has been that whatever arrangements are made the great squatter—the great land king—always manages to get permanent possession of the land. The real truth of the matter is that our emigrants to Australia, having got out of touch with the land in this country have not got into touch with the land in Australia. You have there little homesteading population—no popular cultivation of the land. The population prefers the privilege of wage-earning in a country which is the paradise of wage-earners. The consequence is that these Australian colonists are drifting into two classes—one consisting of the

      1365
      enormous land kings and the other of the wage-earners, there being very little of that peasant proprietary system which has been so successful in America, and which I think might be as successful in Australia also, if we kept the thing in our hands and did not make the colony over to this handful of squatter kings. There is one Return which puzzled me very much indeed. It is a Return of leases and licenses forfeited for non-payment of rent, and to be offered for sale by public auction at the Crown Land offices at Perth on the 11th October, 1889. There we have an enormous list of prodigious holdings to be sold by auction in this way on account of non-payment of rent. I do not know why they should be sold by auction. I should have thought the natural thing would be to let the leases lapse, and to let them return to the hands of the Government. In one division I find that a gentleman named William McKinnon has had no less than four plots of 500,000 acres each, for each of which he has been liable to pay £250 a year, or half a farthing an acre. He had not paid this amount, and the land therefore is to be sold. There is another man who has got 20 blocks of 20,000 acres each, and the New Zealand Prime Minister has got 64,000, at half a farthing an acre, which is going to be sold. The Motion of which I have given notice suggests that this matter should not be settled until the Committee on Colonisation has come to some conclusion. I do not suggest that it is desirable that the Committee on the Western Australia Bill should be hung up until the other Committee has reported, but if the Colonisation Committee should think it desirable in the interest of this country to propose some measure promoting colonisation, they would find, if this Bill had been already passed, that the steed had been stolen,' and that their labours had been thrown away. Therefore, I think we ought not to hurry this matter too much. I protest against the way in which the alienation of the rights of this great country is carried out in the form of a Bill by which Western Australia is to receive while we are to give. For my part it would be much more proper that the Bill should originate in this House. Then in the local Bill there is the question of the Franchise.
      1366
      I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Governor of the Colony the other day, and he said—
      "At any rate you could not for a moment think of interfering with the Franchise; that is a matter which must be absolutely settled by the colonists."
      I do not know that at all. Suppose you find the colony is in the hands of a small oligarchy, are you going to allow them to regulate such a matter? I believe that at present the colony of Western Australia is in the hands of a small oligarchy, and that this Bill is drawn in anything but a popular manner. It is proposed to exclude all the poorer colonists and all the natives. I certainly think that if we are to make over the government to the colony we ought to take care there shall be sufficient popular government. We are told that gentlemen have come over here from Australia as delegates, and must not be kept waiting. I entirely repudiate that view. Let us hear these gentlemen, let us give them the amplest opportunity of having their say, but I protest, against our being hurried on that account. This is a very serious matter with regard to which we want a great deal of information. The Colonial Office are very anxious to get the Bill passed, but with all respect to the Under Secretary for the Colonies and Lord Knutsford that Office has meddled and muddled greatly in colonial affairs. The Under Secretary talks a great deal about the affection of the colonies to this country, and specially mentioned Queensland. That was a most unfortunate selection to make in connection with the assertion that the colonies are loyal to this country, because if there is one colony more than another which has shown a nasty spirit towards the Mother Country it is Queensland. Queensland had also been engaged in a very objectionable labour traffic, little to be distinguished from slavery. I admit that the colonists of Australia, taken generally, are kith and kin and enterprising men, and are entitled to be heard fairly and respectfully, but at the same time we must have some regard for the interests of the Mother Country. It is all very well to ascertain what the colonies want, but there must be some consideration paid to the wants of the Mother Country. We are bound to look to the interests of the population of

      1367
      Great Britain and Ireland, and not to yield everything to the colonists. I believe this is not a question of the interests of this country only, but of the colonists as well. We must give some thought to the way in which the land of Australia has been alienated and to the way in which the great territorial aristocracy has been created. I will not, however, move my Amendment, but I think it is most desirable that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out.
      MR. STAVELEY HILL: There are two great dangers which we should be prepared for in the Bill now before us, and if it were not that the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee, where we shall have the opportunity of discussing the matter fully and of guarding against those dangers, I certainly should move the Instruction of which I have given notice. The two points to which I wish to call attention are these. There is an enormous amount of open sea, and Western Australia enacts laws and imposes duties which are very much to the prejudice of vessels under the British flag. That is one of the points to which the Committee will have to direct their attention. But the other question is one with which I am, perhaps, more familiar, having had considerable experience in the Dominion of Canada, and it concerns the land. There is the danger that the Legislature, when it becomes a Representative Government, instead of dealing with the land as it is doing at present, namely, giving leases for short p3riods, which leases can be done away with, will deal with it in such a way that there will be no opportunity afforded of any of it passing into the hands of emigrants. Now, in Canada that is completely met under the Land Laws and there is no such alienation. Leases are granted of grass lands, but they are terminable at any time by the Government. We must, when the Bill conies into Committee, take care there shall be a provision in the Bill under which it will be rendered impossible that there shall be any alienation of these lands during the time when there is this very small population. These points will, I hope, be fully and fairly dealt with in the Select Committee, and if there is anything that escapes the
      1368
      vigilance of the Committee it will be dealt with when it returns to this House. It is not my intention to move the Instruction of which I have given notice.
      MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am sorry my hon. Friend behind me (Sir G. Campbell) imported so much irrelevant matter into his speech. Why did he give so much time to the opinions and actions of Sir F. Napier Broome? Nor do I think my hon. Friend has much reason to complain in reference to the last Blue Book. All he has to do is to sign his initials to the Pink Paper, and I consider the system is a great boon to Members. Surely our colonial policy by this time is well settled; whether for good or evil, we have made up our minds and come to a conclusion founded on painful experience that as soon as a colony can walk alone we must give it Representative Government. It would be as absurd to withhold it when the colony is ripe for it as to attempt to keep a young man in the leading-strings of his infancy. Whether the colony will make a good use of the concession or not is a different matter; it may or it may not. But I cannot help thinking that colonists on the spot are entitled to say that they know what is good for them much bettor than the Colonial Office, many thousand miles distant. The question therefore is, Has Western Australia arrived at the particular point when it should have Representative Government? On this matter I would commend to the attention of my hon. Friend the latest Colonial Statistical Abstract, and he will find that in the years-from 1874 to 1888 the progress of Western Australia has been something phenomenal. The railways increased from 34 miles in 1874 to 417 in 1888, the lines of telegraphic communication from 762 to 2,966. Trade and revenue progressed in a similar ratio, and last, but not least, looking at the Stock list in the Times,I find the colonial securities of Western Australia stand as high as any other Australian colony, and are second only to New South Wales. I would point out, too, that since the question was last under discussion in the House, it has entered on a new phase. I refer, of course, to that great federation movement, and which, from the bottom of my heart, I wish every success. It will open a new era of prosperity for Australasia, from

      1369
      which the Mother Country will benefit. We cannot forget how, 23 years ago, Canada became a federation, since which time, Canada's prosperity has increased by leaps and bounds. I hope the same thing may hereafter be said of Australia. I mention this because it has an important bearing on this question. It is the movement of federation that has made the question now before us an Australasian instead of a West Australian question, for it is perfectly certain that a federated Australia must attract to itself every inch of Australian territory. This is the meaning of the support Western Australia has received from the other colonies. Under the circumstances, we must make a virtue of necessity, and do what we have to do with a good grace. The land has been referred to, and no one is more anxious than I am to reserve an outlet for our surplus home population. But let me call attention to the small number of emigrants Australia has attracted in the last few years. I have looked at the Returns for 1888 and I find that only 31,725 persons have gone out as emigrants to Australia, as against 293,081 to the United States. So it seems that the United States attracts nine times as many emigrants as the whole of Australia. I am sorry this should be so. I would much rather that our own flesh and blood went to build up and strengthen our own colonies. And how many of these 31,000 went to Western Australia? I asked that question of a gentleman well able to give an opinion—Sir I1. Napier Broome—and he says only 200 emigrants went to Australia last year from this country. Only 200 persons! exactly one-fifth of the number of persons by which it is said the population of England and Wales is increased in a single day; and, probably, not more than half the number of those who proceed in a single day from the port of Liverpool to the United States. Under the circumstances I should have thought this matter of land, as regards our own emigrants, became a matter of secondary importance. One other matter there is I should like to mention. It seems to me that when wo are giving up everything south of the 26th parallel of latitude, we are giving up everything worth having. Is it then worth while to retain a hold on any part of the country at all? I am told that as to the northern part it is such
      1370
      that no European can work there. The riches and natural resources of the country may be great or not, but they must be developed by Asiatic labour. Is that a burden it is quite wise for us to undertake? Is it wise to saddle ourselves with the settlement of the thorny question of Asiatic labour in view of the advent of great Australasian federation? I should have thought the wiser course would be to at once wash our hands of the whole thing and to hand it over, this damnosa hæreditas—northern part—subject to certain conditions, to the control of the Representative Government. I have always found it is better to do spontaneously, and with a good grace, that which ultimately you will he obliged to do. As soon as we get federation we must do it. As to the other matters raised by lion. Gentlemen, they are really such as should be dealt with in Committee.
      SIR. G.BADEN-POWELL: There are a few remarks I should like to make to remove a misconception before it proceeds further. The Bill is not as some Members seem to-think, a Bill dealing with the alienation of land in Western Australia. It is a Bill for altering the constitution of Western Australia. That I take to be the main and chief principle of the Bill, and in regard to alienation, very much misconception exists in the minds of hon. Members and the public. These lands are, at present, or the great proportion of them, in the hands of the Crown. I believe that of over a million square miles less than 3,000 have been alienated, that is to say have become private property; and in the transfer to-be carried out by the Bill there will be perhaps 300,000 square miles likely to-become private property. Now, the wish of the hon. Member opposite is not to hurry with the Bill because he wishes-first of all to know the value of this land. Let me here remark that Western Australia is essentially a new country of which we know very little. But we do-know this, that it is a part of Australia of which, like other parts, we cannot know anything of the agricultural or commercial value until it is occupied. The Reports of explorers and those who travel through, the country are to my mind worthless for our purpose. We can only find out from the experience of settlers

      1371
      what the land is worth. There is a large area in New South Wales, as there is in other colonies, but I refer specially to New South Wales, which was reported upon by explorers a few years since. The first exploring party nearly perished from thirst. The second party were so impeded by floods that they reported the existence of an inland sea. The third exploring party carried boats with them on waggons and brought them back without using them and were astonished to find the country rich in grass lands, and surmised that the previous party had gone in the wrong direction, for the country proved to be most fertile. That may or may not be the case in Western Australia. But what I wish to point out is that even under the present land regulations of Western Australia, which undoubtedly are not oligarchic bat democratic, there has been very little progress towards the alienation of land, the reason for this being the paucity of population. Population is not there, and therefore lands have not been alienated. Another point that has been referred to is the division the Bill makes of the present colony of Western Australia into halves. To my mind that division is a most important matter. I could myself have wished to see the division in Clause 7 made substantial and not permissive, because, I think, in granting certain land revenues and rights to a small population in a large area, we ought, as far as possible, to confine the area to that portion of the colony immediately affected or controlled by the residents there, and in the present case I should like to see Western Australia defined, not only by the 26th parallel, but also by the meridian of say 120, and so you would have a small portion of Western Australia, say 250,000 square miles, handed over to a population of 50,000. It is well, I think, to sever this great area, especially the tropical portion from the new Government soon to be set up and for this reason: I confidently believe that Australian federation is a matter for the near future, and I think one of the greatest problems will be how Australia, with the aid of the Mother Country, is to deal with that large area within which white labour is not possible. I do not think that it would be desirable that the large area in the north of Western Australia should
      1372
      be handed over to the residents of Perth; it should be held in trust by the Imperial Government with a view to coming to an arrangement with the other colonies as to what should be the future position and control in that territory. I need not now add anything further, except to say that I hope in Committee the Government will be prepared to consider the two important points raised, according to their promise last Session. I hope they will restrict the area of Responsible Government, or else lay down such regulations as my hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) suggests, that in some way or other it shall be made clear to the inhabitants of Western Australia that they shall have, from their local knowledge, full control of the lands, provided they do not check immigration of British subjects. I hope in the Select Committee these questions will very speedily be settled, for the general reason that federation is coining, and because when once an Australian colony tries Responsible Government progress is very fast—much faster than before Responsible Government is conferred, and especially in the direction of increased immigration. We know from experience of the history of other colonies that immigration proceeds for the first few years after establishment of Responsible Government on a scale that is not reached afterwards.
      MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Few will object to the principle of local self-government for Western Australia. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir G. Campbell) has referred to the territory of the United States as a precedent, bat I think his analogy hardly holds good, because the States are all of them coterminous, and there is not the difficulty of the Supreme Government being administered thousands of miles away across the ocean. But although I think we are justified in giving local self-government to the colony, it may be observed that the population is very much smaller than the figure under which the United States Government has given local self-government to a territory. I believe Dakota had a population of 600,000 or 800,000 before it was formed into a State. On the other hand, as to the argument of the Under Secretary from the fact that we have given self-government to the other Australian colonies, with au-

      1373
      thority over vast areas, farmed by by a very limited number of settlers—some 20,000 or 30,000–1 do not think that is a precedent to follow for handing over half-a-million square miles in Western Australia to 42,000 inhabitants. The question before us to-night is not that of self-government; it is a question of what area shall be handed over to the new self-governing colony, and I think the feeling in the House is that the area proposed to be handed over is far too great for the number of inhabitants there. The whole population of the colony is practically in the south-western division, which has an area of 67,000 square miles; you have there a population of 39,000 out of the whole population of 42,300. That may be held to be too small a division, and you may select a larger division such as was suggested just now, but I hope a very strong protest will be made against the proposal for handing over half, and that the best half, of Western Australia, containing half a million square miles, to this very limited number of citizens. Australian interests are great and entitled to full consideration, no doubt. I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend has said in regard to the Australian colonies, and I think if we try to solve the problem of the attitude Queensland has taken up, we are more likely to find a solution in the policy formerly pursued in regard to New Guinea and the South Pacific Islands than in the reasons my hon. Friend has given. There is no Member on this side of the House, I believe, nor I should think on the other side, who does not wish to see our Australian colonies in that state of prosperity described by the Under Secretary tonight, but, at the same time, we also have our interests there. The whole of the rest of Australia, except Western Australia, has certainly not had the responsibility of discharging the duties of government towards that area of the continent which we have had, and therefore, I think, as regards the future we may be entitled to some consideration as well as the self-governing colonies there. Our interests are not the same as they were in the "fifties," to which the right hon. gentleman referred. There were then immense unoccupied areas all over the world open to emigration, but that position is now very much
      1374
      changed, and one of the few areas left to us is this area of half a million square miles it is proposed to hand over to the new colony. I think there is something in the contention of my hon. Friend that this question might very properly be considered by the Colonisation Committee before it is definitely decided what land policy we should pursue in Western Australia. I think the proposed area is much too large. I object to the best part of this million square miles being handed over in the manner proposed. If there is a case for the Bill in the form in which it stands now, I venture to think it has not been placed before the House by the Under Secretary to-night. Once more I say our unanimous desire is that local self-government shall be extended wherever it is demanded, but not that vast unoccupied areas should be handed over to the self-governing colony. Vast territories have so been treated in the past, and never should have been so handed over. This is what is being done now, under this Bill. An immense amount of country in Western Australia, which may become available for colonisation, is thought to be desert now, but may be made to smile in that fruitful manner described by the Under Secretary. Many an area of which nothing is known now may in the future support an abundant population. In the interest of the vast number of emigrants who annually leave our shores, I protest against the proposed arrangement.
      MR. SETON-KARR: I think on this side of the House many will feel not only surprised but gratified by what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. The hon. Member, though he did not move his Amendment, expressed himself as against the principle of Home Rule for Australia, divided from us by 14,000 miles of sea, though he is willing to concede the principle to an island lying-close to our shores. I was much gratified to hear the statements of my hon. Friend (Sir G. Baden-Powell), and also of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferguson), in regard to the Land Question. They are jealous of our territorial sovereignty in that country. I quite agree this is a question whether or not we shall grant a Constitution to Western Australia. Upon that I think we are

      1375
      all agreed. The question to solve has reference to these unoccupied lands. It is entirely a question of how much land we shall give to a population of 42,000, some of whom, I believe, are descended from the convicts formerly sent to the country. That, I believe, is a fact, and with facts we have to deal. I listened with considerable attention to the speech of the right lion. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies on introducing the Bill, and with all he did say I find myself in agreement. But, at the same time, he omitted a most important subject, saying hardly anything about this Land Question. We may be told that the Land Question can be considered in Committee. I protest against that suggestion, because I venture to think that the question of the land goes to the very root of the principle of this Bill. I do not want to detain the House for any length of time, but I wish to draw special attention to this point. We are asked to assent to the general principle of the Bill. I am in favour of the principle of granting Home Rule and self-government to Western Australia; but I want a little more information as to the reason why the land is to be divided in the manner in which it is proposed in this Bill. I should like to know whether it is not possible, while granting a Constitution to Western Australia, to retain a larger portion of that enormous area of 1,060,000 square miles under our own control? We find that that enormous area is practically divided into equal parts, the Northern of which is to be retained under the control of the Imperial Government, while the Southern is to go in its entirety to the Government of Western Australia. I happened to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary for the Coloniesprivately what the reason was for making this division, and he told me that there was no reason beyond the fact that it was proposed by Western Australia itself. I am not surprised at all to hear that Western Australia proposes the division, for the simple reason that they are taking all that is worth having, and they are giving away all that is not worth having. If hon. Members look at the map they will see that almost the whole of the land to be retained by the Imperial Parliament—or, at any rate,
      1376
      19–20ths of the area—is marked as sandy desert in a tropical clime. Of course, there is a certain amount of sea-board, but it will be of no practical use to this country, and on the area we propose to retain it would be almost impossible for us to settle colonists. Now, is it not possible to get a better division of the land than this? I am rather inclined to agree with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said when he suggested that if we could not get anything better than this, it would be as well to allow Western Australia to take control of the whole of the area. Why should we be troubled with a sandy desert and with a lot of responsibility when we can hope to gain no benefit whatever from the land itself? But at present I do not want to go so far as to urge that. I prefer, instead, to press for an explanation of the reasons for this particular division. We must remember that the population of the colony is only 42,000, whereas the colony of Victoria has only an area of 88,000 square miles, and yet it is one of the most progressive colonies in Australia. Why cannot the small population of Western Australia be satisfied with a smaller area of land? They can have a Constitution in the fullest degree, but why should they have reserved to them such enormous tracts of land? That is what I want to know. We all know that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of making free with the land of this country, and I am therefore glad to find that there are some among them who are jealous about the territorial rights of our colonies. We have in this country, as everybody knows, a population of over 37,000,000. We are sending out a constant stream of emigrants to our colonies, and surely it will be to our advantage to retain under the control of the Imperial Parliament tracts of land for colonisation purposes. Is it absolutely necessary, in order to satisfy the demands of Australia, that we should hand over to them the whole of this land? Could not some better division be made? Could not the dividing line be drawn from north to south instead of from east to west? Let us, at any rate, retain a portion of the land which is worth having, and of which we could make some use. These are the questions which I have risen in order to ask. I may add that I am inclined to agree with

      1377
      the suggestion which has been made that this Bill should be submitted to the Colonisation Committee, who could go into the Land Question, and would possibly be able to elicit some very valuable information.
      MR. O. V. MORGAN: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his speech found great fault with Sir Napier Broome because he so warmly advocated the passing of this Bill, and I suppose that if Sir Napier had taken up an entirely different line my hon. Friend would have praised him. But I agree with Sir Napier, and I am strongly in favour of the Bill for reasons which I will shortly give. It may not be in the knowledge of many hon. Members that Sir Napier Broome will not be Governor when the colony, under this Bill, gets a representative form of Government. Sir William Robinson has already been appointed his successor, and among the many who have held responsible positions in connection with our colonies I think no better man could have been found than Sir William. He is exceedingly popular, and, no doubt, will be still more popular when Western Australia obtains local government. And now I come to the Land Question. I am satisfied from my knowledge of the colonies, of which I have made a study, that the land would be better managed by the Western Australians than by the Colonial Office in this country. It is impossible for us in this country to deal with subjects in places so remote, and it is not the fault of the Colonial Office. The truth is, we have not the means of obtaining the requisite knowledge. And yet my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy proposes that a large proportion of the land in Western Australia shall remain in the hands of the Colonial Office, although he admits the impossibility of the Colonial Office properly dealing with these subjects. I never heard anything more illogical than the argument he used. I have seen with great regret that so very few emigrants have gone to Australia from this country of late years, but I think the reasons are quite clear. The older colonies are unfavourable to assisted emigration, but I hope that Western Australia will favour it. If so, I believe that a considerable number of people will go out from this country. I have expressed a wish to sit
      1378
      on the Committee dealing with this Bill, and if I am on it I shall ask the Representatives of the colony whether they will not agree that a certain portion of the revenue derived from the sale or rent of the land shall not be devoted to assisting emigration from the United Kingdom. I know there is a strong objection in Australia to immigrants from China and India. I sympathise with it; and I hope to see Western Australia occupied almost entirely by people of English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh blood. Lord Norton, who once held the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies, wrote with reference to this matter of the disposal of these lands—
      "It is worth while to note that the disposal of colonial lands through a central Government has always been more wasteful and the grants far more detrimental to central, as well as local interests, than disposals made on the spot."
      I agree with, that, and believe that the best the Colonial Office could do would be worse than the worst the Western Australians would do for themselves. And now, as to the Franchise Question. Many on the Opposition side of the House may think that the £10 franchise proposed for Western Australia is too narrow, but such a franchise will include every house in the colony, and it practically means universal suffrage. I hope that perhaps the day is not far distant when Western Australia will follow the example of the other Australian Colonies and adopt manhood suffrage. And now with regard to the northern territory. Some years ago the northern territory of South Australia was surrendered by the Crown to the colony, and it has proved rather a tax to the latter. Why, then, should the Government be so anxious now to retain the northern and tropical portion of Western Australia? I think we shall make a great mistake if we do not give the whole of the territory of Western Australia to the colony. Every one of the Australian Colonies is strongly in favour of the Bill before the House, and that is a fact of very great weight in itself. I look forward to the day when all the Australian Colonies will be federated, and that is why I think that Western Australia should have, as nearly as possible, the same form of government as the other colonies. I am very glad

      1379
      that this discussion has taken place, but I think these matters could be better dealt with in Committee.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I am glad that this discussion has been of so very satisfactory a nature, and that it has not in any way been coloured by Party politics. I think that the lion. Member who has just sat down stated a true fact when he said that, when dealing with Western Australia, we are practically dealing with the whole of Australia, because on this question there is a common and almost unanimous feeling among all the Australian Colonies. They have thrown in their lot with Western Australia, and are anxious to assist that colony in obtaining the advantages of self-government which are asked for in this Bill. I think that if we give Western Australia Responsible Government we should do it with no niggard hand. What have we done for Western Australia, in the matter of colonisation for the last quarter of a century. Only about 200 colonists go out there from this country every year. How can we say, then, that by our methods of dealing with Western Australia we are opening it for the reception of emigrants from this country? Although it is not closed for colonisation, we, as a Government, are not doing anything towards getting it occupied; and, I should like to know, are we likely to do more if we have the northern tropical parts of the land left in our hands? It appears to me well worthy the consideration of the Government whether it would not be better to hand over the whole of the land to our kinsmen in Western Australia to deal with as they choose. I hope, Sir, we shall give autonomy to Western Australia without putting any clauses in the Bill that will limit the freedom which they desire. I think we may be quite sure that our Australian kinsmen are not likely to act in any hostile way towards England or towards the Empire. We may trust them perfectly well to continue the work of colonisation, for they are much more capable of dealing with it, living as they do on the spot, than we are who live far away.
      MR. W. A. MCARTHUR,: I am extremely anxious that this Bill should go to a
      1380
      Select Committee at the earliest possible moment, and that it should be passed into law. I desire to say a word or two, however, not because I think there is much more to be said on the general question, but because I think it is time that somebody connected with Australia should raise a protest against the extraordinary speech delivered by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. I think it will be news to a great many of our Australian fellow-subjects to find that there is at this time of day a Member of this House prepared to taunt the Australian colonists with disloyalty, and prepared to insinuate that the only object of the land legislation in the new colonies of Australia is to put money into the hands of big squatters.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I did not say that that was the only object.
      MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: The lion. Gentleman ascribed motives of the most sordid kind to every possible movement of these colonies in the direction of self-government. He poses here as the representative of omniscience. I do not deny that he has had great experience, but I do deny that he has had Australian experience. If I were to attempt to-reply to the speech he has delivered tonight, it would probably take me until 11 o'clock, because there was a mistake in almost every sentence. I will give but one example. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said he doubted whether Queensland could not have taken some better way of showing their loyalty than they had done in relation to the questions which had recently arisen. He said he could not understand their petty spirit, and he further stated that Queensland was engaged in a most unfortunate traffic.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I said "had been" engaged.
      MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: I am within the recollection of the House. The hon. Member implied that the Local Government had not put the scandalous labour traffic down. It seems to me that Queensland has some cause for dissatisfaction against this country in regard to the action taken respecting the New Hebrides and New Guinea. But let that pass. May I point out that the hon. Member did not state that the labour traffic in Queensland has been absolutely stopped by an Act of

      1381
      Parliament which comes into force this year or next?
      SIB GEORGE CAMPBELL: I said Queensland had been engaged in a very nefarious labour traffic. I did not say it was so engaged at this moment.
      MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: The hon. Member carefully refrained from informing the House that the Local Legislature had long ago seen the evils of the traffic and taken steps to put an end to it. At this moment the traffic is virtually stopped. I wish now to say a few words on the Land Question. (Sitting as I do on this side of the House I naturally hold very strong views as regards aggregation of large masses of land in the hands of single individuals; and if I thought it was likely, or that it was in the interests of the Western Australian people themselves to retain large tracts of land in the hands of private persons, and to prevent emigration, I should be among the first to oppose this Bill. But I would put this question to hon. Members as men of business: What is the good of the land sinless people occupy it? The land alone would be worthless to a native of Western Australia. He could not cultivate it; he could not raise flocks of sheep and herds of cattle upon it unless he had people to assist him, and therefore the land would be absolutely valueless; and it is only by colonising it that the people of Western Australia can hope to make it valuable. But there is a far wider question than that. Who is it that has made the land of Western Australia valuable? Has it been hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Kirkcaldy? Has it been Members who sit in this House and never trouble themselves about the colonies until legislation of this kind is proposed? No, Sir; it was made valuable by people who ran great risks and underwent great hardships; who toiled and worked to make the land what it is, and who have made the colony a possession of which we may well be proud. The hon. Member says we ought to wait until Western Australia has been thoroughly explored. What sort of assistance have we given in the past in the work of exploration? How many Englishmen have gone out to carry it on? The exploration has been done solely by Australian settlers—by people sent out by the Western Australians themselves—
      1382
      without the assistance of any Englishmen and without the assistance of any Member of this House. Somebody has said in the course of this debate that the northern territory ought to be separated from the southern portion of Western Australia, because it is land situated in the tropics, and, consequently, not fit for English people to work upon. But supposing that the Western Australian Legislature passed a law excluding the Chinese or labour from the Pacific Islands from the southern part of the territory, does any one suppose that the country would force the importation of that labour, or even allow it into the northern part of the territory? I do not believe that it would be allowed, and therefore I say that the argument that if we separate the colony into two parts there will be the possibility of coloured labour being employed in the north, is an argument which will not hold water. I am in favour of handing over the whole territory to Western Australia. The Australian people themselves are in favour of it. Indeed, the Australians ask for it, and I ask is it possible to withstand a demand of that nature? The growth of the Australian Colonies has reached such a pitch that it is practically impossible for this country not to concede a demand made by United Australia. I do not believe that any Government in existence could seriously contemplate for one moment the possibility of doing so if they desired to maintain intact our Australian connection. These colonies are loyal colonies, and have now acquired such a position that you can no longer afford to treat them as children, and you will be running great risks if you strain their loyalty by yielding to the advice of Scotch gentlemen who have studied this question in the armchairs of their libraries instead of accepting the counsel of practical people who live on the spot and know exactly what they want and what best they can do with their own country when they once get the form of government they require.
      SIR J. C. COLOMB: As this Bill is to go before a Select Committee, I will not trouble the House with any lengthened observations upon it. Still, I would say the importance of this question must be obvious when it is remembered that the Bill proposes to

      1383
      hand over a territory equal in area to the whole of our Indian Empire, and, indeed, as great in extent as half the aggregate territory comprised in the 38 States of America. This enormous area it is intended to hand over to a population smaller than that of an average London parish. I quite admit, and cordially reecho, what has fallen from the hon. Member who just sat down, namely, that we must recognise what has been the result to the colonies of our policy in the past in making over large tracts of land to a small number of individuals without reservation, a policy which I am afraid it is too late now to reverse. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the reservation of the sub-tropical portion of West Australia would be practically a useless, if not also a dangerous, reservation. I fully share the opinion expressed by other speakers that we are very near the time when we shall have a federated Australia. Let me draw the attention of the House to this consideration, namely, that if this reservation is made as provided for in the Bill, and we afterwards get a federated Australia, we shall have a large portion of the north-west corner of the continent left out of the federation, and administered by the United Kingdom. That is a position which, I think, would be practically untenable, as it would become a source of irritation and trouble. I also think that, looking at the rapid growth of the population of India and the difficulty of providing for any overflow from, that country, we may have serious trouble there, and that it would be only right and prudent to provide some tropical territory to which we might shift the surplus population of the Indian Empire, and so give relief to the overcrowded centres of that country. But we shall certainly get into difficulty if, with a Federated Australia, we attempt to utilise for such a purpose the northern and reserved territory of Western Australia. There is one point which I do not think has been touched upon in this debate, and it is mainly upon that subject that I venture to trouble the House. There are some 3,000 miles of coast line in the colony we are now dealing with, and we have not reserved a single portion of it in the temperate zone for the use of our vessels for the protection of the commerce of India and that part of the world. I
      1384
      think we are bound to look ahead in this matter. It so happens that in the southwest corner of that colony we have one of the most important strategic possessions that could be used as a base for the operations of our fleet in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific. That point is King George's Sound. There has for years been correspondence between the Mother Country and the Australian Colonies with regard to the establishment of the necessary naval base at King George's Sound, but no agreement has as yet been arrived at. One of the difficulties is the want of money and how the necessary means may be found. This being so, instead of reserving the northern territory, we ought to take steps for making some Imperial reservation with regard to the Port of Albany and the district of King George's Sound, so as to provide the necessary revenue for maintaining in the future the naval power required in the interests of our commerce-This, to my mind, is a very material point, and I think it is rendered all the weightier by this consideration, namely, the growth of the commercial interchange between India and Australia, and New Zealand, and Tasmania, which has been excessively rapid. In all probability, we shall find, even in the near future, that that trade will have attained proportions of great magnitude. The coast line we are going to part with flanks our sea roads of communication in that part of the world, and I apprehend that it is hardly right for the Ministers of the Crown to propose to make over the heritage that should be held, not only for the use of the millions of our people who may desire to emigrate there in the future, but, generally, for the naval interests of the State. I attach great importance to the fact that under the provisions of this Bill it is proposed to put beyond the power of recall any facilities to provide for our having a port to which we may have secure access for all future time.
      MR. RATHBOINE: I desire to call attention to a point which, I am sure, all who have an interest in emigration and are watching its progress will regard as one of great importance, and one as to which it is necessary that any legislation upon the subject should be carefully safeguarded. It is evident to those who have watched what has been going on in

      1385
      America that there is a growing disposition to interfere with the freedom of emigration even from the Mother Country, and even though at present in South Australia we have no fear of any such action, because it is largely in the interest of Australia to encourage emigration rather than to discourage it; nevertheless, we have to look ahead and prepare ourselves for the difficulty we are almost sure to be placed in some 20 or 30 years' hence in dealing with the increased population of this country. We have learned a good deal from what is going on in America. In that country those who have to deal with questions of this sort, being afraid that the excitement of local feeling might lead to imprudent hasty action, have taken the precaution to provide by a clause in their State Constitutions which enables them to meet the difficulty. There are means of altering any such clause; but in order to do so a considerable time and a very large majority is necessary. What I would offer as a practical suggestion to the Government is, that in Clause 8 of this Bill, which deals with the Emigration Question, instead of putting it in a way that seems almost to encourage the South Australians, as soon as their temporary interests have been served, to deal with this matter in a manner that might be unsatisfactory to ourselves, it ought to be laid down as a part of the Constitution of Western Australia that there should be no interference with the emigration of the surplus population of those kingdoms either now or at any future time. Of course, if they want afterwards to check the inflow of the Chinese or any undesirable immigrants there should be no difficulty in their getting a measure passed through this House to alter their Constitution in that respect; but I think it only just to the people of this country, who bear so large a share of the burden of taxation for the maintenance of the Navy necessary to protect the Australian and other colonies, that we should reserve to our own people their rights of colonisation and carefully guard against that selfishness of labour which seeks to set up a monopoly of its own, for there is undoubtedly a selfishness of democracy as well as of aristocracy, although I do not say that the selfishness of the one is quite the same or as great as the selfishness of the other. In America,
      1386
      however, we have seen that selfishness in action, and I do trust that care will be taken to make it a part of the Constitution of Western Australia that they shall not be able in the future to debar their fellow countrymen from emigration to their shores.
      MR. S. GEDGE: I think abundant reason has been shown why we should be either very slow to pass this Bill, or else take care that it comes from the Select Committee in a greatly improved form. None of us would object to give Responsible Government to any 'colony that can demonstrate its ability to run alone. The question is, when is a colony able to run alone? A few people may establish a colony in some small island and be entitled to a Responsible Government; but that case is different from one in which we are asked to give Responsible Government to a small population whose territory includes upwards of a million of square miles. We are told that, apart from the intrinsic merits of the case, we ought to comply at once with the request for a Constitution on the part of the colony of Western Australia, and it is urged as a reason why we should accede to that request that all the Australian Colonies have united in asking the British Parliament to grant the form of Constitution proposed in this Bill. I find in the Colony of Tasmania the House of Assembly ask that
      "Her Majesty will be pleased speedily to extend to Western Australia that full measure or Responsible (government under a Constitution similar to that of Your Majesty's other Australian Colonies."
      Then it goes on—
      "And that Your Majesty will be pleased to direct that any territory which in Your Majesty's wisdom it may be deemed expedient to exclude from the new Constitution may be reserved for settlement under a similar form of government for the use of the British people, thus advancing the cause of Australian federation and unity, and adding Western Australia to the group of loyal and autonomous Australian Colonies."
      The Houses of Assembly of other colonies have sent Addresses couched in similar terms. I agree that by all means we should give a Constitution to the 40,000 people in the south-west corner of Western Australia. By all means let them have a Constitution over the lands that they have made valuable, besides, if you like, land in the neighbourhood, but I see no

      1387
      reason why, because these 40,000 people have cultivated 170 square miles and so made them valuable, out of 1,000,000 square miles, we should give them a Constitution by which they would have entire control over those 1,000,000 square miles. That is a very different thing to what is proposed by the other colonies; and, if the Bill goes to a Select Committee, I think they ought to confine the new Constitution to a moderate portion of the territory, say even 20,000 square miles oat of the 1,000,000. To give 40,000 men dominion over 1,000,000 of square miles, with its enormous seaboard, would ha to take away our heritage. I represent a constituency containing a very much larger population than that of Western Australia—a large proportion being working men. There is a strong feeling among them about this gradual giving away of our inheritance in the land which belongs to Great Britain, and giving to a few, who happen to be the pioneers, an advantage which is very unfair to the working men of this country who look to the future, when the teeming millions of England will turn to the colonies for places of settlement. They regard as selfish the policy of those colonists who wish to keep to themselves these large tracts of land and the labour and wages to be obtained in the colonies. It seems to me that we shall not be standing in the way of Australian federation if we limit the Constitution of Western Australia to a small portion of the territory in question, as we shall be doing the very thing which the other colonies recommend.
      MR. BRYCE: Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate which has taken place has been very interesting, and has amply justified the sensible course, at the end of last Session, of those who urged that the Bill should not be passed immediately, and also that of the Government in proposing to refer it to a Select Committee. There are differences in the point of view taken on this Bill, some hon. Members dealing with it from practical knowledge of Australia and sympathy with colonial feeling, while others have treated it on considerations of general policy. I think the general views which have been expressed may be reconciled with the experience of those who are practically acquainted
      1388
      with the development of the Australian Colonies. Interesting data have been furnished us by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Austell. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, and those who followed him on the land question, have confined themselves to pointing out the difficulties which may arise in giving control over this large area to this extremely small population. We must all feel impressed by the somewhat thoughtless way in which, in some other colonies, public land has been wastefully dealt with. I contend that the excitement experienced in some of the Western States of America, arising from the way in which land grants were made, and land titles taken up, particularly in California, shows what difficulties may spring from a faulty and wasteful use of land in the beginning of a colony. It also seems to me that my hon. Friend in dealing with this land question omitted to consider another side of the subject, namely, who manages the land now, and have we any better security for its wise management under a Colonial Parliament? Hon. Members of colonial experience say that our present system does not really offer any greater security for the development of the country, or for the distribution of it amongst poor working proprietors, than would be afforded under a Colonial Legislature. The moral, therefore, seems to be that we want all these matters gone into fully and thoroughly by a Select Committee before another step is taken. I should like to suggest to the Under Secretary for the Colonies, who will to some extent be charged with the preparation of the evidence on the part of the Government or the scheme to be laid before the Committee, that he might direct the evidence, first, to the question whether the colony is ready for representative self-government; secondly, what the methods and limitations for for that self-government should be; thirdly, what rules and regulations should be laid down with regard to the distribution of land and for the control of emigration, bearing in mind particularly the valuable suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon; and, finally, the question which was referred to by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley—the possible

      1389
      provision for controlling and maintaining for Imperial purposes any harbour or strip of land on the coast. I do not mean to say that this last is a question which at first sight seems to have much possibility of being practically dealt with; at the same time, naval defence is a matter of great and growing importance, and would deserve to be brought before the Committee. I should like, in passing, to refer to a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in the appointment they made to a very responsible and important post, that of Attorney General for Western Australia. They appointed a former Member of this House, of whom I will say no more than this, that I do not think anyone who knew him in this House would say that he was the proper person for so very delicate a position. I will not say more than that; but everyone who sat in the Parliament of 1880 can appreciate the grounds for the remark. It ought to be borne in mind that the difficulties which occur in the colonies very often arise from the unwise selection of the authorities sent out to them. There is another question, which does not exactly arise on the Bill, but may arise at no distant date, to which the attention of the Committee might be usefully directed. Supposing it is decided not to deliver over to the Colony the whole of the territory hitherto called Western Australia, on the ground that the Colony is too small, and that it is not a good service to render the Colony to give it heavy powers, duties, and responsibilities before it is ripe for them—as has been shown in America in respect of the State of Nevada, whose admission to Statehood everyone now recognises as a mistake—what will we do with that remaining territory. Very likely we may have a Federal Government for the whole of the Australian Colonies, as in the United States of America. With the probable advent of that Government, it seems to be deserving of careful consideration whether the management of these remaining territories could not be better undertaken by a responsible Federal Government for the whole of Australia or Australasia than by the Local Government of the Colony.
      MR. A. MCARTHUR: I do not desire to prolong the debate, and will only make a few
      1390
      observations. The waste land in the Australian Colonies (which would otherwise be utterly useless) is let to squatters at a nominal rent, sometimes as low as a half-penny or a penny per acre. But there is a condition that a certain amount of stock must be put upon it by the person who occupies it within a certain period, or his lease is forfeited. This accounts for the enormous tracts of land occupied by squatters, referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and it is surely better to have it thus occupied, than to have it lying waste. My hon. Friend has also referred to the small number of persons emigrating to the Colonies. The distance of the Australian Colonies makes emigration to them very expensive, compared with emigration to Canada or the limited States, where emigrants go in large numbers. One of the principal reasons I had for rising was to deal with the question of emigration. All the Australian colonies that I know are in favour of emigration, or "immigration," as they call it. They believe additional population is wanted, and this applies in particular to New South Wales, where I resided for many years and was a member of the Assembly. I invariably found the Governments of these colonies in favour of emigration. At the same time, it is perfectly true that the labouring population of these colonies have an idea—a very foolish and erroneous one that if an increasing number of emigrants come into the country the effect would be to lessen their wages. Therefore they oppose emigration with all their might, and these frequently succeed in exercising a powerful influence upon the Government. Formerly grants were made, sometimes as much as £50,000 a year, by these colonies towards the assistance of emigration; but owing to the pressure brought to bear upon them by the working classes that system has almost ceased. At any rate, it only exists to a limited extent. I would only express a hope that some provision may be embodied in this Bill requiring a sum of money to be given in aid of emigration to Western Australia. I do not think the matter should be left as a recommendation to the Government; but I think that we should require a certain sum to be set aside for that purpose. The matter should not be left dependent

      1391
      on the vote of the Colonial Assembly. Finally, I would only say that I think the measure before the House will tend to the rapid development of Western Australia. I do not think we can expect the colony to develope unless we give it Responsible Government; but by conferring that boon upon it I have no doubt that it will largely increase both in population and trade.
      MR. E. B. HOARE: I think that a great many of the fears expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House are founded on a misapprehension. Hon. Members seem to think that it would be to the advantage of the labouring population of this country that large tracts of land should remain in the hands of the Government, with a view to the settlement of bodies of emigrants. Now, I believe it to be a fact that there is hardly a single successful working man emigrant in the colonies who went there and settled upon the land. Every man who goes to the colonies and succeeds is a man who goes there and works for wages, who accumulates capital and buys land. If you took a mechanic or an agricultural labourer from this country and put him on a piece of unbroken colonial land he would starve before he made a profit; and the only chance for the successful occupation and cultivation of land in these new countries is to put the land in the first instance into the hands of capitalists, who can hire labour for the purpose of cultivating it. From that point of view I think there is no ground for the fears which have been expressed with regard to the alienation of land in Western Australia by putting it into the hands of large squatters. It is to the interest of the squatters to provide labour, and they are able to do it, and to make a profit under the existing conditions of the country; whereas small cultivators would be unable to succeed without handy markets.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise for the purpose of adding anything to the very interesting debate that has taken place on the principles that are at issue in this Bill. I take it for granted that the Committee to be appointed will give most careful attention to such important questions as the amount of land to be reserved and the conditions to be imposed upon
      1392
      the new constitution. I desire to say just one word in reference to the importance of the matter of emigration. I agree entirely with the hon. Member behind me as to the importance of the question to the people of the United Kingdom. Certainly, it would be most desirable to impose some such conditions as have been suggested, if it could be done with the goodwill of the Australian Colonies, but it must be remembered that we are not dealing with the 40,000 inhabitants of Western Australia alone, but with the whole population of Australasia. Unless we can persuade them, that these limitations are reasonable, I think it would be better not to push them at all. It must be remembered that in giving the colonies self-government we have given them practically independence in all that concerns their own affairs. The point to which I wish to refer is indirectly connected with this question, and I expected it would have been referred to by some other Member. I should like to draw the attention of the Under Secretary to the matter, in order that he may give an explanation. I refer to some extraordinary legislation which appears recently to have been passed by Western Australia, which I think concerns the material interests of British subjects. It appears that on the Coast of Western Australia there is a valuable pearl fishery. The Government of Western Australia very rightly thought fit to tax this industry, which they did by imposing an export duty on the pearl shells collected, and also an import duty upon the provisions brought in for the fishermen. Such a course was perfectly within their right. But then it was discovered that the pearl fishers imported their provisions from a distance in vessels which did not come within the territorial limits of Western Australia, The Authorities went for a Bill to impose these same duties upon vessels which kept altogether without the territorial waters of Western Australia, The Colonial Office refused to sanction the Bill, and the Western Australian Legislature went to the Federal Council," and the Federal Council of Australasia passed an Act which gave them this authority. I must say I think that that was a very high-handed proceeding. But, what is more extraordi-

      1393
      nary, they say that these duties are only to be imposed on British vessels. Here we have a British Crown Colony actually imposing duties, and, I think, illegal duties, upon British vessels whilst foreign vessels are allowed to go entirely free. I do not pretend that the imposition of legislation of this kind will be a justification for refusing legislation to Western Australia, but I think it is a matter the Committee should inquire into, and we may ask the representatives of Western Australia to give a security that they will not pass legislation of this character, and particularly against British subjects.
      MR. CHANNING: I should not have interposed, especially as the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has stated the views of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, with his usual precision, and more than his usual felicity, had I not received some statements of importance from correspondents in Western Australia, which prompts me to draw the attention of the House to one or two points connected with this Bill. In the first place, my correspondent calls attention to the property qualification of the Council and the Legislative Assembly. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. O. V. Morgan) seemed to think that the qualification embodied in the schedule practically amounts to universal suffrage or household suffrage in Western Australia. If that is the case I should like to know why these provisions have found a place in the Bill. It must be to all hon. Members who are acquainted with the Australian Colonies, a familiar fact that the other colonies have no property qualification for the Members of the Lower Assembly or for the electors to that Assembly. This is one of the main points to which I have been requested to draw attention. I will read a few words from the letter of my correspondent, who is a gentleman of some position in Western Australia, on the whole character of the Bill. He writes—
      "Hitherto the Legislative Council of the Colony has been decidedly Conservative. It has consisted of 20 Members, of whom nine have been nominated by the Crown, or Governor, and the remaining 17 have been elected. The electors have been, roughly speaking, £10 householders, and a qualification has been required from the elected Members:—the pos-
      1394
      session of land of the value of £1,000, or of the yearly value of £50."
      And then I would draw the attention of the House to what follows:—
      "There has been great difficulty in this poor community, where everyone almost works for his living, in getting 17 men who have the property and are willing to give up two or three months a year to the work. Again, in this semi-Crown Colony, the people have hitherto taken but faint interest in political questions—they have been disgusted with the recent bad management, and generally desire Responsible Government; but they have left the Council to arrange the terms of the Bill. The Bill is narrow to the last degree in several particulars. First, as to two Houses—Lord Knutsford, knowing the impossibility of getting more than a very few decently fit men to take part in legislation and government, at first proposed a single Chamber. Seeing that we have had a single Chamber with three different sorts of Members ever since 1870, when the present Constitution began one would have thought this was reasonable. But the Tories in the Colony took alarm and worked against it, and Lord Knutsford withdrew the plan. The Bill proposes two Chambers—the Council, with 15 Members; the Assembly, with 30 Members. They cannot get 45 men, with the qualification, who will be content to give up one-third of the year to do this duty. Thus the property qualification, which is to be for both Houses, is altogether absurd here. In the first place, it will be evaded in many cases; but the great objection is that it will prevent a number of honest men who may be in all other respects suitable, from giving their services to the public. Moreover, it is provided that this property must have been possessed for 12 months before the election. The intention of this clause is to keep the management of affairs in the hands of the clique who now rule the roost. Again, in no other colony of Australia is there any property qualification for the Lower House. It will be a different Constitution from the other self-governing colonies of Australia, and this at a time when Federation is being insisted upon. It is said all matters such as this can afterwards be amended. Possibly; but they will not be if the present Members have their way."
      I am sorry to trouble the House with such a long quotation, but the extract is of importance, coming as it does from the former Attorney General of Western Australia, the predecessor of Mr. Warton. I think it deserves the careful attention of the Members of the Select Committee, to whom this Bill is to be referred. I must say that I think this debate has been amply justified by the many suggestions which have been made, of which none are more important than those which fell from the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, who presented to us the views of one of the best

      1395
      authorities on colonial matters, namely, Sir Charles Dilke, in his Problems of Great Britain I venture to think that we should give this colony as democratic a Constitution as possible, so as to enable the poorer inhabitants to take their part in the Government and in the settlement of any questions concerning the disposal of the land. The debate; has been marked on all sides by hearty sympathy with colonial self-government. I will not detain the House by any further remarks. I considered it my duty to lay these considerations with regard to the property qualification before the House, and, through the House, before the country, before the Select Committee deals with this important measure, affecting, as the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has pointed out, not merely the 40,000 people in Western Australia, but the whole of the rapidly increasing population of Australasia.
      MR. S. SMITH: I view this Bill with very considerable repugnance, but I fully admit the difficulty in which the Government are placed. As the Australian colonies have united in advocating the claims of Western Australia, the Government could not do otherwise than bring forward the measure. I think, however, that the opinion pat forward on behalf of Australia in connection with this matter is not the bonâ fide opinion of the 4,000,000 of people in that country. I have read many of the Australian newspapers, and I submit that these newspapers to a large extent reflect the opinions of the squatters and richer classes, and entirely hide from the people the fact that the real objection of the Imperial Parliament is not on the score of the granting of self-government to the colonists, but to the million square miles of territory in Western Australia not being utilised for the benefit of the British race. In opposition to the newspaper opinions I refer to I have received a letter from one of the oldest settlers in New South Wales, whose view I believe represents those of a large portion of the people of Australia. He writes—
      "To grant Western Australia Responsible Government means government by squatters, syndicates, and colonial banks, instead of Responsible Government, promoting population and the occupation of the soil, as in America."
      1396
      The evil resulting from such a system as is here described has been exemplified in the case of New South Wales, where, 35 years ago, men who obtained seats in the Legislature for the purposes of self-aggrandisement managed to get 190 millions out of a total of 200 million of acres of the land of the colony into their own hands, leaving only about 10 millions of acres to be occupied by people coming from the Mother Country. Almost the whole of that extensive territory is laid out in extensive grazing farms, from which the owners derive, in some instances, as much as £100,000 a year, while every effort is made to keep out cultivating settlers from this country. America and Canada have dealt with their land upon a totally different principle, the latter colony forbidding any settler to hold permanently more than 160 acres of land. If the same policy had been adopted with the Australian Colonies their population would have been double what it is to-day. Surely it is reasonable, before we grant self-government to the last Crown Colony in Australia, that we should ask for conditions to be laid down similar to those laid down in Canada, namely, that no land shall be permanently alienated that is suitable for cultivation, except to bonâ fide cultivators who are willing to settle upon the land and cultivate it. We do not grudge Responsible Government to Western Australia. What we grudge is that a handful of irresponsible people should be allowed to gamble on the land, and establish on it an enormous squatting plutocracy, which, in future years, will create enormous difficulties in regard to the development of our colonies. If there is no other way of dealing with the land except handing it over entirely, I would much rather adopt the suggestion to hand it over to the entire Australian people, if they are willing to manage it as the trustees both of Australia and of England.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."
      MR. MOLLOY: I should like to make a suggestion to the First Lord of the Treasury,

      1397
      and it is this: There are many Members of the House who have a practical knowledge of Australia, and it is desirable that we should pick out as many of these as we possibly can to sit on the Committee. This is necessary, because the speech which we have just listened to is typical of the kind of knowledge that will be brought to bear on the Committee. The hon. Member speaks of small farms in Australia. The hon. Member's correspondent seems to have concealed the fact that in many parts of Australia it takes five acres to feed one sheep; therefore, when anyone can talk of small farms, it is easy to see how necessary it is to bring to bear on the Committee the practical knowledge of men who have spent considerable time in Australia.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it will be the desire of the Government to form a Committee which shall be well informed upon all the subjects referred to it. So far as we are concerned, the Committee shall be constituted of thoroughly practical men.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL.—(No. 113.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: For some time past there has been, I think, a general feeling in the country, and especially among the commercial community, that abuses have arisen under the operation of the Companies Acts for which it is extremely desirable that Parliament should find a remedy without doing anything to restrict the principle of freedom of association for the conduct of industrial and commercial enterprise. I hoped at one time to place before the House a measure not only amending the Companies Acts on all those matters in which they are admittedly defective, but also effecting a consolidation of the law. But the more I reflected on the matter the more I felt that, having regard to the difficulty and complexity of the subject and to the number of other matters with which the House has to deal, any attempt to pass a comprehensive measure of that
      1398
      kind could not be successful. I feel sure that to attempt a large and general measure of that character would be to prevent, or at any rate retard, any real reform of the law. For this reason I have been content to prepare the limited measure which I now ask should be read a second time. It deals with a part of the law which is admitted to be defective, and which the commercial community, at all events, is most anxious to see improved. I hope that hon. Members who take an interest in the subject and may desire other changes, such, for instance, as an improvement of the law, relating to the formation of companies and a consolidation of the law itself, will not allow their views to prejudice their consideration of the measure I now bring before the House. I shall continue, on the part of the Government, to bear these subjects in mind, and endeavour to deal with them also at as early a date as possible. I would ask that this measure should be simply considered on its merits, believing, as I do, that should Parliament pass it, it will promote and not impede a further amendment of the law. I cannot more shortly state the objects of the Bill than by reading the statement in the Memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill:—
      "To extend the policy of the Companies Act, 1867, by giving jurisdiction in the winding up of companies to County Courts and other local Courts, and to assimilate, as far as circumatances will admit, the law and procedure in the winding up of insolvent companies to the law and procedure in the bankruptcy of individual debtors, particularly by applying the principle embodied in the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, of separating, so far as practicable, administrative from judicial functions, and of subjecting to public examination persons who are responsible for the loss caused to the creditors by the insolvency."
      As to the first of these objects, I have to say that the limit of £5,000 proposed in the Bill must be considered as a merely tentative proposal, made with a view to discussion and consideration, and the Standing Committee on Trade, to which I hope the measure will be referred, can increase that limit or alter its application in any way they think right. As to the second object, I wish to say that the Bill only carries out a principle which has been recognised by Parliament in the Judicature Act of 1875, by which it is provided

      1399
      that the same rules should be observed in the administration of the assets of insolvent individuals and insolvent companies with regard to the respective rights of creditors and the proof of debts and liabilities. We propose to carry out this principle in the way I have described by adapting the procedure in bankruptcy to the winding-up insolvent companies. Now, it may be asked why this change is necessary? Sir, I very much doubt if any hon. Member will defend the present system as being in any way satisfactory, except, of course, to the liquidators and solicitors who profit by it. The present system is as injurious to the public at large as any system could well be. In the first place, it is injurious to the creditors. Surely the chief object of winding-up proceedings in a case of insolvency should be to protect the salvage; yet there is nothing which the present procedure is less calculated to do. "Winding-up," in fact, is a misnomer, for companies are not wound up. As long as assets remain which can be utilised, not, I am afraid, so much for the creditors as for the persons employed as liquidators and solicitors, so long is the winding-up process continued, and even when the assets have apparently come to an end, the proceedings are kept open in the hope that from some unknown quarter further assets may come, only to go into the same pockets. Why is this? The liquidators and solicitors under the present system are paid by time. The liquidator is not appointed by the creditors; he is often a person self-appointed, or at any rate appointed without the control of the creditors. The result has been that in certain cases the liquidation of companies has been kept going from year to year, insuring a very comfortable annuity to the firms employed, and even to their successors. From a Return obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on December 12, 1888, it appears that of the Joint Stock Companies ordered to be wound up in which the liquidation proceedings were pending, about 22 per cent. had been in liquidation upwards of 10 years, and about 20 per cent, upwards of five years, but under 10. Of the 674 cases, open on the 31st of December, 1886, 147
      1400
      cases had been pending over 10 years, 125 had been pending over five years and under 10, and 385 had been pending five years and under. There appeared to be one case still pending in which the order to wind up was made in 1863. The result of the system is excessive cost in the process of winding up. This cost is due to the delay which occurs and to the clumsiness of the procedure, which involves constant applications to the Court. This procedure is especially onerous in the case of insolvent companies from the country, necessitating, as it does, the employment of solicitors and counsel, which results in enormous bills. One bill brought to my notice, covering I do not know how many sheets of paper, amounted after taxation to £1,107 for four years' work in winding up a company. It included an item of £57 merely for drawing up the bill and having it taxed, and this case, be it observed, was a short winding up in Chancery. Another defect of the system is the absence of supervision over liquidators. The parties interested can get no information; even Parliament has failed to obtain information when it has asked for it. From the Return of 1888, already quoted, I find that out of 71 cases ordered to be wound up by the Court of Chancery during 1867, 19 years before the date of the Return, it was only found possible to furnish details of receipts and expenditure in 25, showing clearly that there could not have been any proper audit. In those 25 cases the costs were much higher than in similar cases in bankruptcy, though in only three of them did the assets realised exceed £5,000. Compare this with the Stannaries Court, in which there is practically an official liquidator. There, in 1867, 19 companies were wound up. Full particulars of receipts and expenditure were given in each case, and the costs were much less than in Chancery. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warmington), who has given notice to move the rejection of the Bill, will defend the present system, or find fault with the proposals we make for remedy; but I think I have said enough to show that nothing could be worse or more discreditable than the existing system. I do not say that the procedure established by the Bankruptcy Act of 1883

      1401
      is perfect; but it is infinitely superior to the system which exists in the winding up of companies, both in expedition, efficiency, and economy. Estates are wound up in bankruptcy twice as fast by non-official and three times as fast by official Trustees as they were under the previous law. The Bankruptcy Act of 1883 established an organisation all over the country which, with a slight additional expenditure, might undertake the work imposed on it by this Bill. I think the Bill, if passed, will be of great benefit to the creditors of insolvent companies. But that is not all. Besides the question of salvage, there is also the question of diminishing the number of wrecks, and I have a hope that the Bill may tend to improve commercial morality. It is not too much to say that in the winding up of insolvent companies there are no officials charged with the impartial and independent duty of investigation or the punishment of fraud, so that offences punished in bankruptcy are ignored in winding up. There is a special danger in the recent tendency to convert private businesses into Limited Liability Companies. I saw the other day a long list of small businesses so converted in the past year, and among them there was actually one, with a capital of £5,000, for carrying on a chimney-sweeper's business. Practically, I suppose there is no occupation that is not considered a legitimate field for the enterprise of a Limited Liability Company. What is the result of this? There may, no doubt, be legitimate reasons for such a conversion. But there are in too many cases reasons of quite a different kind; and certainly we should not permit that the Limited Liability Acts should be used by unscrupulous traders not only to resuscitate their own fortunes for a time, but to escape the penalties which would otherwise await them as private traders at the hands of the Official Receiver. I trust the Bill will succeed in exposing and punishing some of the frauds and malpractices which too often prevail in the formation of companies, and thus deterring promoters from attempting them. The principle upon which the Bill is based is that a man who undertakes to manage other people's affairs should have the same sense of responsibility as in managing
      1402
      his own, and that legislation should be deterrent both to fraud and to negligence. I do not propose to enter into the details of the Bill. I only ask the House to affirm the principles on which it is based. Its details are doubtless open to criticism, and may be susceptible of improvement. We shall welcome any suggestions for that end from Members who have special experience, and especially from the hon. and learned Member for Stockton; and I trust that the House will be willing to remit the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade that this Session may not close without completing a reform which I believe will be of great value to the commercial interest of the community.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
      SIR HORACE DAVEY: I do not rise in any spirit of hostility or carping criticism to the Bill, because I quite recognise that the present system of winding up requires reform. But I may be permitted to doubt whether this Bill is likely to effect that reform. The right hon. Gentleman has a little exaggerated the evils of the present system, which is based on the Companies Act, 1862. We have now had nearly 28 years' experience of the working of that Act, and during that period Judges of the greatest eminence have devoted their minds to the simplification of procedure, and to making it as valuable as possible for the objects sought. Judges like the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, and others I could name, have applied themselves to the work of improving the operation of the Act; and I do not think that the evils of delay to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred exist to anything like the extent to which at first they certainly did prevail. The Judge has practically unlimited powers, which are exercised to bring liquidations to a speedy close, and to bring liquidators to account, as, to my own knowledge, they have often been brought to account to their own sorrow. It is not so simple a matter to wind up a company as may at first sight appear. It is not like winding up the estate of an individual trader who has become bankrupt. Companies which are wound up in the Chancery Division are in very many in stances such as have carried on a large

      1403
      and extensive business, far greater and more extensive than any business carried on by independent traders, and these companies often have assets which are only capable of realisation at any price by careful administration, and by what is called carefully "nursing" the assets. Although it is undoubted that more delay has taken place in the winding-up of companies in times past than was necessary, that is not so now. The House must not suppose it can introduce a millenium of winding-up. A company's affairs cannot be wound-up in six months or a year, or even in many cases in less than two years. I think I recognise one of the companies to which the right lion. Gentleman has referred. But the assets of that company were of a very peculiar character, and undoubtedly required a long time for winding-up. I have no doubt that a great many people profited by the winding-up of that Company, but I think the right hon. Gentleman did a little exaggerate the defects of the present system. Whatever may have been the case in the past, Judges, chief clerks, solicitors, and liquidators have combined to do their best under the rules of the present system. But my complaint against the Bill is that it does not effect the reform the right hon. Gentleman has shadowed out. If the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill complete in itself, which would tell those who read it what is the system, method, and procedure, I do not think I have even to make any objection to it, but I must put in my humble protest on behalf of those who have to administer the law. We who sit here in the House of Commons, or the other House, and pass Acts of Parliament, are sometimes a little oblivious of those other people who have to construe and administer those Acts, and on their behalf I put in a protest against the manner in which the Bill is constructed. The right hon. Gentleman said that nothing could be worse than the present system. But the Bill leaves the present system exactly where it is. There is not one word in the Bill which in any way repeals or abolishes the present system. What the Bill does is to make a number of new enactments, sometimes superseding, sometimes overlapping, sometimes partially superseding and partially overlapping, the provisions of the present Acts. I do not hesitate to
      1404
      say that a more formidable task for the unfortunate Judge who may have to administer the new system which the Bill would introduce cannot be imagined. He will have the present system. There is nothing in the Bill in any way puts an end to the Companies' Acts and the rules made under them, which form the present code for winding-up companies; then the Bill makes a number of enactments, some of which are partially identical with the enactments in the Companies' Acts 1862 and 1867; it also introduces other provisions, for example those in reference to examination of persons connected with the management of the company, and the Judge will have to say which set of sections is or is not repealed, and there will be two concurrent systems under this Bill if it becomes law. The result will be to increase the confusion and to throw disturbance into what is now, after the efforts of the Judges and the experience that has been obtained, a working system, and you will, I feel quite confident, raise a number of questions as to the effect which certain enactments in this Bill has upon certain enactments in the present Acts—how far they are repealed or are still in force. That is not all. We have had considerable experience lately of the evil and dangerous effects of a measure which incorporates in it a number of clauses from some other Bill, the result of which is that, instead of finding in the pages and clauses what its enactments are, one has to look to two, three, four, or more Acts of Parliament which are incorporated by reference, but you have to change their language and adopt them to this Act, and then questions arise as to how much is incorporated, how much is altered, and how the incorporated clauses are to be read with reference to the existing law and the enactments in the Bill itself. I am not speaking on behalf of a popular Party or one who receives much consideration in the House of Commons, but I do wish to enter a protest—and I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will support me—on behalf of those who have to construe Acts of Parliament which we pass—sometimes with a light heart. I can assure the House that it is no easy task for those who have to advise upon or Judges who have to administer the

      1405
      law to construe Acts of Parliament under this system of legislation by reference. Remember that where there are difficulties it leads to litigation, and litigation means expense. I will venture to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on this matter—and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am making it in no carping spirit. It is that he will give us a Bill which we can all understand—an Act which even laymen can take into their hands and read and understand. At present anyone reading this Bill would, in order to understand it, have to refer back to the Act of 1862 and find out how far the clauses of that Act are repealed or incorporated. As a fact, nothing is expressly repealed in this Act. There may be provisions impliedly repealed, but I think we are entitled to ask that the law in regard to the winding-up of companies should be put in such a state that those who have to advise upon or administer the law—solicitors, counsel, liquidators, as well as laymen and creditors—can understand it when they read it. It is a question which ought not to be left in doubt what is the relation of this Act to the Act of 1862 and the existing Companies' Acts. As this Bill now stands anyone reading it is compelled to go back to the Act of 1862, which is not repealed, and the winding-up clauses of which are consequently still in force. First he would have to see how the company can be wound up, and he would have to bear in mind such points as consulting the creditors and the contributories; then he would have to find out what were the powers of liquidators under the Act of 1862 and compare them with the powers conferred under this Bill, and then would arise all sorts of questions re cases where they differed as to whether any of them were repealed. I will go a little further. The Act of 1862 provides a means by which directors, managers, and auditors can be examined and brought to book, and anyone acquainted with winding-up proceedings in the Chancery Courts knows that this was proved a most powerful and successful provision. But you have something new here. You have in the 9th section similar powers, but it is not the same power as in Section 165 of the Act of 1862; in some cases it is wider, in other cases it is less wide. Yet
      1406
      Section 165 remains unrepealed. Who is able under these circumstances to advise an unhappy creditor who wishes to find out the law as regards directors and others guilty of malfeasance by comparing Section 165 of the Act of 1862 with Section 9 of this Bill. This is merely an illustration of the evils and great inconvenience to all concerned through legislating in this manner. Let us for goodness sake have an Act of Parliament which embodies in itself all the provisions which are applicable to the subject, in the interests not only of those who have to administer the law, but also of those who have to obey the law and whose interest it is to understand the law. As to the incorporation of the bankruptcy clauses, I think it is a very great improvement on the present system of winding-up, by providing for an official audit of the liquidators' accounts. At the present time, as wc all know, creditors do not take enough interest in these things to audit the accounts; they prefer to write off the debt and take such dividend as is offered. They may be right, or they may be wrong from a commercial point of view, but I entirely approve of the provisions to be incorporated in this Bill, securing an official audit of liquidators' accounts, and I should even go further than the Bill, because I would impose upon liquidators the duty not only of rendering accounts to the Board of Trade, but also of sending a printed copy of the accounts, or an abstract of them, to every creditor. If the creditor chooses to throw them into the waste paper basket, that is his look out. The Bill, I admit, looks very seductive, but again I have to complain that, if it is passed, it will not give all the necessary information on this point; it will be necessary to refer to the Bankruptcy Act itself. And these provisions from the bankruptcy laws are incorporated "so far as applicable." Who is to say how far they are applicable? Of course the Court—and it will be a nice task for the Court to take clauses which are drawn alio intuitu and apyly them to a totally different state of things. Why could not we have these clauses, so far as capable of being adapted to the winding up of companies, printed over again in the Bill as the clauses which the Government think ought to be applicable, and why should not the

      1407
      Government draftsman adapt the clauses to the case of the winding-up of companies instead of leaving the unhappy creditor or contributory to get the Court to do so at his own expense? The criticisms I have made upon the Bill I have put forward in no spirit of hostility, for I recognise that the system of winding up at present in use is capable of great improvement, and I cordially approve of the institution of an efficient audit being provided for liquidators' accounts. I also think that the means of bringing fraudulent persons to justice may be very much improved. But I do plead for a Bill which we can understand. I cannot understand the present Bill, but before it is passed into law I earnestly hope that it will contain the whole provisions of the law with regard to winding-up, and that those responsible for this measure will take the trouble to go through the whole of the present code and repeal all provisions which are intended to be no longer applicable.
      MR. WARMINGTON: My reason for placing the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper was not because I am averse to any improvement in the present law, but because I wish to render an emphatic protest against any important Amendment of the law being rushed through without ample explanation. And I am glad to say that I have succeeded in obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an explanation of the reasons which moved him to introduce this measure. I am bound to say that those reasons are not entirely satisfactory, and I gather that his information has boon dawn from one source only. I should think it had been drawn from persons who might be creditors of a company, but who have otherwise had no experience of the mode in which the business of winding-up companies is conducted. It is a great pity that a Bill which proposes to amend the procedure of winding-up companies should be prepared by persons—if it was so prepared—who are not familiar with the working-of the present system. The present system, Sir, is a code in itself. Tfiere is, in the Act of 1862, a set of clauses exclusively confined to the mode in which companies shall be wound up. And the right hon. Gentleman has, in this House, rather given currency to the
      1408
      opinion that the only persons to be considered in the winding-up are creditors. I think the attention of the House ought quite as much to be directed to a most unfortunate body of persons who are called contributories; and who are in the first instance shareholders. The right hon. Gentleman will, I perhaps, allow me to say that he is wrong if he thinks that he can prevent the fraud unless he begins at the right end. Fraud is much more rife at the birth of companies than it is at their burial, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes really to prevent fraud in regard to Joint Stock Companies, I would humbly request his attention to a Bill which is to be presented to this House, and which deals with that subject; and ask him to give his friendly assistance to prevent directors going scot free who have been parties to prospectuses containing false statements on the plea that they did not know that the statements were false. Then I think we may have some sort of guarantee that fraud will not be so prevalent as it is now. As I understand it, although the right hon. Gentleman had not the courage to say so, this is, in truth, a retrograde step. Probably his researches have not gone so far as to enable him to tell the House of the system that was in operation before 1862. That system was then a system of bankruptcy, and it was because of the crying scandals associated with it, and because it was more costly than winding-up in the Chancery Court, that the Companies' Act of 1862 was framed. There are, undoubtedly, a great many points on which the present procedure could be amended, and I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has hit one. When the Act of 1862 was passed, it was considered that the persons directly interested, viz., the creditors and the contributories of a company being wound up should themselves take such an interest in the procedure as to see that the official charged with the winding-up did his duty. Unfortunately that has not been so, and there has been no controlling officer. The learned Judges have more than once regretted that omission, and in some instances have endeavoured to supply it by calling in the aid of an officer, who acts partly under the direction of the Court and partly under the control of the Attorney General. The Official

      1409
      Liquidator is now bound to do very much what the right hon. Gentleman said he ought to do, but there is no one to see that he does his duty. He has now the duty of preserving an accurate file of every proceeding that occurs in the Court. He must keep every account and every paper connected with the winding-up. But, unfortunately, that enactmentin the Companies' Act of 1862, unless you have a conscientious liquidator (and notwithstanding the observations of the right hon. Gentleman there are many most conscientious), becomes a dead letter. I know a great many windings-up of Companies where liquidators, persons of great experience and high character, have, although there is no one to compel them to do their duty, kept a perfect record, which has been open, free of expense, to everybody interested. Therefore I welcome the amendment of law, by the installation of an officer whoso duty it shall be to see that the liquidator does his duty, although I confess that end is to be secured by means most cumbrous. My learned Friend the Member for Stockton says there will be difficulty in construing the Act of Parliament. Yes, Sir, but persons who are charged with the winding-up of companies are not expected to have to go to learned counsel like my hon. and learned Friend. They expect to find their duty written in the Act of Parliament under which they are acting; and if this Bill is passed, this point will at once strike a liquidator. He will say "I have two sections dealing with the same subject. Which am I to obey? My hon. Friend puts only one case that he may have to obey one or the other; but that is not quite the full fact. He may have to obey both, for there is nothing in this Bill to say that the provisions, so far as liquidators are concerned, are not cumulative, and in addition to the powers given to liquidators under the Companies Act of 1862. Thus you put on the officials whom you are going to create the new difficulty of ascertaining how they are to discharge their duties. But not only does this Bill deal with procedure; it also amends the law, and it does so in a most unsatisfactory fashion. There is to be, according to the Bill, what is called a Report, and that Report is to be made by a prescribed officer who is to have the
      1410
      right of making the Report on information that is given to him unsworn. He may get it from any documents, and he is to be allowed, without having submitted any part of the information to the test of an oath, to brand the directors or other people as men of fraud. That is a new and altogether unheard of proceeding in the jurisprudence of this country: that any official shall be able to charge with or to say that another man has been guilty of fraud and broach of trust without that charge having been investigated and put to the test of an oath. Not only that, but I think the framer of this Bill had a notion that there was no such people as contributories. I do not think the word contributory is to be found in the Bill from the beginning to the end. This is the way in which the Bill is prepared. A man is to be deemed a fraudulent man for issuing a false prospectus—to whose damage? The fraudulent statement in a prospectus as a rule—in 99 cases out of 100—is not to the prejudice of the creditors, but it is to the prejudice and damage of the poor people who believe; in the statements and on the faith of those statements subscribe for shares. By the 9th clause of the Bill it is provided that if any person among other things "signs or makes himself responsible for any false or misleading prospectus, notice, statement, or balance-sheet," to the prejudice "of the company or of the creditors of the company" he is to be made liable to contribute such sums as the Court thinks just. But what is he to pay for? Is he to pay for the damage done to the company or to the creditors? But they are not the people who are damaged by the fraudulent statement. The people damaged are the contributories. The company gets the benefit of the fraud, and it is the money the shareholders contribute because of the fraud that goes into the coffers of the company. It is absurd to say that the company- is damaged by the fraudulent statement in the prospectus, and it is very unlikely that the creditors are damaged because fraudulent persons usually take care that such companies shall exist for such a period as that those who are creditors at the date of winding-up are creditors of a comparatively recent date and were not creditors at the time when the company was

      1411
      started. The person who wants protection is the contributory, not the creditor or the company itself. It is said that the Bill has been introduced to amend the law in that respect, but I do not think it will have that effect. I am only noticing this in order to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter. Let me make a suggestion. I have not the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, nor have I the experience of the hon. Gentleman who advised the President of the Board of Trade, but I venture to think it will be much easier to take Part 4 of the Act, 1862, which constitutes the code of procedure with regard to the winding-up of the companies, and to introduce it in this Bill with such Amendments as the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit. This is another suggestion I am able to make for a reason which perhaps he does not know. If the right hon. Gentleman will alter the title of the Bill or extend the ambit of it so as to make it a measure not simply amending the procedure of the winding up of companies, but dealing also with the law as to the liability of directors and others issuing prospectuses or notices for applications for shares, then I think that the right hon. Gentleman can rely, not only on the cordial co-operation of both sides of the House, but on the efforts of all those in the House who have the advantage of being practically acquainted with the law of companies.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that should any part of the Bill be open to observation, it might be alluded to at this time. There is one part to which I think it is especially desirable to call attention before the Bill is read a second time. I cannot help adopting to a great extant the view of my hon. and learned Friend, that the Bill does not seem to be framed on an exhaustive examination of the existing law of winding-up. Those who know anything of the law of winding up are aware that by the Companies Act there are two modes of winding up—voluntary and compulsory. This Bill only deals with the compulsory mode, but there is a well-known process of carrying on the voluntary winding up of a company under the supervision of the Court. It seems to be assumed by
      1412
      the promoters of the Bill that every company whieh fails to carry on its business does so because of misfeasance, but in cases where companies become either insolvent, from causes not culpable, or are unable to carry on their business it is often found convenient to adopt an amicable mode of winding-up, and then if difficulties arise to obtain an order for carrying on liquidation under the supervision of the Court, and as the Bill is now framed it may become the object of interested persons to begin proceedings for voluntary winding-up, in order to save themselves from coming within the more penal provisions of the Bill. I think this point ought not to be lost sight of when the Bill is considered by the Standing Committee.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: Sir, no one will dispute the great evil for the remedy of which this Bill is proposed for consideration, but I question whether it is advisable to deal with the subject in the piecemeal, scrappy manner proposed by this measure. Only a small portion of the Company Law is dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, and yet the changes proposed are very important and in some respects radical. The proposal of the Government complicates that which is already more or less complicated and difficult, and it distributes the work connected with the winding-up of companies in a manner which will unquestionably lead to a great many appeals and a great deal of unnecessary litigation, and whether the time now occupied in winding-up companies will be shortened is a point on which I feel considerable doubt. In the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, you had a complete revision of the law, and a codification of it which was a model of drafting, and which has left very little room for doubt or ambiguity. There is another aspect of the matter which strikes me as worthy of consideration. It is proposed by this Bill to throw upon the County Court an additional amount of work. The County Courts, as revised in 1846, were in the first instance intended only as Courts for the recovery of small debts, and in the year 1865 their jurisdiction was extended, so that equity cases to the amount of £500 were included. Since 1865 we have had considerable additions to the jurisdiction of the County Court—the Labourers and

      1413
      Workmen's Act, 1875; the Employers' Liability Act; the Married Women's Property Act; the Agricultural Holdings Act; and last, and greatest of all, the Bankruptcy Act, under all of which there are questions which have to be decided in the County Court. The amount of work thrown on the County Courts is out of all proportion to that which was at first contemplated, and I think it might be worthy the consideration of the Government whether the County Courts as now constituted and—I say it with all respect to the existing Judges—as now manned are in many cases the fit Courts on which to heap up the immense accumulation of judicial business now being borne by them. Certainly this Bill will considerably increase the work of those Courts. It is perfectly true that under the Building Societies' Act, 1874, and the Industrial Provident Societies' Act, 1876, a certain amount of winding-up business does now come within the province of the County Courts. But this Bill will very considerably increase that amount of work. What is likely to be the result of this proposal? Not only will there be a considerable number of appeals, but there is likely to be a disinclination to meet many of the difficulties which will probably arise as the outcome of this Bill. You may have a block of business because of a very natural postponement of questions arising in the County Courts. The County Courts Act of 1888 gave extension of jurisdiction with regard to matters of settlement, besides which power has been given to remove cases below £100 to the County Courts. In the very first six months of that Act there were between 600 and 700 cases removed from the High Court to the County Courts. Two Metropolitan County Court Judges had each between 50 and 60 cases removed to them. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman inquires into the matter he will find there is ample ground for re-consideration as to whether it is wise to extend the jurisdiction of these Courts, not only with regard to this particular Bill, but with regard to the varied business which is now thrown upon them.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sure, Sir, on both sides of the House there will be a general concurrence in the objects of the measure
      1414
      as set out in the Memorandum. The principles set forth there are good, but they seem to me to be carried out in a very unsatisfactory, defective, and misleading manner in the Bill itself. A very short time ago one of the Judges of the High Court called the attention of the Legislature to the danger and difficulty involved in the modern process of drafting Acts of Parliament by incorporating other Acts, and the Judge severely condemned this most unsatisfactory mode of legislation. But the system had grown under the administration of the present day to quite an intolerable extent, during the last two or three years. We shall have placed upon the Table next week, the Civil Service Estimates for the coming year, and the hon. Members will find that a very large sum is paid for the work of preparing Bills, in addition to which there was a largo sum last year for extra assistance in drafting particular Government Bills. As a plain matter of business, considering the amount which we pay our draftsmen, we are entitled to a different class of article from that which is placed on the Table of the House. We are entitled to know what is within the four walls of the Bill, and what it proposes to deal with, not only in the interests of the public and the suitors, but in the interests of the judges themselves. The Bill should contain what the law is. We shall hear the Attorney General shortly, but you have already heard in this debate one of the first advocates at the English Bar, one of the most scientific lawyers of the day, the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey), saying that he cannot understand this Bill. For my own part, I do not understand the Bill; and if it be passed in its present form it means a a crop of litigation. The gist of the whole thing is that the procedure with respect to the bankruptcy of a trader is one thing and the winding-up of a company is a totally different thing. The principle may be the same, but the procedure must inevitably and necessarily be very different. If the Attorney General will turn to page 6 of the Incorporated Statutes, he will see one of the many clauses which I say I cannot follow:—
      "Subject to the provisions of this Act the liquidator shall, in the administration of the property of the company and in the distribution thereof amongst its creditors, have regard to any directions that may be given by resolution

      1415
      of the creditors at any general meeting, or by the committee of inspection, and any directions so given by the creditors at any general meeting shall in case of conflict be deemed to over-ride any directions given by the committee of inspection."
      There is already a Code under the Companies' Acts, providing how the property of the company is to be dealt with. I am speaking in the presence of lawyers, who will contradict me if I am wrong, but I am certain that a conflict will arise immediately there is any attempt to put that clause into force. Another peculiarity of the drafting of the Bill is the enormous power resting in the hands of the Lord Chancellor for making rules. Everything is to be done by rule. The House is deprived of its legislative control, and. it is put into the hands of some rule, making authority which constructs a Code which Parliament might or might not approve. On page 3 you have the first time of its introduction put into the Bill some prescribed officer, who is to do something, and who is to become the liquidator of the company. And then there is to be a meeting of creditors, and no one seems to be worthy of consideration in this Bill except the creditor. When you call a meeting of a bankrupt's creditors, you do not care about the man himself; he is there. But in the case of joint stock companies, in the majority of instances, the creditors are paid in full. It is the poor unfortunate shareholders who are swindled; they are the people imposed upon by prospectuses. There is not a single line to provide for these gentlemen; not a word about calling the shareholders together. They are to have no protection, though I think they are really persons for whom Parliament is bound to provide. There is another important omission in this Bill to which I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. These three modes of winding-up—a voluntary winding-up, a compulsory winding up, and a voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the Court. This Bill does not apply at all to a voluntary winding-up, and possibly two-thirds of windings-up are voluntary. Now, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade wants to pass a satisfactory Act which will work, and we are anxious on this side of the House to give it every assistance we can. The course I would suggest is that the Bill should be read a second time and then re-
      1416
      mitted to the draftsmen to put in what is to be the law. We have already the Code of 1862; we must not have two Codes in force at the same time. Clause 9 is a very oppressive clause, for it makes the Report to be primâ facie evidence of misconduct. There is to be no verification or cross-examination. You have simply to say A or B has done what? There are several things, of course, which A or B must have done—fraud, misappropriation, misfeasance, and breach of trust. Suppose a director has been a party to the carrying on of the business of "a company after having reason to believe it was insolvent." What is meant by "having reason to believe?" Or suppose he has been a party "to any rash or hazardous speculations." Who is to decide whether a speculation is rash or hazardous? What one may think prudent another may think rash or hazardous. I think there are a great many defects in the Bill itself, so far as the phraseology of it and the scope of it are concerned, and I think it has graver defects in respect of the incorporation of the existing law. Another defect is the power given to the Lord Chancellor; and we know that it is not the Lord Chancellor and that it is not the Board of Trade, but a subordinate of the Lord Chancellor and a subordinate officer of the Board of Trade to whom you will practically delegate the power of legislation. I think, if we give this Bill a Second Reading, that we ought to have an understanding from the Government that the Bill will be re-considered and put in workable shape before it is sent either to the Committee on Trade or the Committee on Law, which ever the Government may think fit.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: Sir, although in the exercise of the privileges of debate, some of the observations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been of a technical and some of a severe description, yet I accept them in the spirit in which they were intended, and I believe it is the wish of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite to assist Her Majesty's Government in amending the law as far as they can. I wish at once to join in the just tribute of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton to the great experience and ability

      1417
      of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey). I am prepared to say, in this or any other place, that if he had one opinion and I another on any point of law connected with this Bill I should be perfectly satisfied I was wrong. At the same time, while conceding the advantage he possesses over me, I venture to think that he has gone a little too far when he says that he cannot understand this Bill. One other observation I must notice. It has been said that this Bill has been prepared by persons who have only considered one side of the question, and without obtaining information from others. That is an absolute and entire mistake. I must take the blame of any defects of the Bill, of course, so far as the legal points are concerned. The best authorities and the persons most skilled in these matters have been consulted. One word on behalf of the draftsmen. The right hon. Gentleman has had experience of the Government draftsmen, and whatever may be said as to the mode of drafting, I do not think we ought to under-rate the extreme learning and ability or industry of those gentlemen, having regard to the burdens put upon them. Let me say a few words in reference to the leading points. The first and main objection taken to the Bill is that it does not codify the law; codification means dealing with an Act of Parliament of 270 sections, or the winding-up part consisting of 99 sections. I say, without the slightest hesitation, that if we had undertaken to codify and amend the law fit the same time it would have been hopeless to try and carry the Bill in this or in any one Session. On that point I appeal to the authority of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who, speaking in answer to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, said that it is utterly impossible to pass a consolidating and amending law at the same time; that it is necessary first to amend the law and then to codify it.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: What my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian objected to was the introduction of any Amendments into a Consolidation Bill. He said a Consolidation Bill should be a Consolidation Bill pure and simple.
      SIR R. WEBSTER: In another form of words that is exactly what I am attempting to convey to the House. As to the codification of the law, if we are to
      1418
      wait for that, pressing evils will long remain unredressed. The right hon. Gentleman has taken exception to the power of the Lord Chancellor to make general rules for carrying into effect the objects of this Act, and repealing or modifying general orders and rules applying to the winding-up of a Company.
      SIR H. DAVEY: What I pointed out was that they did not repeal the winding-up sections which are over-ridden.
      SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member referred to these sections, and he subsequently referred to the rules. I accept his explanation of what he intended, but he directed the attention of the House to the fact that we had not dealt with the existing rules. Well, I am sure, so far as the rules are concerned, the hon. Member will be the first to say that nobody could have framed them and that nobody could say what rules are to be repealed and what are to stand until an amending Bill has been passed. If there is objection taken to temporary officials having to do with the framing of rules, I would point out that that matter is always safeguarded by legislation; but under the circumstances it cannot be said that the Government have been guilty of an omission in not introducing a provision for the amendment of the rules. Then is it or is it not prudent to write at large in the Bill clauses as they are intended to stand, or is it prudent to refer to previous Acts where these clauses appear? As to the incorporation of the Act of 1862, it practically depends on this main consideration whether we have still got left as operative and unrepealed a body of law in itself sufficient to be self contained, or whether that which we are engrafting on the old system becomes in itself the main body of the law. I think it is scarcely just after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to suggest that this Bill is drafted in a cast-iron shape as if intended to be the final view of Her Majesty's Government, because in his opening remarks my right hon. Friend said he was aware that the clauses made changes in the phraseology and scope of previous legislation, but that his desire was to get the assistance of experts in the matter, so that the provisions might be moulded in the best form. Whatever may be the strictures passed in Clause 9, those who have had experience in the matter think that

      1419
      amendment of the law in that direction is required, as the number of persons who defraud companies and make away with their assets is increasing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire said we had made a great mistake as sub-Section 9, Clause 9, relates to matters in regard to which the Legislature should give a remedy to shareholders. If he looks at Sub-section 9 he is right, but I think, in fairness to the much abused draftsman, he should have observed the governing words, "And that loss and damage has b3en thereby caused to the company and its creditors."
      MR. WARMINGTON: Those are the words I pointed to. A company is one thing, and the shareholders another.
      SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is only in cases in which the act complained of has caused damage to the company and its creditors that the remedy is given, therefore, it is absurd to say we intend to transfer a remedy that ought to be given to the shareholders to the company and its creditors. I am simply endeavouring to show that there is some ground for supposing there was an evil the framers of the Bill desired to meet. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. A. J. O'Connor), whom I admit has rendered himself thoroughly acquainted with the subject, thinks we are overloading the County Courts. The President of the Board of Trade indicated in his speech that the limit of £5,000 has been introduced as a figure on which discussion may take place, though the point is essentially one for consideration in Committee. It does not affect the principle of the Bill. As to the objection that certain clauses are not written out at large in the measure, I say at once that I should be prepared—though there is no necessity for the re-modelling or re-drafting of the Bill before it is considered—if the Grand Committee who deal with the Bill are of opinion that certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Act, or certain powers of the Companies' Act, should be incorporated or applied to the procedure here contemplated, to take the responsibility of writing out those clauses and putting them in the Bill. However, I do not think the Committee will desire that to be done. I am certain that if the President of the Board of Trade had come down to the House with a Bill consisting of 40 or 50 clauses, there
      1420
      would have been much greater opposition to the Second Reading. If seems to me that a wise discretion has been exercised in putting the Bill in such a shape as will accomplish the amendment of the law at which the Government aims. The hon. and learned Member for Stockton has referred to the 27 years' experience which we possess of the working of the Act of 1862, but it is perfectly clear that that experience has brought out some defects, and that the decisions of the Judges show that there are matters which require amendment. But it seems to me that before we attempt to codify the law we ought to cut out the rotten branches and endeavour to engraft new. Therefore, I think the argument based on experience is a strong justification of the course which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend in endeavouring to introduce into this Bill particular matters of amendment which he desires to press forward without entering upon a gigantic scheme which would eventually come out in the shape of a Bill for codifying the law. Voluntary liquidations are advisedly excluded from the Bill, and as to contributories, their omission is not due to carelessness, but it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that they ought not to be included as Members of the Committees proposed, I think the House will agree with me, however, that these are matters for discussion not on the Second Reading of the Bill, but in Committee. If I have failed to notice any point that has been raised during the debate, I hope it will not be thought I have done so out of any disrespect to hon Members, and, in conclusion, I have only to express a hope that a Bill which is brought in to introduce improvements into the law in some important particulars will be allowed to go before the Standing Committee.
      MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: It seems to me that this Bill is framed for the express purpose of encouraging litigation. There is not a clause which does not refer to one or two other Acts of Parliament that it is intended to incorporate. Under Clause 8 no power is given to the "prescribed officer" to report whether or not the officers of the company, whoever they may be, are knowingly or wilfully guilty of any of the offences referred to in the Act. The clause first appoints the

      1421
      prescribed officer as a judicial officer and afterwards transforms him into a prosecutor. The intention of Clause 9 seems to be to prevent people having anything to do with companies, either as officers or as shareholders. There is no allegation in Sub-Section (a) that it is necessary that there should be any intent "whatever to mislead. It seems to me to be a principle of the English law that no offence is to be attributable to a man unless there is intent of some sort or other. Suppose a man came from America and brought with him a report from a banker stating that on a certain property there were 5,000 head of cattle, and in consequence of that report certain persons became shareholders in a company; the mere fact of the report not being true would render them liable to make good the default of other people of which they were totally ignorant. Sub-Section (b) as to the misapplication of money seems to be intended to be read with Sub-section (e), which refers to rash or hazardous speculations. This, in my opinion, would put a stop altogether to the formation of companies for the carrying on of speculative business. Another sub-section provides that if a company postpones payment of any debt they will be unable to give a mortgage because that would be giving undue preference. I consider that the Bill ought to be consolidated with the Companies' Act, and with the Bankruptcy Act, if necessary, so that we could have one Act dealing with the whole subject. As it is, the measure could not be safely construed except on the advice of the highest legal practitioners. On that account alone I regard it as objectionable. Every measure of this kind ought, in my opinion, to be complete in itself, so that an ordinary layman may take it up and understand it without having to read through a number of other Acts.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
      SIR H. DAVEY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the views which have been expressed, he will consider the expediency before the Bill goes to the
      1422
      Standing Committee of inserting in it the clauses which it is proposed to incorporate in language fitting the case of winding-up. Surely there is great practical convenience in that course.
      SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I quite appreciate the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and should be glad to meet his views. His suggestion can, I think, be carried out before the Select Committee, but there are obvious reasons why it may not be desirable to have to move two Motions at this stage. I trust the House will consent to send the Bill to the Grand Committee to-night.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will move these Amendments in the Grand Committee, and of course we accept that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill had not better go to the Grand Committee on Law instead of to the Grand Committee on Trade.
      SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; both my hon. and learned Friend and myself are on the Grand Committee on Trade.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.—(No. 114).
    Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

    BARRACKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: It will be agreeable to the House that at the earliest moment I should place the Committee in possession of the main facts in connection with the barracks scheme of the Government. The Bill is of a financial character, and it is therefore right that some explanation should be given at this stage. It will not surprise any Member of the Committee that a Bill of this description should be necessary. Up to this time there has never been an attempt to devise a general scheme for the distribution and arrangement of our camps and barracks, to apply to them generally the principles of modern sanitary science, or to adopt the barrack system to the altered circumstances of the country. I may remind the Committee that last year

    1423
    I placed the necessity of a large barrack scheme on three grounds. The first was that of economy. Our present haphazard system cannot be defended on the grounds of economy. The second ground was military efficiency. Nobody who looks into the matter can doubt that our military strength and the training of our troops is dribbled away by the way in which our troops are dispersed throughout the country. The third ground was the health and comfort of the men. Independently of other considerations I can, on sanitary grounds alone, make an overwhelming case in favour of dealing with this matter in a large and liberal spirit. First, I will refer to the great camps of the country. These camps originated mainly just after the Crimean War. There was then great want of accommodation for our troops. To meet pressing requirement huts were run up hurriedly of wood and other perishable material, and in spite of every effort these huts, intended only to last for a few years, are getting into a worse and worse condition. The huts at Aldershot are 35 years old, and in a very bad state. 1 will try to summarise the Reports which I have received from the General Officers Commanding, the medical officers and others. Those Reports state that the roofs of the huts, which are 35 years old, are flattening down, and the lower frames are rotten. More than 500 have had to be propped up. In addition to the state of the actual huts, the ground on which they stand is becoming so foul as to render them unfit for habitation; £7,000 a year are now being spent on repairs, the sum is annually increasing, and is quite insufficient to keep them in a sanitary condition.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Whose Report is that?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It cannot exactly be said to be any one's Report; I have summarised the facts from the reports of the General commanding at Aldershot; medical officers, and other people. I now come to Shorncliffe. The report is that the position of the huts in this camp is very exposed, and though in two of the lines a casing has been added, it is impossible under present conditions to keep the huts wind and water-tight, and some of the quarters are scarcely habitable at all. In the other lines where hardly any casing has been added the state is even worse.
    1424
    Again, the huts at the camp on Woolwich Common were built 30 years ago, and these also are in a most unsatisfactory condition. The wood-work is rotten, and the stables have to be propped up. Then to pass to the permanent barracks—the first place among them must, of course, be assigned to Dublin. A large expenditure is necessary at Dublin in order to put the barrack accommodation into proper condition. The defects are absolutely notorious, and I fear that to accommodate the present number of troops it will be absolutely necessary not only to spend a good deal more money than has been spent in the sanitary improvements we are making, but to spend a considerable sum of money in providing new barracks in the vicinity of Dublin for the troops. Then there are the Galway Barracks, which are also notorious through out the United Kingdom. I have two Reports on them. The first was made in 1859, and in that the Commission on Barrack and Hospital Improvement stated—
    "We wish to express our decided opinion with, reference to the Shamble and the Castle Barracks and Hospital that they are amongst the very worsts pecimens of public establishments we have ever seen."
    The second sanitary Report, which I have recently called for from Galway, states that the Castle Barracks are all old, are in a cramped and confined space, and are very difficult to keep in proper condition. The Shamble Barracks are in much the same state. The rooms are old and unfit for the troops, and are only occupied by a headquarters on account of the limited accommodation in Galway. These two barracks have been repeatedly condemned. Then as to the barracks at Portsmouth, every one knows that one of the two barracks there has been evacuated altogether by troops and is being used for stores, while the other has been pulled down. These barracks have been condemned over and over again, and when they were pulled down the Reports of the medical officers and general officer were found to be amply and fully justified. I could go on giving similar instances, but I should only weary the House; I think I have established enough for my immediate purpose. I am not for a moment casting blame on those who are responsible for barracks—the Royal Engineers. I believe that the Royal Engineers have

    1425
    done the best with the money provided for them. The difficulty is that in times when there has been a cry for a reduction of the Estimates the inclination has been to cut down the expenses for those things which, though necessary to be done, it cannot be said must be done at any particular time. Therefore, over a long period of years the Royal Engineers have not had put into their hands more than enough money to keep the barracks going, and they have never had enough money to deal with them on a really large and effective scale. Indeed, for some years past it has been obvious that the great reconstruction required could not be carried out by means of the annual Estimates only. I hope the Committee will think that on sanitary grounds I have made out a fair and reasonable case for the Government's being absolutely bound, if they wish to consult the health and comfort of the soldier, to make better provision in many cases for the housing of the troops, and upon a reasonably large scale. After having come to the conclusion that the sanitary state of barracks necessitated action, the next step was to frame a general scheme, showing what would be an ideal distribution of the troops in the United Kingdom. Such a scheme has boon prepared by the Quartermaster General, and has undergone the most careful examination and consideration. In that scheme the endeavour has been to provide for all the objects for which an army is maintained in this country. There is the necessity for protecting fortresses and the capitals; the necessity for keeping a, certain number of troops within reach of large masses of population; the necessity for continuing to use the barracks which are sufficiently healthy at the present time; and the necessity for having troops, as far as possible, within reasonable reach of a good rifle range. I do not pretend to say that an ideal scheme drawn up with those objects could be attained, even with the considerable expenditure which the Government propose. It could not, because there exist barracks in various situations which, although inconvenient, could not be abandoned altogether at the present time. But the advantage is that everything now proposed for the accommodation of the troops can be considered in reference to the largest and most
    1426
    comprehensive scheme ever laid down. The main object to be gained in trying to approximate to the ideal standard is the concentration of the troops. I do not mean merely that sort of concentration which will bring together in a single barrack a whole battalion which is at present scattered in various quarters at great inconvenience and loss of efficiency; but I mean the bringing into a station more than one battalion, more than one regiment, more than one battery, or even more than one arm of the Service. The first concentration is that of the Royal Artillery; and that, I am glad to say, has to a great extent already been effected. I have been advised that it is of the highest importance to the efficiency of the Royal Artillery that it should, as far as possible, be grouped together in groups of three, or at any rate two, batteries, and that it would lead to considerable economy in the working of our system, and accordingly we have endeavoured to accomplish that object. At present the depots of all horse and field artillery are concentrated at Woolwich. We propose to make concentrations at Aldershot, Newcastle, Colchester, Sheffield, Hilsea, the Curragh, and other places. In several of these places the concentration has already been effected; but it has been done by taking over a part of certain infantry barracks, which has led to a demand for increased infantry accommodation. Some concentration will also take place with regard to the cavalry; but that arm of the Service must be mainly dealt with by bringing together scattered portions of the same regiment; and in putting cavalry in places where they can be more efficiently trained than is possible in the middle of a town. But the main concentration we have attempted is of infantry; and with regard to that it must be said that such concentration ought to be in camps. The time for placing troops in the middle of large towns has gone by. The conditions under which they were so placed have passed away to a large extent; but I do not for an instant suggest that the Government propose to move the troops from all the large towns where they are at present stationed; but, as far as possible, they should be placed in camps where they can be properly trained, and not in the middle of dense populations, for that is bad for the towns, and certain to

    1427
    impair the efficiency of the troops. Accordingly we look largely to extension of accommodation in camps where large bodies of troops can be exercised together, and the most careful consideration has been given to the place where such concentration can be best attained. Various places have been passed under review. The question whether Salisbury Plain is a suitable place to build barracks has been gone into. We considered also the claims of Cannock Chase, and we examined the suggestion made by great authorities, that it would be desirable to make a concentration to some extent in some place in the North of England, such as Strensall. But after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion, with the unanimous support of all my military advisers, that the great concentration ought to be at Aldershot. At Aldershot there is already a large quantity of land in the possession of the Government, and there exists a camp of great practical utility to the Army. Here, I am sure the Committee will forgive me if I venture to bear testimony to the great foresight and wisdom of the late Prince Consort. I believe it was largely due to him that the camp was established, and I am sure if he could now know the great advantage of the camp he would feel amply repaid. My belief is that it is both an economical and efficient system to establish our main camp at Aldershot and to extend the camp which now exists. There are at Aldershot at the present time three regiments of cavalry, eight batteries of the Royal Artillery, six companies of Royal Engineers, and nine battalions of infantry. The Government propose to add to these a battery of Royal Artillery and six battalions of infantry. To accomplish that object we shall have to re-construct a large portion of the existing camps, and we propose to continue the work now being carried on and complete the existing camps. If, however, the work is only carried on at the present rate I believe none of the Members of this Committee will live to see the completion of the work, and, of course, if we are going to add a large number of troops, very considerable additions to the camp will be required. The question then arises, whether we have sufficient land for our purpose. We believe that by a com-
    1428
    paratively small addition of land, which can be obtained at a reasonable rate, we can provide not only ample accommodation for all the troops I have mentioned, but also a splendid exercise ground, much better than that which exists at present. Mainly in order to obtain that land, but also for other minor purposes, we have inserted powers in the Bill enabling us to purchase land compulsorily. Here I may say we have also the opportunity by arrangement with the Home Secretary of acquiring Woking Prison; and we intend to take advantage of that opportunity, so that at a comparatively small cost we shall have a barrack at Woking which will accommodate an infantry battalion, near a railway station, and within easy reach of Aldershot. The whole of the work thus described at Aldershot cannot be effectively carried out at a cost of less than something like £1,500,000. With regard to Shorncliffe, the barracks will be adapted mainly for cavalry and Royal Artillery, but something will have to be expended in the repairing of huts; indeed, the camp would require almost complete re-construction. At Woolwich the huts will also have to be repaired to a considerable extent, and for that provision will be made. There is one other camp in England to which I must refer—namely, that at Colchester. I know the condition of that camp is not altogether what we desire; but, upon the whole, and comparing it with other camps, I think the necessity for permanent re-construction is not so strong as in the cases already described, and that what is absolutely necessary at Colchester can be done out of the annual Estimates. At Portsmouth, as we have abandoned one barrack and utilised it for stores and pulled down another, it is absolutely necessary to build a barracks for the Royal Artillery and also complete the existing infantry barracks to enable them to contain a full battalion. At Plymouth the main complaint is the dispersion of the troops in a number of small places, so that the battalion is not brought together and enabled to be got in a thoroughly efficient state. The object of what is to be done there is by re-construction at the Citadel to accommodate a full battalion of infantry, and by certain other small reconstructions to concentrate other troops. The cavalry barracks at Manchester, I am satisfied, ought not to be main-

    1429
    tained there. I have seen most of the places I have spoken of, and endeavoured with my own eyes to satisfy myself of the facts I am relating to the Committee. The Manchester cavalry barrack is surrounded by houses close up to the walls, and some of the houses in a low quarter of Manchester absolutely command the barrack windows. I believe the efficiency and certainly the health and comfort of the troops will be benefited by their removal to barracks in some place not too far from Lancashire—some place from which we can easily move them if they are required in any large centre of population. I am not able to pledge myself as to where that place will be. There has been a good deal said in favour of Lichfield. Upon the whole that seems a suitable site, especially as the War Office already possess land there; but on this matter I desire to maintain a free hand until further inquiries have been made. I need only mention one other place in England—London. There is, undoubtedly, a very considerable difficulty here with regard to married men's quarters, and we must provide additional married soldiers' quarters somewhere. The only London barracks I need mention are the Albany Barracks, and the main defect is not their insanitary condition as regards the men, but as regards the horses. It is, undoubtedly, in that respect a bad barrack, but after very careful examination we are satisfied that at a comparatively moderate sum we can provide much better accommodation for the horses. The Committee ought clearly to understand that in the scheme now put forward I am only dealing with large permanent improvements; smaller works of a sanitary character ought we feel to be provided for in the Estimates of the year. Now I come to the case of Ireland. I do not think the Committee will be surprised to hear that the force in Ireland is considerably in excess of what is required there, and if new provision is to be made for troops the Government hold that it should be done in England and not in Ireland. At the same time, there is a considerable body of troops to be maintained in Ireland, and for those troops adequate provision must be made, and especially with reference to cavalry, which has better opportunities for exercise, and can be maintained more cheaply in Ireland than in England. At
    1430
    the Curragh the huts are in a deplorable condition, and many of the other barracks are just as bad, or even worse. We must deal with the case of the Curragh, where it is proposed to concentrate the cavalry regiments scattered in different parts of Ireland, and also three batteries of artillery. The next place I would refer to is Dublin, which is a very convenient place for barracks, and it is connected by rail with all parts of Ireland. At the same time, it is also probably the most difficult case with which we have to deal. The sanitary condition of the Royal Barracks has occasioned mo almost as much anxiety as any question which I have had to consider. We have endeavoured to ascertain the cause of the defects, and have employed an entirely independent authority—Mr. Rogers Field—to report on the Dublin Barracks, and to suggest anything necessary for improving the sanitary condition of the troops there. We are carying out his recommendations, and we have spared neither pains nor money in endeavouring to put those barracks into perfect sanitary condition, although, no doubt, the state of Dublin drainage generally made it impossible to expect complete immunity from fever. At the same time, I admit that the Royal Barracks cannot be said to be up to the level of the general sanitary condition of Dublin, as is shown by the number of cases of enteric fever. I shall not rest satisfied until the Royal Barracks are in at least as good a sanitary condition as Dublin generally. If the hopes of the Government are realised, and they are able to put those barracks in a more satisfactory condition, we propose to set apart a portion of the barracks for the accommodation of stores, and, of course, naturally they would be convenient also for the men of the Army Service Corps, and that will enable as to get rid of the existing store houses, which are inconveniently situated. The changes proposed will also enable us to put into the barracks one infantry regiment. There are other barracks in Dublin with which we shall also have to deal. Several of them are not capable of containing a full battalion of infantry. Certain small additions have to be made for that purpose, and there are one or two demolitions that are absolutely necessary for the health of the troops. These, however, are compara-

    1431
    tively minor matters, as compared with the larger scheme I now have to mention. We are building a cavalry barrack at Grange Gorman, close to the Phœnix Park, Dublin, most conveniently situated for the training of the troops; but we shall also require barracks for a battalion of infantry, though I am not quite certain yet what is the best place to build them in. For the various works I have sketched out in Dublin I shall have to ask the House to allow the Government to expend the sum of £270,000. Then there is the case of Belfast, where an enormous cost is annually incurred by the hiring of temporary quarters; and though there is no doubt a barrack is wanted there on sanitary grounds, I should prefer to justify the proposed expenditure in Belfast more especially on the ground of the large economy that will be effected by getting rid of the hiring system. The same remark applies to Enniskillen, where it is desirable to find accommodation for a whole infantry battalion, instead of the small proportion of troops at present quartered in that place. I now pass from the United Kingdom to the colonies. I hesitated a long time before I determined to ask my Colleagues to deal now with the foreign stations, thinking that this was a subject deservig separate consideration; but, after all, the health and comfort of our troops abroad is just as important as of those in this country, and the conditions to which they are sometimes subjected make it a matter of even greater importance to make the places in which they are accommodated wholesome, satisfactory, and comfortable. There is then, first, the case of Malta. There the garrison has recently been largely increased, and the barrack accommodation is quite inadequate for the large number of troops now maintained there; and accordingly it is proposed to erect an infantry barrack in a situation convenient both for health and for the purposes of the defence of the island. At the Cape, again, one of the barracks has got into a bad state, and for many years past the general officer commanding has recommended that something should be done for the purpose of putting them in a better condition. There we shall have to spend a considerable sum. Two cases of a minor character are those of Gibraltar and Bermuda. The sanitary condition of the barracks at Gibraltar is certainly unsatisfactory,
    1432
    the death-rate is exceptionally high, and we think a moderate and reasonable sum ought to be expended upon them; and the same is necessary in the case of Bermuda, in order to prevent the outbreaks of enteric fever which have occurred at both those stations during the last few years. Coming to the last head on which I have to ask the Committee to approve further expenditure, I have to observe that at present the cost for lodging is enormous; and it would be a real economy that quarters should be built in certain cases for the accommodation of married soldiers and warrant officers, thus getting rid of the lodging allowances. The cost of the expenditure under this head I put at £290,000, which would save at least £15,000 a year. There will be several other savings effected by carrying out the whole scheme. This year alone we have reduced the Barrack Vote by £40,000, and when the scheme is completed it is believed there will be a permanent saving on this Vote of at least £60,000. There are other expenses incurred at present in respect of travelling allowances to ranges and for other purposes, which will be saved by the changes proposed; and there is, lastly, the money that will be realised by the sale of certain old barracks, such as the Manchester Cavalry Barracks, and the proceeds of those sales will be credited to the amount the Committee are now asked to allow the War Office to expend. The sum which the Government estimate they will require to carry out the very important and extensive works which they now propose will not exceed £4,100,000, which is the sum mentioned in the Resolution. The precise form in which we propose to raise the necessary sum it would be the province rather of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show; but this determination we have formed, at any rate, and strongly adhere to; from past experience we are satisfied that a great scheme of re-construction if once accepted by the House if Commons should be carried out without delay and without hesitation until completed. We are not, therefore, prepared to leave it to the chance of annual Estimates, and our proposal will be embodied in a Bill which we shall ask the House to sanction as a whole, and that done, the War Office will be bound to proceed with

    1433
    the scheme, in the prosecution of which they can only he stopped if Parliament in its wisdom think fit to repeal the Act. There are two other points which will, I think, commend themselves to the Committee. In the first place, I shall no doubt be asked what guarantee we can give to the Committee that the Estimates presented are fair and reasonable; that the Government are not embarking on an extravagant system of building; and that this very large work will be properly supervised in all respects when it is undertaken. I will tell the Committee the steps which I have endeavoured to take. In the first place, these plans have been most carefully prepared by the authorities now in charge of our barracks and are based upon their past experience. But the Government have not been satisfied with that. I have had also the independent opinion of a eon-tractor who ranks high in his profession, and that gentleman has examined the plans very carefully, and has reported to me in strong terms with regard to them that he thinks the Government are getting full value for their money, and he expresses his approval of the plans, both with regard to material and as to construction. But we have not been satisfied even with that. We have, with the hearty assent of I he Royal Engineers, now called in the assistance of two outsiders completely unconnected with the War Office, namely, Mr. Creed, the surveyor to the Land Commission, and thoroughly acquainted with the subject in its rural aspect, and Mr. Pilkington, an architect of enormous experience in the planning of urban industrial buildings. I asked them to examine the plans, and tell me whether they could find anything in the proposed plans, either with regard to plan or material, which savoured in the slightest degree of extravagance, and also to make suggestions as to how the plans could in any way be improved so as to contribute more effectively to the object for which they are intended. Thus I had the fullest guarantee that the plans would be thoroughly examined by independent authorities, and might be confidently recommended to the House of Commons. The second point upon which the Committee will desire to have some assurance is that the sanitary arrangements of the new dwellings are satisfactory. It will, perhaps, naturally be felt that short-
    1434
    comings in the past require such a guarantee, and the Committee will want to be assured that the Government are really going to satisfy modern sanitary requirements in a reasonable degree. The Committee will recollect the extraordinary interest taken by the late Mr. Sidney Herbert, afterwards Lord Herbert of Lea, in this question. He was the pioneer, in co-operation with Miss Nightingale, of proper sanitary improvements in barracks, and established a system which did an enormous amount of good at that, time. Among other things Lord Herbert of Lea brought into existence a body known as the Sanitary Committee. It is now proposed to re-construct and revive Lord Herbert of Lea's Sanitary Committee. It will be composed of persons thoroughly qualified from different points of view to advise on the Sanitary construction of these buildings; and I also propose the appointment of one expert, who will be able at any time to go down and examine any place where the Government think it desirable that his opinion should be obtained. This Committee will entail no extra charge upon the Exchequer. Its functions will be, in the first place, to examine all the plans the Government propose for the barracks, and to recommend what alterations they propose in order to bring the buildings up to the modern requirements of sanitary science, and also in the future to examine the Sanitary Reports both from India and the United Kingdom, and report to the Secretary of State for War for the time being on the measures taken for keeping camps and barracks in proper order. The House, therefore, may rest assured as far as sanitary science can go e very thin gin reason will be done. I have now only to move the Resolution already in the hands of the Chairman. We believe that this measure will put all our barrack accommodation that specially requires attention upon a sound and decent footing. I am not going so far as to say that even at the present moment our barrack accommodation, compares very unfavourably with that of some foreign countries; but in this country it ought to be better than in foreign countries. In this country much has been done of late years in the way of seeing to the housing of our working-classes and the improvement of their dwellings both in town and country;

    1435
    our barrack accommodation has lagged behind in this and in other ways. That reproach the Government now hope to remove, and with that hope I ask the House to allow me to introduce a measure which will get rid of it at least for a long time to come.
    MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: In common with all hon. Members present, I listened with great interest to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made with that lucidity which distinguishes all his utterances upon this important subject. Speaking for myself, I listened to that statement not only with interest, but with very considerable sympathy, because I am well aware that the housing of the troops of this country is in a most unsatisfactory state, and has been so for a long series of years. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken first of the unsatisfactory condition of the huts at Aldershot, the Curragh, and elsewhere, which are worn out and are almost unfit for habitation; and, for my own part, I should be glad if some reasonable scheme could be proposed for rendering those huts habitable and healthy without imposing too heavy a burden upon the taxpayers. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the barracks, many of which, he stated, were in a more or less insanitary condition. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that many of those buildings are not only in an unsuitable locality, but are also in the worst part of that unsuitable locality, and that, therefore, it is desirable that the troops should be removed from such places altogether to places in which they would be accommodated under better conditions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a certain number of infantry battalions being concentrated at Aldershot and elsewhere, but he did not say whore they were to be taken from. My experience in past years has been that when we speak of taking away a battalion of infantry or a regiment of cavalry from any particular locality the authorities at the Home Office are apt to put in a word in favour of retaining the troops where they stand. I should like to know from what particular locality these troops are to be taken, and whether the right hon. Gentleman has made things straight with his colleagues at the Home Office as to the removal. We must presume that the troops were placed in
    1436
    their present position in the public interest, and I suppose we can be assured that their removal will cause no detriment to the Public Service. What I desire to say, however, is that this House, as far as I know, will grudge nothing that is necessary for securing the health of our troops or the sanitary condition of the barracks in which they are quartered. I, however, desire to make this proposal part of a much larger question. I wish to know whether, in point of fact, we require all the troops for whom this accommodation is asked. Last year we had a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty when he brought forward a proposal for an expenditure of a large sum of money upon the Navy; and now we are asked by the right hon. Gentleman to sanction an expenditure of a sum of upwards of 4 millions sterling—very much "upwards,"I fear—for I hardly think we shall keep within the limits of what the right hon. Gentleman calls the net sum. We are invited to spend£4,000,000 upon barracks without any information being given as to whether we really need the large military force which we at present possess. If the Navy is being greatly strengthened the fewer troops should we require, and I think that the House of Commons is entitled to some further statement from Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government will be disposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, so that there might be a thorough inquiry into the whole scheme. I think that such an inquiry would tend to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government, if they have a good case. The right hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself, or thinks he will be satisfied, as to the sanitary improvements to be made in the barracks. These are very important points, but the great point is as to the necessity of this expenditure, and the conditions under which it is to be made, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will admit that it is not an unreasonable suggestion that the House of Commons should have an opportunity, by means of a Committee, of inquiring into this subject, which really lies very much by itself, and is just the sort of subject which the Committee of this House could with advantage inquire into. I venture to say that

    1437
    such an inquiry, conducted by a Committee of the House, would be much more useful than those general fishing inquiries into the Army and Navy Estimates which we have seen, and of which I can speak with some confidence, having myself been Chairman of one of the Committees, and which really do not result, as I think experience has proved, in very much good; whereas a definite inquiry by a Committee into a subject such as this might at once enlighten the House and secure the interests of the public, and at the same time strengthen the hands of the Government, if they really have a good case for the proposals they now make. At this stage of the proceedings I do not think it is to be expected that we should pronounce an opinion either for or against the whole or any part of the scheme, but I thought it right to make these observations on the first blush of the matter, and I hope the Government will take them into their consideration.
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that no man could have given a more clear or more lucid statement than my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for War. More than that, I go farther, and I say that he seems to have carefully considered the whole question, and to have taken, as far as he has been able, every pains that every particular and every detail of this great scheme should be brought under his especial notice. But I must say this one thing. We have had the gravest condemnation both from my right hon. Friend on this side of the House and from my right hon. Friend opposite upon the great neglect which Governments have shown in the past for the welfare of the troops. No man could have listened to what has been said on both sides of the House on this subject without coming to the conclusion that we have not done our duty in carrying out those sanitary precautions which make the life of a soldier bearable. But, Sir, there is something beyond this. It has been admitted on both sides of the House that successive Governments have been anxious to cut down the expenditure, and have cut it down, especially in those directions where outlay is necessary for the health and well-being of the troops. I will only venture to say. without going into detail, because it is absolutely out of
    1438
    place at this time, that the country itself will rejoice to hear that their troops are going to be placed in the same position, as regard health, as those unfortunate people are who are in workhouses or confined in prisons. We have looked after the health of everybody else, but we have absolutely and thoroughly neglected the Army in this respect. I recollect, years and years ago, being in barracks which were at that time considered to be absolutely unfit for habitation. Those barracks still exist. They have been temporarily patched up from time to time, but their condition is no better now than it then was, and they remain a scandal and disgrace to the country. My right hon. Friend who last addressed the House spoke very strongly about troops being taken away from the towns; but I thought one of the great objects of this scheme was to take the troops out of the towns, and to place them in some position close to railways, so that they can be conveniently conveyed into the towns in case of necessity. And I venture to believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so long as he knows that troops are within easy distance of towns should their services be required, will not object to their removal from those towns to barracks more healthily situated. It has also been asked where the new troops to be concentrated at Aldershot are coming from, and my right hon. Friend especially stated that they ware coming from Ireland. I rejoice to hear that Ireland is in so satisfactory a condition that we are able at the present moment to look forward with satisfaction to the withdrawal of troops from the country. That speaks a great deal for the management of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. My right hon. Friend opposite went on to say he would like to know if the number of men in the Army could not be decreased. That, Sir, is a very serious question indeed. He has been Secretary for War, and he knows, and knows well, that in case of emergency we have not been able to put sufficient troops into the field without calling out the Army Reserves. He knows perfectly well that even now the regiments at home have to be depleted of their best men in order to fill up the regiments serving in India. Then how can we afford to reduce the number of troops?

    1439
    I think it would be a most unwise step to take at this particular time. Next, my right hon. Friend said let us have a Committee. He is like many other people who, when we have got a statement before us, when we have seen a scheme which is to be put forward by the Government, are anxious to shelve the whole question by referring it to a Committee. He does not mean to tell us the Committee will not: call for all sorts of evidence under the sun. He does not mean to tell us that we shall be able to proceed with this scheme as early as my right hon. Friend is anxious to commence. All he says is—let us have an inquiry. First, as to how many men we want; secondly, where the barracks ought to be placed; and thirdly, what the cost should be. And, in pissing, I would like to make one allusion to the sanitary question, and to point out that we have never yet found that sanitary men or experts have been able to build great buildings without some fault or defect being subsequently discovered in the sanitary arrangements. Look at oar great offices in Whitehall, and how they had to be altered. Surely, then, we Ought not to allow the difficulties of sanitation to further delay the carrying out of that most important scheme. And all I can say is that I hope my right hon. Friend will, before he allows any barrack to be commenced, see that the proper sanitary arrangements are made, which alone can be conducive to the health of the troops. My right hon. Friend has done good service to the country. He has not blinked the question, as he would have done had he asked for a very small sum; but he has been bold enough, and wise enough, and prudent enough, to ask for a large sum, a sum which, however, I will venture to say, the country will ungrudgingly grant if the necessity for it is proved to exist.
    SIR W. CROSSMAN: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has taken this whole matter into his consideration and asked for a sum of money which will enable him to carry out the work properly. Am I to understand that the only concentration of troops will take place at Aldershot? The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about concentrations at large centres in the north. I should further like to ask what is to be done with the cavalry barracks at Leeds,
    1440
    which are in a disgracefully bad state. Also, are the barracks at Norwich and Brighton to be done away with? And finally, will there be a Schedule attached to the Bill showing where the new buildings are to be constructed, and how many men they will accommodate?
    MR. JEFFREYS: As the camp at Aldershot happens to be in that part of Hampshire which I have the honour of representing in this House, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having made up his mind to spend a certain amount of money for permanent barracks, and I should also like to congratulate him on having induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance the money. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the huts at Aldershot were built at the time of the Crimean War. They were built, I believe, to last 20 years, and they are constructed of weather boards and felt roofings. But they have already been in existence upwards of 30 years. At the present time, I believe it costs about £5 a year for the repairs necessary for each hut, and, therefore, I believe that the scheme for erecting permanent barracks will, in the long run, prove economical, because it will do away with the necessity for this large annual expenditure on repairs. But in addition to that, it will be all the better for the health of the troops. We make a great outcry about the housing of our labourers, but I venture to say that very few labourers are housed in such a manner as are our troops at Aldershot. Many of the huts there are not fit for men to live in. Now that we are to have a large camp, I hope that attention will be paid to the housing of our soldiers as well as of our labourers.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether the proposal I have laid before the Committee has the assent of the Home Secretary. Of course it has. I spoke in the name of the Government. He also asked for a Committee to inquire as to what the strength of the Army ought to be. Well, I entirely repudiate any such idea. The strength of the Army must depend on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and we accept that responsibility in full. We are satisfied we are not going into any excess, but I doubt, if all our troops returned from abroad, whether even under this scheme the accommodation

    1441
    would be adequate. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a Committee; we must keep the responsibility in our own hands. As to the camps in the North of England, we have no idea of abandoning them. On the contrary, we shall extend them. With regard to the barracks at Leeds, that has been a question fraught with great anxiety; and with the full concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief we have decided to retain them, although the surroundings are not altogether satisfactory. We do not propose to insert in a schedule the barracks we intend to retain, as the difficulty of carrying the Bill would be enormously aggravated. I am ready to give full information to the public, because I believe our scheme is amply justified.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the barracks at Preston which may easily be made suitable for cavalry. Till recently a battery of Artillery has been stationed there, but it has been removed to Woolwich. The barracks are in an excellent place outside the town, and they are well built, and are provided with a well appointed riding school and other appliances, and could, I believe, be easily made available for a cavalry regiment. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove the rivalry from Manchester, I would suggest to him that Preston would be a more suitable place for locating them than Lichfield.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Resolution, Sir, which you have read from the Chair appears to deal only with the question of barracks, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War told the House that his scheme extended beyond that, because it included the purchase of land. I do not know whether it will not be necessary to alter the Resolution, as a Bill is to be founded upon it. But I rise for the purpose of asking the Secretary for War whether he will afford the House information with regard to the mode in which the scheme will affect what was intended to be carried out under the mobilisation of the forces many years ago. In connection with that scheme a certain amount of barrack accommodation was erected in different parts of the country, and I think we ought to be
    1442
    informed whether the barracks then put up will be utilised. There is a reflection which occurs to my mind and which I suspect will occur to many other people to-morrow when they road the account of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Here we have a War Minister coming down to ask a vote of between four and live millions, and in order to justify that expenditure he gives a most lamentable account of the present condition of the barracks in different parts of the country. Nothing could be more emphatic than this condemnation of the conduct of present and past Governments. How is it, and why is it, that with the hundreds and thousands of pounds, aye, the millions of pounds, which have been voted in the last two decades in connection with buildings and repairs, we are now told that the barrack accommodation at Aldershot and and at the principal stations in this country is simply scandalous and deplorable? Whose fault is it? It is not the fault of the House of Commons, for I never knew the House begrudge money for work of this description. The responsibility must rest with the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors. It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman owes the House some kind of apology for the state of neglect and disrepair into which the barracks have fallen, and also for their insanitary condition. The country ought to have some explanation of how it is this has come about, and they ought to know upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I must express my gratification that the worst barracks in the country—Galway Barracks—are going to be dealt with under this scheme. But there is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is to the accommodation at the depot centres. He will find, if he inquires into the matter, that the barracks at these places have not been erected on the most economical scale. They are too small for the number of troops that ought to be provided for, but the accommodation for the staff is unnecessarily large and out of proportion.
    MR. STANHOPE: In reply to the Hon. Member, I may say that the depot centres will continue to be used hereafter, as at present, with possibly one exception.
    MR. H. J. WILSON (York W.R.,: I think the right hon. Gentleman must have failed to catch a portion of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, who asked how it is that the barracks have got into such a condition.
    MR. STANHOPE: It is impossible at this hour to go into that question; but if hon. Members desire to pursue it at another time, I shall be happy to meet them. I accept my share of the responsibility; but I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that during the two or three years I have been in office, I have done something to remedy the defects at our military centres, although I may not have been able to apply an adequate remedy.
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums for the purpose of building and enlarging barracks and camps in the United Kingdom, and in certain Colonies.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL (No. 156)

      SECOND READING.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      MR. P. M 'DONALD: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland furnish the House with any information in regard to this Bill?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Bill is one that has been very carefully prepared, and it is also one in which I am aware the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M'Donald) takes great interest; but as it has only been circulated to-day, and as the subject is one of importance, I desire, as far as possible, to ascertain the views of the mercantile community of Ireland upon it before it is further considered in this House.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman promise that at a future time, after he has had the opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the mercantile community in Ireland, he will afford the Irish Members an early opportunity of considering the matter?
      MR. MADDEN: I can give no pledge on the subject.
      Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 6th March.

    MOTIONS.

      EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I ask leave of the House to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to the liability of employers for injuries to their workmen.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether this Bill is the same in all respects as that which was introduced in a former Session, or whether the clause relating to the right of employers to contract themselves outside the Act has been discarded?
      MR. J. R. KELLY: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would also furnish some information as to the Insurance Clause.
      MR. MATTHEWS: The Government will consider whether the clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman may not undergo some modification.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 172.]

      COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL.— [Bill 152.]
      Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.
      CROWN OFFICE BILL.— [LORDS.]
      Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (RE-ARRANGEMENT OF VOTES.)
      Ordered, That the Statement laid before the House, showing Arrangement of Votes in the Estimates for 1890–91, as compared with that in the Estimates for 1889–90, be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Mr. Jackson.)
      House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from the Committee of Chairmen of Standing Committees, That they have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) appointed the Lord Herschell Chairman of the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, and the Earl of Kimberley Chairman of the Standing Committee for General Bills; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PARTNERSHIP BILL.—(No. 25.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I need only say that it is a Bill which has been committed to one of the Grand Committees, the Law Committee. It is for the very desirable object of defining some branches of the law applicable to partnership. That is the scheme of the Bill—not a very easy task—in the first place; then to settle the legal relations between persons who are partners and persons dealing with them; then to settle the relations of the partners themselves; and then to deal with the question of dissolution and the consequences of it. I do not know that I should assist your Lordships by going further into a question which is so highly technical than is necessary for the purpose of describing its general object. The draft of the Bill has been most carefully prepared, and I may state that I have had the very valuable assistance of Lord Justice Lindley in framing the various clauses. I have no doubt that the measure will be thoroughly considered in Committee by your Lordships' House.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not intend in any way to oppose this Bill; but, on the contrary, I heartily support the proposal for its Second Reading, inasmuch as it is substantially the measure which I asked your Lordships to read a second time at the close of last Session of Parliament. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack on that occasion intimated that, in his view, any measure of this description ought to be introduced
  1318
  by the Government of the day, and by them alone; and that any attempt at codification by any private Member was a usurpation of the prerogatives of the Government. I dissented on that occasion from the view of my noble and learned Friend, and I repeat that dissent to-day, seeing that the only successful measure of codification has been one that was introduced by a private Member. But if the Government of the day are willing to undertake the task, I need hardly say that I am well satisfied, and that I will give them every assistance in passing it into law.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.