Sitting of 24 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  CHELSEA PENSIONERS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the smallness of the money allowance received by the pensioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, he can see his way to arrange with the Commissioners of the Hospital for the free distribution amongst the pensioners of some portion of the tobacco seized as contraband, and which is now destroyed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury in March in a similar case, that I could not see my way to distribute the contraband tobacco as suggested.

  AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in the last Report of the Science and Art Department, signed T. H. Huxley, Dean, in which it is recommended that—
  "The Courses of Agricultural Instruction at the Normal School should be made more widely known by advertisements in the agricultural newspapers";
  and whether, in view of the extreme difficulty of extricating from the "Directory with Regulations," published by the Department of Science and Art, and the Annual Report of the same Department, information respecting the advantages and opportunities offered by the Department to teachers and others desirous of receiving instruction in agriculture, or of the results of the examinations in agriculture, or of expenses incurred in connection therewith, he will cause a summary to be prepared, for general circulation among the managers and teachers of Rural Elementary Schools, setting out shortly all necessary information with
  712
  respect to the important matter above referred to?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I freely acknowledge the importance of the subject-matter of this question, and I promise to see what can be done to make the advantages offered by the Science and Art Department more widely known. But it is, perhaps, as well that I should point out to my hon. Friend that one of the courses in agriculture at the Normal School of Science is not adapted to teachers of Elementary Schools, and that as regards the other—the short summer course—there are, I fear, already more applicants than can be admitted under existing circumstances.

  THE RIVER CLWYD.
  MR. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Major Rowley Conway, who is a member of the Board of Conservators of the Rivers Clwyd and Elwy, has caused large stones to be placed in that part of the River Clwyd known as the Junction Pool, which is admittedly tidal and navigable, so as to prevent the netting of it by licensed fishermen; whether he is aware that criminal proceedings have twice been taken by him against the fishermen for netting, and that on both occasions the Justices considered their jurisdiction to be ousted by a bond fide claim of right; and whether the Board of Trade will, in the interests of the navigation of the river and of the fishermen, take steps to cause these stones to be removed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am informed that at Junction Pool the river is not either navigable or tidal, and the Board of Trade have, therefore, no power to interfere. I am also informed that the matter in dispute is before the Superior Courts.

  THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he means to introduce the Bill to amend those provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888," which relate to the procedure of the London County Council?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): A Bill has been prepared dealing with certain questions relating to the financial arrangements of the London County Council, but I regret that there is no prospect of its becoming law this Session. We intend to introduce the Bill early-next Session.

  LOCAL MARINE BOARD AT CARDIFF.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has agreed to establish a Local Marine Board at Cardiff; if so, if it is his intention to appoint representative sailors as members of the Board?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is intended to establish a Local Marine Board at Cardiff, and I contemplate the appointment upon it of one or more members of the class of able seamen.

  OCCUPATION OF ZEILA.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether it is the intention of the Government to concede to the French the right to occupy Zeila?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FEE-GUSSON,): No, Sir; there is no such intention.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that the Government have confiscated the payments made by George Tulloch, a Shetland seaman, to the Merchant Seamen's Fund without any equivalent return; whether these payments were compulsory deductions from his wages; and whether the Government will rectify the mistake, by ordering the repayment of the same to be made to George Tulloch?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Before the year 1851 the Merchant Seamen's Fund was managed by Trustees, who received and disbursed the compulsory contributions of seamen. In the year 1851, the Fund being insolvent, an Act was passed to wind it up, and relief was limited to those seamen only who voluntarily
  714
  continued to contribute. George Tulloch ceased to contribute when the payments became voluntary. He is consequently, by this omission, disqualified for the grant of a pension. The contributions of George Tulloch were not received by the Board of Trade, and no mistake has been made by the Board, who have no authority to return any contributions he may have made.

  EDINBURGH TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the fact that his new Regulations as to the sick pay of telegraphists were not officially announced to the telegraphists in the Edinburgh Office until the 15th July, being more than a month after their announcement elsewhere; and, if so, whether he is willing to state the reason for this; and whether the recent Regulations as to increased pay of telegraphists were announced in Edinburgh a day later than elsewhere; and, if so, will he explain the cause?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The new Regulations as to sick pay were communicated to surveyors on the 19th of May last, and effect was given to them in Edinburgh from the 1st of June, the date when they came into operation. They were not announced on the 15th of July, and there is no occasion for any official announcement, but I referred to them in this House on the 13th of June. The other Regulations referred to were despatched from London to Edinburgh at the same time as to other towns, but did not arrive in time to be announced on the 14th of July, and so were announced on the 15th. The point is of no importance, and they took effect from the same date in all towns. It is not always possible to insure that all Regulations, even when despatched at the same time, shall be announced simultaneously in every office.

  FLASHING SIGNALS.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral Colomb's system of flashing signals was submitted to the Admiralty for trial in 1861, and formally adopted in 1867; whether the Admiralty during this period refused all

  715
  pecuniary aid to Admiral Colomb for carrying out the experiments; whether the proposals of Redl, an Austrian, for the improvement of Naval signals, were submitted to the Admiralty in 1852, and finally rejected in 1859; and what money was paid to Redl, by the Admiralty during this period for carrying out his experiments, beyond the sum of £1,500 shown in the Estimates?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Before the noble Lord answers the question, may I ask whether he will re-consider his determination, and submit to the House all the correspondence which has passed between the Admiralty and all those who have at various times brought the subject of "flashing signals" before them, so that before coming to a vote we may ascertain who is really entitled to be rewarded for this invention?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I believe that the correspondence, so far as is necessary, will be published. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ballantine), I have to say that Admiral Colomb's system of flashing signals was submitted to the Admiralty in 1861, and adopted for the Naval Service in 1867. The Admiralty did not give Admiral Colomb, during this period, any direct pecuniary aid in perfecting his inventions, but he was, from time to time, put on a Committee, and so drew full pay while ho was prosecuting certain inquiries and investigations. Mr. Redl's cone system of signals was first brought to the notice of the Admiralty before 1852. The invention was purchased in 1858, but it was never brought into general use in the Navy. No money was paid to Mr. Redl by the Admiralty beyond the £1,500 referred to, of which £1,200 was charged to Navy funds, and £300 to Army funds.

  POSTAL COMMUNICATION IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any arrangements have now been made for improving the postal communication from Somerset and the West of England to towns in Hampshire and Dorset?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that considerable improvements have been made in the postal communication from Somerset and the West of England to towns in Hampshire and Dorset. At Southampton, the delivery of letters by day mail is now effected at 9 a.m. instead of 11.45 a.m. At Bournemouth the gain in time has been 1 hour 30 minutes, and in towns in Hampshire or Dorset generally the delivery has been materially accelerated.

  THE SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Papers on the Slave Trade will be laid before Parliament prior to the close of the Session?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We do not propose to present any Papers respecting the Slave Trade, except the Brussels Act, during the present Session. As the Brussels General Act will entirely alter the conditions of the suppression of the trade, it is proposed to discontinue the presentation of Papers annually in the form of the old Slave Trade Papers, and instead to lie on the Table from time to time collections of Papers which may be of special interest.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the General Act of the Brussels Conference on the Slave Trade will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The translations are being made; and as it has been found impossible to complete them as far as the voluminous Protocols are concerned before the close of the Session, the Act will be laid on the Table separately at an early date?

  THE ABERDEEN MAILS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT)I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can say when the acceleration of mails to Aberdeen, rendered possible by the new train arrangements, will begin, and what the saving of time will be at both Aberdeen and London in regard to posting and delivery?
  MR. RAIKES: I shall be in a position to give an answer to the hon. Member's question as soon as the communications

  717
  now passing between my Department and the Treasury respecting the main route to the North are completed.

  SAMUEL HUNTER.
  MR.CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a Petition for the release of Samuel Hunter, represented to be from "Magistrates, members of Town Council, and inhabitants of county borough of Salford"; and if he can grant the prayer of said Petition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I received such a Petition in August of last year, and I replied that it was not a case in which I could advise any interference.

  RATE OF EXCHANGE IN INDIA.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India will, at the close of the financial year, grant a Return showing the amount of profit accruing during the year to the Indian Government from paying its servants their family remittances, furlough, and pensions at the rate of 1s. 5d., while the current rate of exchange is much higher, being to-day 1s. 7¼d?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State wishes to be allowed to defer his answer to this question until the close of the financial year. He cannot tell until then whether any profit will accrue or not.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if we are to assume that Indian Civil Service pensions are really to be reduced from £200 to £135 by the loss in the exchange, so that these officers are unable to provide adequately for the feeding, clothing, and education of their children, while a profit continues to be made by the Government from the same transaction?
  SIR J. GORST: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that at this moment there is a Committee sitting upstairs which is engaged in considering the matter, and it would be very disrespectful to that Committee if I were to express any opinion.
  MR. C. WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Daily News of the 23rd instant, as follows:—
  "Indian Government expenditure in England is over 200 million rupees per annum. If the rupee exchanges for 1s. 7d., instead of 1s. 5d., the difference of 2d. per rupee to the Indian Exchequer is £1,750,000;"
  and, if so, is it true that a rise of 2d. in the rate of exchange is a clear gain to the Indian Government of £1,750,000?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; but, so far, the average rate actually realised has been only 1s. 5¾d.

  WEST INDIAN MAILS.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, owing to the alterations under the new contract for the carriage of mails to the West Indies, &c, great inconvenience is being caused to merchants consequent upon the change of arrangements, both here and abroad, whereby the connections have been so altered that mails are frequently short-shipped and delivered here so late as to afford inadequate time for reply by the outgoing mail; and whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience caused to merchants and others, be can see his way to make a representation to the Royal Mail Company to shorten the period now occupied in the passage of their steamers, so as to give greater facilities, pending the introduction of the arrangements concluded under the new contract?
  MR. RAIKES: With the exception of a letter which I have just received from the hon. Member, no complaints on the points named have reached me; but I was naturally aware that, in fitting the new West India Service, with its earlier day of departure, to the old, some slight inconvenience must arise. For example, on two occasions the interval between the arrival of the homeward mails at Plymouth, and the departure of the outward mails from Southampton, was abridged, the interval still being over five days in one case and four days in the other. Even this slight inconvenience may now be considered as ended, seeing that the next homeward mail is due at Plymouth on the 31st of July,

  719
  and the next despatch from Southampton is fixed for the 6th of August. The whole of the Service will then be performed under the new arrangements.

  CASE OF JAMES N. CORNWELL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can state the grounds on which he has recently dismissed a second class sorter of 13 years' standing, named James Nowers Cornwell, and without giving him an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the nature of the actual charge against him and replying thereto; whether, although articles of jewellery were taken from his house, they were subsequently returned to him without. comment, he having accounted for the same; whether Cornwell was asked to assist in the detection, and did assist in the detection, of dishonest employés, and worked generally under the supervision of the Confidential Inquiry Branch for many years, and whether, at the time of such request, Cornwell was suspected of tampering with or purloining a parcel so long ago as September 1888; whether evidence was taken from a person who was reduced in rank through an inquiry instituted in consequence of a report made by Cornwell; and whether he will permit an inquiry into the facts, and allow Cornwell to be present to answer any charge against him, and produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, as he is confident he can establish his innocence if permitted to do so?
  MR. RAIKES: The sorter Cornwell was dismissed upon evidence which showed him, in my opinion, to be unfit for employment in the Public Service. In the course of the investigation he was asked to account for his possession of certain articles of jewellery, and, at its close, these articles were returned to him. Cornwell had occasionally assisted the Confidential Inquiry Branch, and it was not until a comparatively recent date that suspicion fell upon him. The person referred to by the hon. Member was only one of many who gave evidence, and his testimony received corroboration from independent sources. The investigation was a very complete one, and Cornwell was given the fullest opportunity of explaining and rebutting, both verbally and in writing, all the facts which told against him. Since his dis-
  720
  missal, Cornwell has been informed that any fresh facts which he might bring-forward would receive proper consideration. Ho has failed to adduce any new matter, and I must decline, therefore, to re-open the inquiry.

  POST OFFICE WORK.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any action has been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, appointed in February last to inquire, into the duties in the General Post Office and London districts in respect of paying for work according to its quality; and whether any recommendations have been made to the Treasury with reference to the Memorial from the London sorting force?
  MR. RAIKES: I am now in communication with the Treasury upon the subject of adjusting the scales of pay of the sorters in London. As regards the adjustment of numbers on the several classes, this will take rather longer, but no time shall be lost in coming to a decision on the subject.

  SUPPLY OF ARMS TO THE ARMY AND NAVY.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the last (fourth) Report from Committee on Public Accounts, page 5, on Naval Armaments; and whether, in view of the above Report, and the recommendation of Royal Commission on Naval and Military Administration that a separate Ordnance Department should be created for the supply of all arms to Navy and Army, ho will confer with Secretary of State for War, and endeavour to find a remedy for a system which is condemned by the Public Accounts Committee?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Is it the fact that the Royal Commission on Naval and Military Administration made any such recommendation as that which is imputed to them in the question?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: May I supplement the question with another, whether the Commission did not comment very strongly upon these Services?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Commission expressed no opinion as to the expediency of providing for a new Department. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that an Inter-Departmental Committee, under the presidency of the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, and consisting of the Financial Secretary of the War Office, the Accountants' General of the Army and the Navy, Mr. Richard Mills and Mr. Edwin Waterhouse, has for some time been inquiring into the existing arrangements connected with the supply and accounting, &c, of warlike stores for the Navy. Their recommendations will, I believe, meet the objections of the Committee on Public Accounts, and give the Admiralty more responsibility and control over the provision and custody of Ordnance stores required for the Naval Service.

  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way it is proposed that the non-county boroughs, and especially the Court of Record boroughs, shall receive any share in aid of their local taxation under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill, as proposed to be amended, beyond any sums allotted for police superannuation?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The non-county boroughs, inclusive of the Quarter Sessions boroughs, will receive a share of the money in question. The sum received by the county will either be devoted to the payment of charges to which the whole county, including the boroughs within the county, contribute rateably or be credited to the boroughs in common with other local areas in proportion to their rateable value.
  MR. STOREY: What will be done with the money in those counties where there is no rate, as is the case in several counties at the present time?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The money will then be distributed amongst all local areas in their counties.

  COLONEL MAITLAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has
  722
  observed that Colonel Maitland, of the Grenadier Guards, wrote to the papers to say that he had not resigned; if Colonel Maitland has nevertheless been treated as having resigned, and is retired on half-pay; and, if that step is the result of an inquiry showing that Colonel Maitland is so much in fault as to justify his removal, or is it a mere temporary removal, leaving the officer eligible for future employment? I will, however, postpone the question unlil to-morrow.

  ENGLAND AND ITALY IN AFRICA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if ho will explain what is the boundary alluded to in the Report of the British East Africa Company as having been settled between themselves and the Italians, and depicted in a map; whether a general boundary between the British and Italian sphere of influence in Africa has been settled; and, if so, if he will place in the Library a map showing that boundary?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The British East Africa Company are making an arrangement with the Italian Government which includes an engagement as to their respective spheres of operations. It is understood that it is not finally concluded, as negotiations are still in progress on points of detail. This is the only boundary arrangement affecting States in that quarter.

  THE GUARDS.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention. of the Government that the Guards shall henceforward take their turn of. foreign service with the rest of the Army, but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone the question.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why clerks employed in the Central Telegraph Office performing duty from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and who had volunteered for overtime from 3 to 5 p.m., were not given the same, whereas clerks performing duty from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. were given overtime from 12 noon to 5 p.m., or a total of 14 consecutive hours' duty;

  723
  and whether he will state why the former are debarred in favour of the latter?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to point out that the telegraphists performing regular duty from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. are not available for the overtime which may be found necessary at noon. It is, therefore, necessary to bring on other telegraphists at noon, and when once these officers are at their posts they prefer to work continuously rather than be released at 3.0 p.m. in order to be recalled to duty at 5.0. The two hours between 3 and 5 would be of no use to them for their private affairs, and it is at their own wish that they are allowed to do the whole spell of extra duty from noon to 5. I may add, however, that I am making inquiry with a view to ascertain whether some other arrangement is not practicable.

  THE PROBATE DUTY GRANT.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will direct a statement to be prepared and published, similar to the statement on the distribution of the Probate Duty Grant (Parliamentary Paper, C. 5475, Session 1888), showing approximately what share of the residue of Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties will accrue to the county funds and county borough funds of the various counties of England, and of Wales and Monmouth?
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied to take a statement showing the amount to be received by each county, inclusive of the county boroughs, I shall be happy to prepare and distribute it. It is not possible, until the final adjustments have been made between counties and county boroughs, to say what will be the distribution as between them.

  LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS, IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Ireland did not get in 1889 the benefit of the contribution of £40,000, the amount she now receives in lieu of local taxation licences; whether this contribution is on a par with the Probate Duty Grant, and therefore should have been paid simultaneously with it; and whether the Government will make provision for paying Ireland this sum of
  724
  £40,000, which was withheld from her in 1889, while England and Scotland received the benefit of grants under this head from the date of the passing of the County Councils Act?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; this contribution is not on a par with the Probate Duty Grant, and therefore need not have been paid simultaneously with it. As regards the latter part of the question, I should remind the hon. Member that this is the first year in which the transfer of the local licences became generally operative in Great Britain.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. HEATH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when will the North Sea Fisheries District Order, which has been laid upon the Table since 10th July, be circulated for the information of the House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The matter really rests with the printers, but I see that the paper to which my hon. Friend refers has been circulated to-day.

  THE SCOTCH VOTES IN SUPPLY.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take the Scotch Votes in Class III. at an early date next week, in view of the fact that they were taken at the very end of the last Session when many Scotch Members had been obliged to leave town?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is yet able to fix a date for the consideration of the Scottish Estimates; and if, considering the changes introduced by the Educational Clauses of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and the very great interest felt (not alone in Scotland but throughout the entire United Kingdom) in the experiment whereby school fees in the compulsory standards have been almost entirely abolished, he will undertake to put down Vote 9 in Class IV. at such an hour that reasonable time may be allowed for adequate consideration of the many important questions which arise on this, the Educational Vote for Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): So soon as the House has dealt with, and practically disposed of, the Anglo-German Agreement, the Local

  725
  Taxation, and the Police Bills, it is the intention of the Government to take up Supply; and when the Post Office Estimates are voted we propose to take the Scotch Education Vote and other Scotch Estimates.

  RECEIVER GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, it is proposed to continue the office of Receiver General of Inland Revenue?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The subject is one that is now under the consideration of the Government, with a view to seeing how the duties performed by the late Receiver General may best be discharged with efficiency and economy.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why it was that the London County Council (Money) Bill, involving the expenditure of some millions, the Second Reading of which was pressed at 12 o'clock midnight of the 22nd July, was issued in a revised form only on the morning of the 23rd July; and whether, in future, Members may have such complicated Money Bills not less than a day before the Second Reading is moved?
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask whether any new powers are given in the Bill, and whether the measure was not carefully considered by the Treasury upon the representations of the London County Council?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): That is rather a subject for discussion, and if the hon. Member desires an answer to the question he had better give notice. The London County Council (Money Bill) was issued on the morning of Monday, July 21st. Some clerical errors were discovered in it, and it was found that a small Amendment would be necessary, and I thought it would save time to reprint the Bill. Large numbers of this reprint were at the Vote Office on the afternoon of Tuesday, July 22nd, some hours before the Motion for the Second Reading came on.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that the revised copy circulated after the House had been pressed to read the Bill a second time differed in certain particulars from the original Bill. Was that owing to the mistake of the London County Council?
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot say that it was.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Is the Bill to be taken to-night?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will there be any further alteration in the Bill?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member will see that when he gets the Bill.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of framing and submitting to the Council of Government in Malta a project of Law recognising civil marriage as valid, and allowing the parties to a civil marriage to add thereto such ecclesiastical forms as they may prefer?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: This important question is receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in virtue of what authority is the Government of Malta empowered to grant licences to Protestant ministers to celebrate marriages in that island?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We are not aware of any written authority for the grant by the Government of Malta of licences to Protestant ministers to celebrate marriages in that island. The practice appears to rest on custom.

  THE ESTIMATES NEXT SESSION.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will enable the House to perform one of its primary duties, namely, that of controling the expenditure of public money, by arranging that next Session the Estimates shall be laid before it as soon as is possible after the Address is voted, and on regular days?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member attributes to me greater power than I possess. I am in general agreement with him in the desire he expresses that

  727
  Estimates should be considered and voted as soon as possible, but it rests with hon. Members to afford the opportunity by imposing upon themselves reasonable limitation of discussion on the legislative proposals which it may be the duty of the Government to lay before Parliament.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to depart from his former statement that it is desirable to take Supply early in the Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir, certainly not; but I must ask for the assistance of the House generally.

  IRELAND—MR. CHRISTOPHER KEYS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why Mr. Christopher Keys, who was schoolmaster of Eden-avigh National School for 28 years, was dismissed from his position lately; has he been granted a pension or gratuity after his long service; if not, can he explain why; who is the manager of the school; and whether any answers have been returned to the Memorials sent to the Board of National School Commissioners?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Commissioners of National Education report that the teacher mentioned was dismissed on a charge of deliberate and persistent falsification of his school accounts. He was not granted a pension or gratuity, both because of the gravity of his offence and also because the Teachers' Superannuation Department, to which, in consequence of a Memorial, his case was referred, declared him ineligible. The Manager of the School is the Rev. P. Wilson. Two Memorials were received by the Commissioners in the matter. They were both replied to.

  POSTMEN'S HOLIDAYS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Circular has been issued within the past month to postmasters in Ireland notifying them that the Circular of the 4th June, 1889, relative to the earlier return of rural postmen on bank holidays,
  728
  observed in Ireland; and, if so, whether it is intended that some allowance, either in the shape of extra pay for bank holidays, or relief from duty on some other days, will be allowed to rural postmen in Ireland, to place them on an equality with rural postmen in England?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; I find that such a Circular was issued in the North of Ireland, owing to the regulation in force in England having been acted upon in error at an Irish office, and having given rise to public complaint. The regulations on the subject follow the public observance of bank holidays. Neither in Ireland nor in Scotland are bank holidays kept by the community, and I am, therefore, not prepared to withhold postal accommodation from the public on those days. As regards the suggestion of the hon. Member, I do not at present see my way to giving extra pay to postmen in Ireland in lieu of relief on a bank holiday, as that course would put them in a better position than postmen in England and Wales, and so create that inequality which the hon. Member is anxious to obviate.

  LAND COMMISSION—TEMPLECROME.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can state how many tenants on the estate of Messrs. Twigg and Peebles, parish of Templecrome, barony of Boy-lagh, County Donegal, served originating notices on or before 1st November, 1887, and how many of the cases are yet unheard?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Land Commissioners report that on the estate referred to 152 originating notices were received in their office between the passing of the Land Law Act in 1881 and the 1st November, 1887, and of this number 42 applications, which were received on 31st October, 1887, have not yet been heard. It is not possible, the Commissioners state, to give the exact date upon which a Sub-Commission will sit to hear these cases; but they are using every dispatch to dispose of outstanding cases as rapidly as possible.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT CLONTARF.
  whether his attention has been drawn to the necessity for improved postal arrangements in the township of Clontarf, Dublin, where, although the population has very largely increased within the last decade, few or no improvements have been effected in that time in the postal arrangements of the district; whether he is aware that the only post office in Clontarf is situated at one extremity of the township, the result of which is that the delivery of letters posted in Dublin is greatly delayed, that parcels intended for the post have in some cases to be carried nearly two miles, and that an extra charge for delivery of telegrams is made in several parts of the township; and whether, if all this is so, he will consider the advisability of immediately establishing a post, telegraph, and savings bank office in some central part of Clontarf, in addition to the office already in existence there?
  MR. RAIKES: An additional post office at which money order and savings bank business will be carried on at Whitehall Terrace, Clontarf, has recently been sanctioned, and it will be opened as soon as possible. When the question was last considered, the amount of the business at Clontarf was not sufficient to warrant the expense of a second telegraph office there, but I am causing renewed inquiry to be made on this point, and I will let the hon. Member know the result. There are at present two daily deliveries at Clontarf, one of these deliveries, namely, that beginning at 12.45 p.m., is limited in area, and an application for its extension to other parts of the district is now under consideration.

  BALLYSHANNON WORKHOUSE.
  MR MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board Inspector reported the master of Bally-shannon Workhouse for negligence in the discharge of his duties, including also in his censure Mrs. Sarah Kelly, the matron of that institution, as being in a general way jointly responsible with the master for the state of irregularity prevalent in the workhouse; whether, on the Local Government Board calling for the resignation of both the master and
  730
  matron, the Guardians requested the master to resign, but made the strongest representations in favour of the matron; whether, on the Local Government Board insisting on the resignation of the matron, that resignation was tendered, but, on no candidate presenting herself for the vacant office, Mrs. Kelly was reelected by the Guardians, whereupon the Local Government Board refused to sanction her appointment; and whether, having regard to the fact that Mrs. Kelly has for nine years discharged the duties of matron to the Ballyshannon Workhouse with efficiency, having testimonials from the Protestant and Catholic Chaplains and medical officers of the institution, and that the Board of Guardians, at their meeting on the 19th July, have passed a resolution supporting her application for a sworn inquiry into her conduct, he will satisfy the popular demand by directing the Local Government Board to institute such inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts are substantially as stated in the first three paragraphs. It is not, however, a fact that Mrs. Kelly has for nine years discharged her duties as matron efficiently. On the contrary, in July 1889, she was severely reprimanded by the Guardians, and warned that another unfavourable report would lead to her dismissal. Notwithstanding this warning, the next official inspection in March last revealed an equally discreditable state of affairs, together with additional irregularities. The Local Government Board cannot consent to the re-appointment of Mrs. Kelly as matron, and as there is no doubt that the irregularities existed, and that the matron as well as the master was responsible for them, the Board cannot undertake to grant a sworn inquiry.

  IRISH PRIMARY TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what measures have been adopted to place the Irish Primary Training Colleges on a footing of equal treatment by the State?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question involved is chiefly one of expense. I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and hope to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

  MAGISTERIAL POWERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the Belfast Petty Sessions, on Monday the 16th instant, before Mr. Eaton, R.M., a man named Wallace was charged with committing an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, that it was proved that a serious wound had been inflicted with a reaping hook, and that Mr. Eaton, saying the case was proved, ordered Wallace to pay 40s. and costs; under what Statute Mr. Eaton was empowered to deal summarily with an offender who had committed an assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and whether Mr. Eaton is the gentleman who formerly acted as Resident Magistrate at Mitchelstown?
  MR. MADDEN: The charge in the case in question was one of "assault and wounding." The investigation in Court proved that the occurrence arose in a drunken quarrel in which the defendant had received a great deal of provocation from the complainant and others in his company, and was defending himself from attack when he struck the blow. The cut, though severe, was not a serious one. The presiding Magistrate was of opinion that the case was not one requiring to be sent forward for trial at Assizes. With the consent of the solicitor prosecuting, the charge was entered in the Order Book as for a common assault. The man was fined 40s. and 20s. costs, or, in default, one month's imprisonment with hard labour, one-third of the fine and 20s. costs being awarded to the complainant. The man, being unable to pay the penalty, is now undergoing the term of imprisonment. The conviction was made under 24 and 25 Vic, c. 100, s. 42, and 25 and 26 Vic, c. 50, s. 2. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  MR. COMMISSIONER WRENCH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the recent sitting of the Land Commission in Cork on' the 3rd inst., Mr. Commissioner Wrench is correctly reported to have said, while hearing a fair rent appeal in the case of M'Grath, tenant, and Bullen, landlord, addressing the tenant—
  732
  "You are a very wise man to get your grass seeds from England. If more tenants did that they would have better grass. It will pay you well to get your seeds from England;"
  and whether intimation will be conveyed to Mr. Wrench that language such as that quoted is likely to do great mischief to the Irish seed trade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the tenant in the case referred to stated in the course of his examination at the recent sitting of the Court of Appeal at Cork that he was in the habit of getting his grass seeds from Messrs. Sutton, of Reading. Mr. Wrench then observed that the tenant was "a wise man, and that it would pay him well to do so, and that if other tenants followed his example they would have better pastures." Mr. Wrench being aware from practical experience that the grass seeds obtained from firms who have made the laying down of grass lands a special feature of their trade have given particularly good results, he considered it his duty to call public attention to the fact, as he knows many Irish farmers suffer by obtaining inferior and unsuitable grass seeds from unreliable sources, instead of going to the best houses, of which there are plenty in Ireland, where they would be supplied with seed to suit the quality of their soil. It is needless to say that Mr. Wrench did not mean to convey any slight on the respectable Irish seed merchants.

  FALSE ARREST.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fairy and Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry that I am obliged to ask for further delay in regard to this question. I am not yet in a position to answer it.
  MR. ROCHE: I will repeat if on Monday.

  BOYCOTTING IN TIPPERARY
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who are the shopkeepers in Tipperary who have been intimidated by Burke, the boot repairer, whom the Authorities say has, while ostensibly carrying out his trade in the street, taken up a position near their shops, and promoted their boycotting by warning persons not to enter; and, if Burke has broken the law, why has he not been prosecuted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to give the names of the shopkeepers in Tipperary who have complained to the police in the matter referred to, as if, were they known, their position would doubtless be made, if possible, a more unhappy one. But I may mention that in two of the cases where these complaints were made, the persons have, by reason of the boycotting and intimidation practised, been forced to surrender to the lawless agitation in Tipperary. No prosecutions were instituted against Burke, as the shopkeepers refused to give evidence, being afraid of the consequences.

  ACTION OF AN EMERGENCY MAN.
  MR. SHEIL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the emergency man who resides in the house of Miss N. Kieran, of Teggatt House, Navan, has more than once locked that lady within doors, and refused her egress to attend mass; that this man so acted under the written instructions of William Rochfort, who is agent to Lord Howth; and whether he will take any stops to prevent any further interference with Miss Kieran when she wants to leave her house to attend divine service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The report I received in connection with a former question concerning the woman mentioned represented that she had no legal claim to continue in the house, but was temporarily allowed to remain by the landlord merely as an act of grace in consequence of the illness of her sister. I am not aware whether the particular acts referred to took place, but even if they did they are not such as the Executive Government would have any title to interfere in.

  IRISH TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Cork Telegraph Office has hitherto been recognised as a first-class office, in the same manner as Liverpool, Manchester, Dublin, Belfast, and many other large offices in the United Kingdom, the clerks in all such offices receiving an equal rate of pay; whether under his new scheme recently promulgated, the above-named offices are continued as first-class offices, while Cork is placed in a greatly inferior position; whether the first-class clerks in the above-named offices will in future receive a maximum salary in the case of Belfast of 54s., and of the other named offices of 56s. per week; whether, in the case of Cork, the maximum in future will be only 50s., as at present; whether the work performed in the Cork office is of the same quality, the duties are as arduous, and the average amount of work per man equal to that performed in the offices in which these higher maximum salaries are to be paid; and whether, in view of the discontent likely to be produced among men receiving lesser pay for the same amount and quality of work, he will re-consider the case of the Cork office?
  MR. RAIKES: In framing the new scheme to which the hon. Member refers, I have considered it right to take into account the strain imposed upon telegraphists in certain busy centres, together with the value of labour and the cost of living in great towns, such as Liverpool, Glasgow, &c. Judged by these considerations there is no ground for increasing the maximum of the first class wages at Cork, which, therefore, remains at its former standard. The position of Cork has not been reduced because special circumstances have been taken into account in granting increased salaries elsewhere. I should, therefore, not be justified in holding out any expectation of a re-adjustment of the salaries at Cork.

  CHARGE OF FALSE ARREST.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fahy and Morrissey obtained

  735
  decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the circumstances attending the false arrest will receive careful consideration. Pending the result of that consideration no final judgment can be formed.

  EVICTED FARMS IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mrs. Mullally, who was evicted from her holding on the Modeshill property, Mullinahone, County Tipperary, about three years ago, was re-instated about four months since at a rent fixed by arbitration; whether her house has been and is occupied by policemen since her eviction, who have refused to leave though often asked by Mr. Hartford, the agent; whether he is aware that Mrs. Mullally's farm is about three miles from her present residence, to which she is obliged to bring the milk of her dairy cattle twice a day; and whether, as the object of the Government in sending policemen to the Modeshill Estate was to protect the emergency men who were herding 30 evicted farms to which all the former tenants have been restored, the policemen will now be ordered to leave immediately?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question until I have obtained the information that will enable me to answer it.

  THE GALBALLY POST OFFICE.
  MR. FUSTUCANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain the reasons for which Mrs. Donovan was deprived of the Post Office of Galbally, County Limerick, on 2nd January, 1890; whether Sergeant Osborne reported that Mrs. Donovan's stepson, William M'Cor-mack, who was imprisoned for six weeks, took a commission for an order from a Mr. M'Ferran on 24th August, 1890, but that Mr. Oldfield, Post Office Inspector, on examination of the office, found no order for 24th August with M'Ferran's
  736
  name; whether he is aware that Mrs. Donovan filled up a form for the surveyor, stating her son filled no form, but acknowledging that he sold some stamps, and promising that he should not do so in future; if it is customary for others besides those making declaration to sell stamps; whether a Memorial, largely signed by inhabitants of Galbally, asking for an investigation to test the truth of the policeman's statement, was sent to Postal Authorities; and will such investigation be now ordered?
  MR. RAIKES: Mrs. Donovan was deprived of her appointment as Postmistress of Galbally, because she persisted in employing on the duties of her office a son whom she had been instructed not so to employ; and it was this fact, and not the occurrence to which the hon. Member refers, that influenced my decision. A Memorial asking for an investigation was received by me; but as the employment of her son was not only not denied, but admitted by Mrs. Donovan herself, no investigation appeared to be necessary.

  MR. PERCY MAGAN.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the charge against Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., of having obtained money under the Arrears Act of 1882 by false representations, has been repeatedly made during the last nine months, and of his non-compliance with the request of the Laud Commission, two months ago, for an explanation, he will consult the Lord Chancellor as to the desirability of suspending Mr. Magan from the Commission of the Peace pending legal proceedings for the recovery of the amount fraudulently obtained?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As already stated this case is being investigated by the Irish Land Commission. Pending the result of that investigation any action would be improper.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is it intended to suspend Mr. Magan from the Commission of the Peace until these arrears are paid?
  MR. MADDEN: No action can be taken pending the investigation by the Land Commission.

  JUDGES CHARGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the charge addressed to the Grand Jury of County Antrim by Lord Justice Fitzgibbons, on Monday last, and especially to the following paragraph—
  "The Commission, which had been opened there, included six counties: Meath, Louth, Monaghan, Armagh, Down, and Antrim. Those six counties were inhabited by 1,1150,000 people, or something more than one-fifth of the whole population of Ireland, and that one-fifth of the population appeared, from the statistics, to enjoy the advantage of occupying property of a tenement valuation exceeding £3,500,000, or, in round numbers, more than one-fourth of the whole tenement valuation of Ireland. From one end to the other of that circuit the history of crime, he was happy to say, had been the same throughout. They had literally not met with one single instance, not merely of a trial, but a report of a crime caused by combination, by conspiracy, or by intimidation, and there had not been one single charge of riot;"
  and if he will take steps to have the valuable testimony to the condition of different parts of Ireland contained in the charges periodically delivered by the Judges laid before Parliament and preserved for future reference?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the address delivered by the learned Judge mentioned. However valuable the presentation of the addresses of the Judges might be, I fear it would be hardly practicable to carry out such a course, inasmuch as it is not the practice to have an official reporter in Court.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant procure a copy of the charge of the Lord Chief Baron Palles to the Grand Jury at the Wicklow Assizes, and cause it to be laid on the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If an authentic copy can be obtained I will have no objection, so far as I am concerned, to its being printed. I am informed that the Lord Chief Baron always has a shorthand writer to take down his charges, but I do not know that that is the practice of other Judges. It is a question whether it would be worth while to have an official reporter present on every occasion of this sort. I do not think that it could be left to the Govern-
  738
  ment to select what charges should be laid on the Table. If they laid one I think they must lay all.
  MR. MACNEILL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by an authentic charge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should say an authentic charge was one taken down by a shorthand writer, and certified by the Judge to be correct.
  MR. SEXTON: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will apply to the Lord Chief Baron for a copy of this charge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further information to give to the House as to the extraordinary charge of Mr. Justice Harrison at Galway?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that I do not think it right for me to ask questions of the learned Judge as to the course he thought it his duty to pursue on the Bench; but I have received a communication from Mr. Justice Harrison which I did not bring down with me, but which I will read to the hon. Gentleman to-morrow.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what, if any, arrangement has been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and that of Portugal concerning the settle of the Delagoa Bay Railway, especially with reference to the amount of compensation to be paid to the English and American claimants?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Portuguese Government have agreed that the Swiss Government should be asked to appoint three jurists to arbitrate as to the amount of compensation to be paid for the rescission of the contract and the taking possession of the railway, and instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Berne to make the application as soon as his Portuguese and American colleagues receive similar instructions. I may mention that, with a view to meeting any pressing claims that may be made upon the English company, the Portuguese Government have undertaken at once to place the sum of £28,000 in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury to what date he intends to postpone the Indian Councils Bill, and whether it will really be taken on the date to which it is postponed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We propose to take it on Thursday next, and if we find that we are unable to take it then another day will be named.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any information to the House as to the course of business to-morrow and Monday? I hope, also, that by this time he has been able to fix on some day on which he can undertake to propose the Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I answered a question as to the course of business a short time ago. I stated that the Government propose to deal with the Anglo-German Agreement Bill, with the Local Taxation Bill, and with the Police Bill before they again take up Supply. I hope it will be possible practically to complete the Anglo-German Agreement Bill to-night, and to take up the Local Taxation Bill to-morrow and the Police Bill on Monday. After that we propose to again take up Supply, beginning with the Scotch Education Vote, and proceeding with the other Scotch Votes. I hope it will be in my power shortly to name a day for the Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The questions connected with the Foreign Office Vote are most important questions of principle —the principle upon which relations are to be regulated elsewhere in matters of great delicacy; and I cannot think that all the Bills the Government have before the House and all the other Votes in Supply ought at this period of the year to be put before that important Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour to give consideration to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but we feel it most important to take the Bills I have named as soon as possible.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Is the Scotch Police Bill included in the right hon. Gentleman's statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid not. The Scotch Bill has not been reported on yet by the Committee upstairs.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to obtain from the First Lord of the Treasury a more definite answer than has yet been given as to the Estimates being taken next Session as soon as possible and on regular days, for though a pledge was given last year that they would be taken early, most of the Estimates have not yet been voted.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already given an answer on this subject. It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to give the House every opportunity, at the earliest possible period, of discussing the Estimates, if the House on its part will be content to display some resasonable limitation of the discussion. I cannot go further than that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I beg to give notice that next Session I will do my best to assist the Government in bringing forward the Estimates early by throwing every impediment in the way of all other business which is placed before us.

  BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. BRYCE: When will the Papers relating to the Behring Sea Fisheries be in the hands of hon. Members? Seeing that a telegraphic summary of the Papers presented at Washington has appeared in the morning papers, it is clear that hon. Members may reasonably expect to have their own copies by this time.
  SIR, J. FERGUSSON: If I had had notice of that question I should have endeavoured to be prepared to answer it. I stated, in answer to a question the other day, that the Papers were in course of preparation, but that they were very voluminous and might take some time. I shall be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman to-morrow when the Papers may be expected. May I add that I hope it will not be thought necessary to raise a Debate on a question which is still in course of negotiation?

  SHIPS (TYNE AND CARDIFF) (SYNOPSIS OF RETURN).
  Return ordered,
  "Of Synopsis of Return (presented 30th day of April) of all English Ships loaded with dead weight cargo at the Ports of the Tyne and at Cardiff during the three months ending the 31st day of December, 1889, giving the names of the ships, the net register tonnage in each case, and also the weight of coal actually loaded.
  "And, of all Foreign Ships loaded at these Ports, in the following form:—

  BRITISH.

  Sail.

  Steam.

  Wood.

  Iron.

  Steel.

  Wood.

  Iron.

  Steel.

  Proportion per 100 tons net register

  FOREIGN.

  Sail.

  Steam.

  Wood.

  Iron.

  Steel.

  Wood.

  Iron.

  Steel.

  Proportion per 100 tons net register

  N. B.—Composite vessels are included under the heading "Wood." Vessels carrying coke, or only partially loaded, are excluded from this Return.—(Colonel Hill.)

  IRISH SOCIETY AND LONDON COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES.)
  Report with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up and read [Inquiry not completed.]
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 322.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER 25.)
  Return ordered—
  "Respecting application of Standing Order 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1890 (in the same form and in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,150, of Session 1889."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

  LOCAL TAXATION (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS, &c.)
  Return ordered—
  "Showing (1) the amounts paid out of the Local Taxation Account to or on behalf of the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough in respect of the local taxation licences and probate duty grant for the financial year ended the 31st day of March,
  742
  1890; (2) the amounts paid out of or transferred from the Exchequer Contribution Account of each Council in respect of such licences and grant, distinguishing the several payments and transfers made in pursuance of sections 24, 26, and 43 of The Local Government Act, 1888;' (3) the amounts, if any, remaining in each Exchequer Contribution Account after such payments and transfers have been made, and their application so far as they have yet been applied; (4) the amount paid by the London County Council in respect of the indoor pauper grant under section 43 (I) (b) of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' for the said year; (5) the amounts paid by each Council in respect of the maintenance, improvement, and repair, during the said year, of main roads, distinguishing the amounts expended on such roads by the Council themselves from the amounts paid by them to Urban Sanitary and other Highway Authorities; and (6) the amounts contributed by each Council during the said year under section 11 (10) of 'The Local Government Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill; Amendment to—Colonial Courts of Admiralty Bill [Lords], without any Amendment,
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 385.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Postponed Clauses 2 and 18 agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. RITCHIE: I hope the House will allow the Bill to be now read a third time, in view of the fact that only one Amendment has been made in it, namely, that which provides that a Return shall be made in Wales of the persons who can speak Welsh and English or English only.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 387.)

    COMMITTEE.
    (4.27.) Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Postponed Clauses 2 and 18 agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL —(No. 393.)

    SECOND BEADING.
    (4.28.) Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I wish to point out that this Bill contains only a preamble, one clause, and a Schedule, and the Schedule contains statements of fact which cannot be altered by Amendments. Under these circumstances, I desire to know whether, upon the Motion for the Second Reading, it will be in order to move a Resolution as an Amendment, or whether, after the Bill has been read a second time, it will be competent for hon. Members in Committee to object to any of the details of the measure. The operative words in the Bill are these, "The assent of Parliament is hereby given to the provisions of the Agreement set out in the Schedule of this Act."
    MR. SPEAKER: It is competent for any hon. Member to move a Resolution
    744
    superseding the Motion for the Second Reading, but it is not competent to add words to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Suppose it was desired to qualify the Agreement so as to preserve the liability from military service of the children of all present inhabitants of Heligoland. Would it not be necessary to make provision for that at the present stage of the Bill, seeing that an Amendment in Committee would necessarily be an abrogation of the principle of the Bill as affirmed by the Second Reading?
    MR. SPEAKER: That would be, I think, a question for the Committee to decide. It appears to me a modification could be made in the provision.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: But it might be ruled by the Chairman that the Schedule could not be altered, as being a statement of facts.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question of order for me to decide. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman may embody in a Resolution such of the points stated in the Schedule as he may desire to refer to.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: My point is that this is the only stage at which it can be done.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Is it competent for Members, on the Bill for the cession of Heligoland, to discuss the Agreement so far as it relates to Africa?
    MR. SPEAKER: The other part of the Agreement is an equivalent for the cession of Heligoland, and, therefore, the Agreement with regard to the African question can be entered into.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I shall be able, in accordance with the usage of the House, to make good the case upon which it is proposed to sanction the arrangement made by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of the German Emperor to cede or transfer Heligoland to the German Empire. Small as is this territory, and small as is its population, the' House and the country will not forget that its acquisition by Great Britain is connected with a glorious page in the history of this country; that for a great part of a

    745
    century it has remained a part of our Empire; that our relations with it have not been troubled by any friction; that under the British flag its population have happily dwelt; and that its separation from us is not desired on either side, and can only be regarded with regret by both. The island was acquired by conquest in the course of the long war waged with the first Napoleon, and it was found to be useful during the closing of the German ports, which were then in French hands. Its fortification by us during the war was unnecessary, because we had the undisputed command of the sea, and after the war it was clearly unsuitable and unnecessary that it should be fortified against a nation with whom lately we had been allied. The island was inexpensive to us, although not profitable financially, and it did not contribute anything to the strength of the Empire. Its tenure by this country has never been challenged neither by Denmark nor when Schleswig became part of the German Empire by the Germans, although it was well known that to the national sentiment of Germany it was not unattractive. No British statesman has ever contemplated its cession, and when some speculative person suggested such a thing, without equivalent, it was always resisted by the Government of the day. It is said that, though, as I hope to show, we have got an ample equivalent for ceding the island, we have no right to transfer the population without consulting their wishes, and without securing their consent. It has been always the policy of this country that those who have come under the British sway, by conquest or otherwise, should be treated with the utmost liberality. This has been our policy with the French in Canada, with the Maltese, and with the people of India, as well as with the Heligolanders, and the result has been to render their lot happier than before, and to attach them to the British Crown. But still the retention of a possession must rest on high Imperial grounds. To us this island is of no material or strategic importance in these days; it has, however, it will be generally admitted, attractions for the German people from a sentimental point of view, which is a motive strong among nations, and which
    746
    has commonly actuated them in the most important transactions of life. Besides, the island may probably be of more strategical value to the Germans than to us. In return for the island the German Government have thought it worth while to make large concessions in a Continent in which they have latterly obtained an extended footing. They have come to an agreement with us which Her Majesty's Government confidently submit to the House as likely to be pregnant with important results to British enterprise and trade, and I hope with advantage to the people with whom we shall have to deal. Before proceeding to make that good, I should like to notice some criticisms and objections which have been made. It has been said that the ceding away of Heligoland has not given satisfaction to the inhabitants. We have, however, heard less and less of the objections of the people of late. At first visitors ran over there and came back reporting that there was a strong feeling on the part of the inhabitants against the cession. Curiously enough a gentleman did me the honour of calling on me at the Foreign Office to-day, and he said he had been in the habit of visiting the island, and that he was able to speak with confidence as to the feelings of the people, as he was able to converse with the people in their own dialect. He told me that he had conversed with more than 100 natives, and that he had found only one man who entertained an objection to the cession. They told him that they had been altogether deceived as to the conditions of the cession, and that they had been informed that they would lose all the privileges they had enjoyed; but when it was shown that all their immunities would be secured to all now living, and that they would have the option of electing to be British subjects, they were entirely satisfied and grateful for the care taken of their interests. In accordance with the provisions of German law, the children of such persons as wish to remain British subjects will be exempt from military Service. I have no doubt that when the island has been for some time incorporated with the German Empire the people of Heligoland will be animated with the same sentiments which inspire the people of Germany with regard to

    747
    the Fatherland. Her Majesty's Government have also secured for British fishermen, who have been in the habit of resorting to the island, the full enjoyment of all the privileges they have hitherto possessed, except that of fishing in the territorial waters. Now, I turn to the quid pro quo, and the result of the Agreement made for the extension of Her Majesty's sphere of influence in Africa. In the first place, the House will recall the position in which we stood not long ago. Thanks to the explorations of intrepid British subjects, wonderful discoveries have been made in Africa during the past century. There was a time when we might have made almost any part of that continent oar own had we been prepared to undertake the outlay and responsibility. Even in the last decade, when that portion of Eastern Africa was thoroughly investigated, it would have been in the power of the Government of this country so to have taken possession of a sphere of influence in that region that no other Power would have thought of obtaining a lodging there. That was not done. I do not think it worth while to impute want of duty on the part of those who held office at that time. I apprehend that the policy and conduct of the Government of the time was in accord with public opinion, and that the Government were not prepared to undertake great and unknown responsibilities by taking possession of a large part of the continent. Consequently, the efforts of discovery did not immediately result in an acquisition by this country of a sphere of influence over a large portion of the continent which is now engaging our attention. Other nations were not so indifferent. One after another the great nations of Europe became alive in time to the great opportunities for the expansion of commerce in Africa. The Germans, especially, were active in Central Africa, and in 1885 they had established themselves, so as to constitute a valid claim to their interests being considered, in the great tract between the lakes and the sea. Still it is not surprising that responsible Governments were unwilling to accept unknown responsibilities. But when the results of the discoveries of great travellers became better known, then a desire was manifested to gain possession of the continent. In 1886
    748
    there was an arrangement made by which the German and British spheres of influence in Eastern Africa were so far delimited that the districts inland were divided between the two Powers. But the Germans had established themselves to the northward as well as to the southward of us, and there was great risk of our endeavours being frustrated, and the chartered companies being overlapped and outflanked by the operations of energetic explorers. It therefore became exceedingly necessary that some better arrangement should be made. It was hardly possible that the Germans would have been able to give up a protectorate, on which some of their subjects had expended considerable sums of money, without some equivalent. They had been as active as ourselves in prosecuting journeys into the interior, and they had established themselves on Lake Nyassa. Only a few weeks ago it was commonly stated in this country that we were to lose the fruits of so much energy and outlay on the part of our enterprising fellow-subjects; that we should lose the Stevenson Road and the country covered by Mr. Stanley's treaties, and that, in fact, we should become a very inferior Power in the continent in which we had been the pioneers of discovery. The difference between our position so viewed and now is singular. There is hardly anything which our people claimed at that time, which is not now secured. The map will show that we have covered within that sphere all parts of the African continent in which our traders and missionaries have established themselves. I believe that there are two exceptions, where there are mission stations within the Gorman sphere occupied by our fellow-subjects, and for these the Government have secured the fullest liberty and safety for all time to come. The Agreement has been the result of the most friendly negotiations with the German Government. Her Majesty's Government could not have accomplished what they have done had they not been met in a generous and friendly spirit by the German Government. That was the spirit which actuated them as well, I hope, as ourselves. But it is not alone with Germany that arrangements have been made. It would have been no small achievement if we had but

    749
    obviated all chance of collision and jealousy between the German people and ourselves. But other great nations had shown eagerness to secure a footing on this continent, and there were, consequently, risks of friction with them. Last year the Government made an important arrangement with France in respect of territories held by them on the WestCoast of Africa which border on our colonies, and so settled questions which, for a long time, had caused considerable trouble to the two countries. Her Majesty's Government are, at the present moment, negotiating with France for a larger delimitation, which, I hope, will be brought to a happy conclusion. I am glad to say we are also negotiating with Portugal, with every prospect of such a settlement being arrived at as will obviate future risks of jealousy and conflict. So that on the greater part of the continent of Africa, we shall have avoided the risk of friction with the other Powers of Europe. In thus arranging these matters in times of peace we avoid fruitful causes of jealousy and danger, and render continuous peace possible. It has been suggested that in concluding these agreements, which, I contend, could not have been concluded on terms more satisfactory to this country, there must have been some secret understanding that in some way we are bound more than before in alliance with these Powers. I will say again that in the Agreement either with Germany or any other Power to cement further the friendship which exists, and ought to exist between us, and to apportion our respective rights, there has been no advance upon or departure from the policy which has been over and over again announced to Parliament. I am glad to see that the Agreement has been received by responsible politicians in this country in a spirit which, I think, is eminently patriotic. There has been for some years a disposition to abstain from making foreign matters Party questions, and it adds immensely to the moral force which the Government of the country ought to exercise in the councils of the world when, in the main, Parties are allied in protecting British interests, and not taking them into the field of Party strife. Some hon. Members, however, have spoken as if by this
    750
    Agreement we were dealing with the liberties of other people in a manner we had no right to. It has been said that Her Majesty's Government have no right to deal with these populations as if their property had become our possessions; but I affirm that in the proceedings which Her Majesty's Government have taken they have in no way infringed the property of the tribes of Africa. In every case the footing of the chartered companies in Africa has been gained by treaty agreement with the inhabitants. I believe the East Africa Company have shod the blood of no man; but, on the other hand, they have set free thousands of slaves. That company have already won over the tribes in a vast region to more peaceful habits, and have shown them that their interests lay in peaceful commerce rather than in internecine war. We have shown them that they may better enrich themselves by trading with European Powers, than by the devastating pursuit of the Slave Trade, and wherever we have gone, law, order, and justice have prevailed. And I may here refer to the efforts made in this present year by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the representatives of all civilised nations, for the effectual abolition of the Slave Trade. The fruits of the Conference which has been held with regard to the Slave Trade have, of course, yet to be seen, but I do not think that the temporary check that has occurred from the abstinence of one Power will be permanent, and that measures will be agreed upon and that united efforts will be made on a greater scale than before which will result in abolishing that trade, which it has long been recognised as the duty of all Christian men to destroy. With regard to Zanzibar some have spoken as if the protectorate was the only thing-given in return for the cession of Helligo-land; but we have doubled our coast line by the Agreement, and enormously increased our area of influence in the interior. That protectorate does not interfere with the Agreement of 1862. Muscat and Zanzibar had been separated, as the result of an arbitration between the two sons of the Imaum of Muscat, and we bound ourselves to respect the independence of the two States. It has been

    751
    said that, in assuming the protectorate of Zanzibar, we have only come back in a partial degree to the position in which we stood five years before. This is not so. In the first place, we have never before assumed the protectorate of Zanzibar. It is true that ever since that great man, Sir John Kirk, had exercised influence at Zanzibar, the influence of this country has been predominant, and has been eminently successful in leading the ruler of that State to increase the civilization of his subjects and check the Slave Trade and assist British commerce. But we had in no sense then assumed the protectorate of Zanzibar, and now we do not propose to assume it in such complete fashion, or so as to hinder the commerce of any other Power, but in such a way that we shall secure the Sultan the dominions which remain to him, and make his position more comfortable. With regard to the small islands to the north, and the coast line from Wanga to the River Juba, the tenure of the Sultan will be more secure; and though he codes the Sovereignty of the German coast, he had previously given a lease of 50 years of the administration. Here I should like to point out that, in securing this sphere of influence, we deliberately prefer not to disturb the authority of the Sultan. For the last 30 years and more, the happy policy has been pursued by England of not disturbing the sovereignty of native rulers, but by guaranteeing their possessions, and exercising a friendly influence in their States, of making their position more secure, and their people happier, while, at the same time, the rulers exercise their independence. This is the position which we have taken up with regard to the Sultan of Zanzibar, and I think that the House will agree that it is better to deal in this way with native races than to undertake all the responsibility and danger of their government. I will now notice some of the objections which have been made to this Agreement. It has been said that the Stevenson Road connecting two lakes has been made by British capital, and is the scene of British missionary efforts and the site of trading stations, and that if the road alone were secured to us there would be great inconvenience. All these things have been met in the negotiations,
    752
    and sufficient space to the east will be secured to prevent all inconvenience, while access from one lake to another will also be secured, and absolute freedom of trade and transit is guaranteed. Referring to the south-west, of course there is a great region with regard to which there has been considerable controversy —namely, Namaqualand and Damaraland, which some years ago had fallen into the hands of Germany, owing to indisposition on the part of the Imperial and Cape Governments to assume the responsibility. I am by no means imputing blame to those who did not assume this extended responsibility, but at all events Germany acquired the protectorate over those regions. I venture to say that the contention that the Cape Government has a vested right to all the country south of the Zambesi is one which cannot be maintained, and I do not think that it is possible for this country to maintain it and be on good terms with other nations. It would not be possible for us to claim a sphere of influence in those two great provinces, but we have secured in a vast region in the interior a most valuable sphere of influence in which British trade will find ample room for employment and the great South African colonies for expansion. These are the leading features of the Agreement, with respect to which the House is asked to sanction the cession of Heligoland. I am happy to note that these questions have been well considered by the country. I believe that we may claim for this Agreement the merit of providing for the interests of our people in this sphere, but I would congratulate the country still more on having removed far away any chance of jealousy with a great and friendly nation, an object which was not confined to Germany, but which we hoped to extend to all our neighbours, so that colonisation might not lead to any fresh danger to this country, but rather increase our friendship with those nations with whom it was most desirable that we should live in harmony. I now beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
    MR. W.B. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has divided his speech into two portions, the more considerable of which is not directly before the House. He has spoken of the conditions of the arrangement as to Heligoland, and he has spoken of the Anglo-German Agreement in Africa. It will be my duty—and I think my principal duty—to point out that there is a third division of this subject, a third point appertaining to it, of which he has taken no notice whatever, and which, in my opinion, is of even more vital importance than any of the matters upon which he has touched. I reserve my remarks upon the development of that idea until I have dealt with the matters touched upon in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said, towards the close of his speech, that the House was asked to accede to the cession of Heligoland. That is perfectly true in point of form. It might be said, if we looked at it from the outside only that this is only an affair of parochial legislation, because the population of Heligoland, I think, is not equal to the average population of any of the 10,000 parishes of England. But, Sir, I wish to point out that, although the Vote of the House is only to be taken upon the Agreement as to Heligoland in point of form, yet in point of substance the Vote of the House is upon the entire treaty. Now, upon that there can be no question whatever that the whole treaty-making power of the Crown is thrown into the hands of the House, in respect not only to Heligoland, but to all the conditions relating to the South African portion of the Agreement, although upon the form of proceeding there is no indication whatever to that effect. I am bound to say I have no complaint to make of the tone and spirit of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I think that tone and spirit most satisfactory, and some part of the positive information he was able to give us was satisfactory also. In the first place, I think it my duty to give unqualified credit to Lord Salisbury for the spirit in which he has set about this Agreement. I think it has been a good spirit, having regard to the best interests of England, and, likewise, the spirit of one who does not wish at all to view those interests in
    754
    a narrow or selfish manner, but who wishes, in discharge of this great colonising, protecting, or superintending function, that the benefits attending the extension of power and influence shall be, of course felt in the first instance in this country, but shall be extended, not grudgingly, to all the countries concerned. I apprehend that the rights of natives, whatever they may be, in their relations with European powers, are not now before the House, and can in no respect be diminished or disparaged by any Agreement with Germany, France, or any other European nation. They remain intact exactly as they were before the Agreement. The whole force of the compact the Government have been engaged in making bears absolutely and exclusively upon the mode in which we shall regulate our relative concerns among ourselves in Africa. One matter I must mention with some regret. I think it is clear, even to the Government themselves, that an error has been committed in concluding this arrangement with Germany before arriving at a final understanding with France with regard to the protectorate of Zanzibar. I am very reluctant to dwell upon this point, because negotiations with France are now in progress, and it would be difficult to comment upon it without, I fear, importing some embarrassment into the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. But I must own there has been an error in that respect; an error which it is not difficult to account for, when I recollect that in the person and in the hands of Lord Salisbury—than whom there seldom has been a person more competent to meet the difficulty, if it can be met at all—are united functions which it has never been found possible in this country to unite before; and which, I must say from conviction and experience, I entertain the most confident expectation will never be united again. To discharge the functions of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of England exceeds the power of the human brain, unless you can raise from the dead a man of the stupendous powers of Napoleon, or of another man, a countryman of ours, whose brain was not less than his—I mean Oliver Cromwell. I fear the over-pressure of subjects of anxiety has led to some difficulty in this particular case, which, however, I do not mean

    755
    to dwell upon. I am bound to say that, as far as I can judge, I do believe the general effect of the Agreement in Africa will be beneficial to the parties concerned, and that the proceedings have been conducted with a due and impartial regard to the different interests involved. With regard to Heligoland there are, I think, three points which it is our duty to take into view. The first of these questions is, whether there is any sufficient ground of British interests to lead us to take objection to the plan of Her Majesty's Government. The conclusion at which I have arrived is that there is no sufficient ground, and I am not going to give judgment on the scheme upon any such plea. I am not sure the question of the strategical importance of Heligoland is entirely disposed of. I can conceive contingencies of war in which it might not be without some material weight as to strategical operations; but, at the same time, viewing the state of the case, viewing the nature of our relations with Heligoland, and viewing the fact that those relations rest on conquest, and date from comparatively modern times, I feel that the welfare of the people of that island and the relations to their neighbours ought to be the dominant considerations in determining its destiny. I am not prepared upon the mere ground of British interests to take objection to the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, there is one ground which appears to me to involve, and still appears to involve, very serious considerations; but then the right hon. Gentleman has given us, at any rate, some hope of a state of facts in this respect better than has been represented in various quarters. It has been the language of some that in cases where the inhabitants are numerically so insignificant we are not bound to have any regard to their consent or inclination in determining their political condition. I am not able to accede to that proposition. I do not think that the mere number of inhabitants will absolve us from our obligations to the persons who have the deepest interest in that country. There has been much said by British travellers to the effect that there is a disinclination among the Heligolanders to become the subjects of this cession. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has given us a consolatory assurance in his speech to-
    756
    day. I am afraid the witnesses are not unanimous. I have myself to-day received a letter in the contrary sense from a gentleman who is considered to have good information, and who says that the more he goes into the question the more he is convinced that the Heligolanders do not wish to become a portion of the German Empire. I do not feel that we are able to accept British assurances to that effect. It would be only from the Heligolanders themselves that I, for one, could take assurances of their disinclination to become part of Germany. But if there be any prudential or other considerations which prevent them giving that assurance, I am bound to accept the declaration of the Government, whose duty undoubtedly has been to examine the matter, that they have assured themselves there is no such disinclination on the part of the Heligolanders; and in the absence of such disinclination, I cannot set up a handful of British opinions, which the Germans might fairly consider prejudiced opinions, against the conclusions which the responsible Government have arrived at. The absence of dissent from that kind of assurances of the Government, together with the duty of the Government to make the matter the subject of serious investigation, are all, I think, that I have a right to know. Then comes the question not of the principle of the cession, but of the particular terms which Her Majesty's Government have arranged on behalf of the Heligolanders. I quite see that they have made apparently careful provision for the perpetual preservation of the rights of British fishermen. As far as I can judge, that is an adequate provision, and I own I should have been extremely sorry if the case had been found to be that we had been more careful of the rights of fishermen, who find it for their interest to frequent the waters of Heligoland, than of the Heligolanders themselves. Though certainly an interesting people, with a good deal of substantial existence, the nationality of the Heligolanders is more microscopic than any other subject to which the idea of nationality has yet been applied. But they are a people with a good deal of character, with some peculiarities in their history, and distinct severance of language from those portions of the mainland with which they are most

    757
    closely associated. They have a great claim upon our interest. On the subject of fortification, it is very difficult for us to enter. There are those who think it will be the interest and policy of Germany to convert Heligoland into a fortress. There are others who think it would be a great mistake. The introduction of fortifications on a limited space of ground entails many severe consequences, and it is quite conceivable that to fortify Heligoland might entail a great displacement of private rights and arrangements so as materially to alter the whole condition of the inhabitants of the island in a manner very detrimental to their interests. I earnestly and respectfully trust that, whatever may be done by Germany in the exercise of the sovereign power which she is to acquire, there will be considerable, and I will even say tender, regard given to these considerations. It is one thing to interfere with private arrangements in a country where the whole feelings of the people are. traditionally and from antiquity, enlisted on the side of those who find it necessary to acquire their territory; it is another thing to go into a country as strangers—for the Germans, are, after all, politically, as much strangers to Heligoland as we were when we went there in 1807—and for those who are strangers to inflict great personal inconvenience upon the natives; and I trust, therefore, that every effort will be made to avoid such inconvenience. But there is another question upon which we have had a declaration to-night, which, if I understand it aright, removes many difficulties from my mind, and conveys to me considerable satisfaction. After all, what must have struck every Englishman in considering the case was this—what is to be the condition of these Heligolanders as to naval, and even more as to military, service, as to coercive military service in and on behalf of a country with which they have never been connected, and to the military strength of which they would hardly make even so much as an infinitesimal addition? Now, we see that there are two provisions in the Agreement which boar upon the question. The first is the provision where it is positively stipulated that all native Heligolanders now in existence, parents and children, shall be exempt from military service.
    758
    If that stood alone, I own it would give me no sufficient satisfaction, because I should say, "We are aware that in certain countries where slavery has prevailed, laws have been passed to provide that everybody born after a certain date should be born free; but it is quite another thing to provide that everybody born after a certain date shall be born subject to a heavy burden and to a heavy restraint, which may be very odious." But there is a second provision which the right hon. Gentleman has explained tonight. That is the provision with regard to what is called opting to be British subjects. Now, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly, every man in Heligoland, being a Heligolander, may opt to become a British subject, and, if he opts to become a British subject, he may remain in Heligoland as such; his children will be born there; they will be British subjects also, and, being British subjects, they will not be subject to compulsory naval or military service in Germany.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I give the exact information we have—
    "Minors, being children of fathers who have opted for British nationality, will also possess that nationality."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As I understand, they will be permanently British subjects, as much and as fully British subjects as their fathers were, and, that being so, the same law will apply to their children in their turn.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not sure about that.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then they are not British subjects.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that even the children of fully-born British subjects residing in foreign countries lose their nationality. [Cries of "No!"] I beg pardon. The children born in France of British parents lose their immunities, and are liable to conscription.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What laws a Foreign Power may be competent to make within its own jurisdiction I am not concerned to discuss. I am speaking of actual law and actual arrangements. I am not sure that I can ask the Government to provide that there shall never be at any future time any detriment imported into the laws affecting these subjects; but, as I understand the

    759
    matter, the present Heligolanders opting to be British subjects will see their children growing up to be British subjects in the plenitude of everything which belongs to British citizenship as fully as they themselves enjoy it; and they, having those rights, will, under the present German laws, have the same power of transmitting them to their children. [Sir J. FERGUSSON: Yes.] If that is the case it is to me a very satisfactory declaration.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will read the whole Paper—
    "With regard to last paragraph, acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informs me that German Government consider the supposition contained therein in accordance with the sense of the agreement of July, and that minors being children of fathers who have opted for British nationality will also possess that nationality.
    Thus the children of persons who have opted for British nationality will also possess that nationality whether born before or after.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I understand that declaration to have no reference whatever to the limited term of time mentioned in the Agreement.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: None whatever.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It clearly applies to children not in existence. I can only say that what I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman is a great relief to my mind, with regard to the most serious part of this matter—that is, the making the best provision possible for the future comfort and well-being of the natives of Heligoland, and those descended from them. Of course, if they choose not to opt to be British subjects it is their affair. I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance which we find in his speech with reference to this very important point. But I have read somewhere the declaration of a statesman who said, in answering a speech, that what he had to answer was not what the speech contained, but what it did not contain, and that is my complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. Over the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I have been able to go, I hope, in an amicable and dispassionate spirit; but the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the Government in the House of Lords, has taken no notice whatever of the fact that by the
    760
    demand made to-day upon the House of Commons to give its vote or assent to a cession of territory, he is placing the House in a position absolutely without precedent and introducing a novelty into the practice of this country, which, whether it he right or wrong—and upon that I give no opinion —involves a matter of vast importance and of enormous difficulty. Is there any doubt at all that this proposal is an absolute and entire novelty? In the whole course of its existence the House of Commons has never been asked to vote a cession of territory until to-night. My right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) reminds me that the practice has been upon various occasions to invite the subsequent approval of Parliament to arrangements made by the Executive Government in the form of Addresses to the Crown. Of that we are perfectly aware; but that is not voting the subject-matter of the Treaties that have been made. It is giving an opinion upon them; it is not giving them validity and constituted force. There may be an idea in the minds of hon. Gentlemen that the United Kingdom has always been a Power whose course has been onwards and not backwards—a Power which has endeavoured continually to make additions to its territory and not diminutions of it. That is quite true generally, but it is at the same time true that there have been occasions—I will not go back beyond the Restoration, because I do not know in what manner the British provinces of France were ceded to the French Crown—it is at the same time true that cases of actual cession of British territory since the Restoration of Charles II. have not only occurred, but that they are to be counted by scores. In India alone, before the Mutiny in 1857, there were no less than 23 cases of cession of British territory to another Power. So the present cession is not a case without precedent, and in those cases that have occurred Parliament has not been asked to give judgment beforehand. Everyone, therefore, must feel that this is a step of vast importance. The question of the Treaty-making power is undoubtedly one of the most difficult questions of practical politics in the world. The proof of that is to be found in the history of the Constitution of the United States. The able and sagacious men who considered this

    761
    question there arrived at a solution of the difficulty by adopting a compromise. They gave the power of intervention to the Senate of the United States; they did not not give it to the popularly-elected body, and that body has nothing whatever to say with respect to a Treaty concluded with a Foreign Power, and it has no power of interfering with the conditions of that Treaty either directly or indirectly by censuring or punishing those who have made it. No one doubts, Sir, that this power of Treaty-making lies in this country with the Crown, subject to certain exceptions, which, I believe, are perfectly well understood. Wherever money is involved, wherever a pecuniary burden on the State is involved in any shape, I say, it is perfectly well understood, and I believe it is as well known to Foreign Powers as to ourselves, that the Government is absolutely powerless without the assent of Parliament, and that that assent, if given, is an absolutely independent assent, upon which the Crown has no claim whatever, presumptive or otherwise. I believe it to be also a principle—and I speak subject to correction—that where personal rights and liberties are involved they cannot be, at any rate, directly affected by the prerogative of the Crown, but the assent of Parliament, the popularly elected body to a representative chamber, is necessary to constitute a valid Treaty in regard to them. But, Sir, setting aside these eases which are well defined, both in principle and in practice, there remains a vast range over which this Treaty power extends. It is not a question of the cession of territory alone. There is the question of acquisition of territory. The acquisition of territory is as important as the cession of territory. The cession of territory is undoubtedly included in the Treaty-making power, and included in what is sometimes called the prerogative of the Crown—a phrase I do not wish to use, because I think it would rather tend to prejudice the case on this occasion; and I am sure it is most important that the Members of this House should look at this question from a practical point of view, and should understand what change, if any, is being made, and what the bearing of that change will be upon the practical power and position of this Government.
    762
    Now, Sir, what is the true doctrine, according to the best authorities, and what has been the uniform practice with regard to the cession of territory? Heligoland, small as it is, is a territory, and the doctrine applies, in its integrity, to a single acre as much as it does to half a continent. I believe Blackstone may be accepted in this matter as a very sound expositor of Constitutional Law, and the effect of his language is that the Crown unquestionably has the power of ceding territory, but that Parliament has the right to control the exercise of that power by punishing those who misuse it. Instances are not difficult to give. Dunkirk was ceded by Charles II. when Clarendon was, perhaps, his principal adviser. The cession held good. Clarendon was impeached. Impeachment passes out of view or out of fashion, and we come down to the great period of the disruption of the British Empire by the loss of the American colonies. A Treaty is concluded by the King—a very just and wise Treaty—recognising the independence of America. The House of Lords, I believe, approves that Treaty, and the House of Commons disapproves that Treaty. Most of us on this side of the House, perhaps most of us in all quarters of the House, would be of opinion that the House of Commons was wrong, but that, of course, is not the question. The question is the power of the House of Commons, and observe that, while the House of Lords approved the Treaty, and that approval of the House of Lords remained wholly valueless and ineffective, the House of Commons censured the Treaty and, censuring the Treaty, punished the Ministers in the only mode known to modern practice—namely, by ejecting them from office. Blackstone lays down this doctrine, which, upon the whole, I believe to be a wise and sound doctrine, and in speaking of the control of Parliament, he did not speak of that which was shadowy and valueless. I admit that there are to be found, in various quarters, declarations of lawyers which raise doubts, at any rate, upon the extent of the power of the Crown to cede territory. Let me say, in the first place, that no one of these doubts touches the case of Heligoland. So far as I know, doubts were expressed by Sir Roundell Palmer, the present Lord Selborne, in the Debate in

    763
    1863, upon the cession of the Ionian Islands, which, though a cession of very-great importance to the governing Power, was not a cession of territory, inasmuch as those islands formed no part of the territory of the Crown, and were legally judged to form the Septinsular Republic, as it was then called. Sir Roundell Palmer—I believe he was then Solicitor General—in speaking of the Ionian Islands, had to follow Lord Palmerston, a Constitutional Authority of great experience, who laid down broadly the doctrine that the power of cession was in the Crown. Sir Roundell Palmer, following him, said it was undoubtedly in the Crown, unless it was thought that a question might be raised if the territory purporting to be ceded had been made directly the subject of Parliamentary legislation, or in a case where representative institutions had developed upon the territory under lawful authority, and thereby the people had acquired rights in regard to it. Now, I look with all possible respect upon the declarations of so eminent a man, and I believe similar declarations might be picked up here and there, at any rate in vague indications, as having occurred to the minds of lawyers. I further believe they have been suggested by the contemplation of extreme cases. Such questions as this have been put,"Could the Queen cede the Isle of Wight? Or Lancashire? Or Yorkshire?"
    SIR G.CAMPBELL: Or Ireland?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Baronet surely does not suggest that. In my opinion you cannot take a more unsafe guide to Constitutional legislation in this country than by raising extreme cases, because if you make them the foundation of your action you will find that, instead of having the best, you will have perhaps the worst and the most absurd Constitution in the world. What would be the result if the House of Commons, in the exercise of its undoubted right to refuse Supply, refused all supplies? What would happen if the Queen, in the exercise of her undoubted right to dissolve Parliament, were to dissolve all Parliaments, without permitting them to do any work? We must proceed in all these great matters upon the belief that a certain amount of common sense does,
    764
    after all, enter into the transactions of mankind, or if, unhappily, the stock of it should on any occasion altogether fail and be exhausted, a remedy would be found when the exigencies should arise. But I deprecate discussing this question on the basis of extreme cases. No such extreme case has ever come into view in the exercise of the power of the Crown to cede territory, any more than it has in the exercise of the power of the House of Commons to refuse all supplies, or of the Crown or its advisers to baffle Parliamentary institutions or frustrate them by successive dissolutions. There is one thing which I think is still higher than the dicta of Legal Authorities in this important question, and it is our long, uniform, and unbroken course of practice. It is one thing to stand upon the opinion of an ingenious or even a learned man; it is another thing to cite the authority of an entire State, signified in practical conclusions, after debate and discussion in every possible form, all bearing in one direction and stamped with one and the same character. It is hardly possible, I believe, to conceive any kind of territory —colonies acquired by conquest, colonies acquired by settlement, with representative institutions or without representative institutions—it is not possible to point out any class of territory where you cannot show cases of cession by the Crown without the authority of Parliament. Do not let it be supposed that I am in favour of action outside Parliament. I will come to that point by-and-by, when I deal with the doctrine as to the way in which these matters are conducted. Is there any doubt, is there any question, that land subject to the authority of Parliament has been ceded by the Crown without reference to the action of Parliament? Twenty-three cessions, as I have said, have been stated in judicial proceedings to have been made in India before the Mutiny, and since 1784, at any rate, all Indian territory has been absolutely subject to the authority of Parliament. In the case of Newfoundland, the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which were necessary to Prance to enable her to exercise the rights of fishing secured to her by Treaty, were ceded to France. If there be any doubt on the point there are others more learned than myself who will be able to exhibit the doctrine in

    765
    its plenitude, in an overwhelming mass of evidence, so much so as really to bear out what I have said—that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that in scores of cases cession has taken place, and in all cases the practice has been uniform for the Ministers of the Crown to advise upon their responsibility, for the Crown to act, and for Parliament to accept the results. I am ready to admit that a great deal may be said in the way of presumptive argument against such a practice. It is very easy to state such an argument. It is easy to say that the negotiation of Treaties is much more in the nature of a legislative than of a merely executive function, and if you will not entrust legislation to the executive power, why do you trust to the Executive Treaty-making, which involves legislation of the most important character, the more important and more dangerous that to alter it or to revoke it does not depend upon ourselves, but requires the assent of another party? But, looking broadly at the case, I take it to be thus. I have searched for precedents—I have considered the whole time covered by my own life, and, as well as I could, some time before my own life, and I have not been able to find a case in which a Treaty has been made which has been disapproved by the majority of the House of Commons. I do not think there is a single instance of this. I can point to instances of Treaties having been disapproved of; there are, no doubt, instances in which I have disapproved of certain Treaties myself, which have been entered into, but on these occasions I was, unfortunately, in a minority, and not in the majority of the day. I am thinking directly of the Treaty entered into some 12 years ago with regard to Armenia and Cyprus, a Treaty which, I must own, differed from this, which has nothing to do with Party considerations. I was opposed to the Armenian Treaty. I thought it was a bad Treaty, but it was approved of by the majority of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons does not approve of a Treaty which has been entered into it can, of course, turn out the Government of the day, which would be very careful, on returning to Office, not to enter into such Treaties again. The effect of the present system, therefore, be it theoretically good or theoretically bad, places in the
    766
    House of Commons the supreme contro over the Treaty-making power of the Crown. Is that to be the case after the Treaty-making power comes to be handled by this Bill? It seems to me almost a necessity that out of this proceeding some complications of weight and importance must grow, deeply affecting the relations of the Crown and Parliament and the administration of political power. Speaking roughly, as the matter now stands, we have virtually, the whole control. The other branch of the Legislature—the House of Lords—cannot turn out a Government. We, if we have votes enough, can. But will that be so after this? No. That which we now have exclusively you invite us to halve with the other branch of the Legislature. Now, I have said I do not wish to make this a Party dispute, and, therefore, I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to this, which I offer rather as consideration to Members on this side, who have a natural tendency to say, the more you take from the Crown and give to Parliament the better. That is a presumption in the Liberal mind; it may be sound, it may be right; I do not discuss it. But I must point out that what is now proposed is to take a power which we now possess in a form, theoretically irregular, but practically effective—to take this power out of our hands and divide; it with another Assembly. I hope I shall not be thought guilty of introducing Party prepossessions if I point out that while the political complexion of this Assembly varies after General Elections, the political complexion of the House of Lords never changes. I do not anticipate any Administration of the same colour as the present Administration will meet with any obstacle in the management of the Treaty-making power in making it subject to the action of the House of Lords. But, having regard to the fact that since the Reform Act 12 out of the 14 Parliaments have had a Liberal Government in office, I can conceive that some difficulty might, in the future, arise in bringing into complete unity the general political sentiment actuating the House of Lords, and that which a Liberal Government, and a Liberal House of Commons, might feel due to the wishes and interests of the people. That being so, I find myself in

    767
    great difficulty. I think it is quite obvious that, in a matter such as this, of such vital importance, if we are to depart from the uniform and thoroughly established practice, thoroughly rooted in the Constitution of the country, such a change ought to be made with care and caution, after investigation and upon the fall responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, who have not, on this occasion, found it necessary even to mention that such a change was—not meditated, not contemplated, not in any of those limbos where certain legislative projects, such as Irish local legislation still abide—but alive, at work, and embodied in a Bill to which we are now asked to give a Second Reading. I believe that I am right in saying that no statesman of this country, no person whose name can be quoted as of established authority in this Assembly, has ever questioned the existing system. Fox thought of questioning it in 1782, but when he came to look closely into the subject he abandoned his intention. In 1843, which is in my own recollection, in the case of the Maine boundary, when territory had, undoubtedly, been given away, Lord Palmerston challenged the arrangement, but never questioned the competency of the Crown to do what it had done. If we are to change all this, we ought to think well how we change it, and how far the change is to go. Already, in connection with this proceeding, while we seem to be considering the cession of Heligoland, we are considering the whole Anglo-German Agreement, which becomes waste paper if you withhold your approval from the cession of Heligoland. I think I shall receive the universal assent of the House when I say that such a change, if it ought to be made—and I am far from precluding the discussion of it—ought not to be made until the matter has been examined and sifted to the bottom. Such a change ought not to be made sub silentio. It should be made, if at all, with our eyes open, and our minds awake, with full knowledge of what it is we are abolishing and why we abolish it, of what we are substituting, and why we venture on such a substitution. Under those circumstances, I find myself in a position of difficulty, which precludes mo from taking part in the proceedings on the present Bill. I have not shrunk from
    768
    the responsibility of going over the subject matter of the Agreement which has been made;and, if legitimately proposed, I would not wish to withhold my assent to what has been laid before us on the merits of the proposal. Unquestionably I cannot vote against the Bill. What has been promised to Germany Her Majesty was fully entitled and authorised to give, and it was what the German Government was perfectly entitled to believe that Parliament would at once affirm. The German Emperor lives in a learned land, where doctors and professors abound. There are those about the Gorman Government who know the history of other countries better than the inhabitants themselves, and I have no doubt that they know very well that the Treaty-making power lies with the Crown, and that the reservation that has been made is a reservation merely complimentary and formal. I do not feel myself able, if I had the right, if I wore entitled to give or withhold it, to withhold my assent to the Bill. But I am not competent to deal with it. I am not disposed to lend any aid in making this precedent on a matter of profound and vital importance in the constitutional practice of this country. I value the British Constitution, and would not touch it except on good cause shown. I do not see any good cause for touching the Treaty-making power at the present moment. I do not know to what extent this Bill, which I suppose will go forward, will create a precedent; I do not know what bearing it may have on the power of the Crown to cede territory. I can conceive that it might be urged, if Parliament is asked to vote the cession of Heligoland, questions as to the validity of other cessions in former times may be raised, because the Crown made those csssions without the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. I must decline to be a party to instituting such aprece-cedent at all, and I must decline taking any part in the proceedings on the present Bill. That may be consolatory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for he considers the dispatch of business towards the end of the Session constitutes the Alpha and Omega of our duty. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me credit, in endeavouring to sustain my argument, for not being actuated by any factious feeling. It really

    769
    touches a matter of deep, serious, profound interest and importance. I wish to wash my hands of these proceedings as constituting a precedent. I repeat my assurance that I appreciate the motives that have actuated Her Majesty's Government in these proceedings, but I do trust that the House will bear in mind that we are dealing with matters which, though not very immediately in view, are, nevertheless, of vital consequence to the country, and that in making changes some care, and some reverence even, is due to the Constitution under which we live.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is no consolation to Her Majesty's Government that he should propose to withdraw from further discussion of the Bill. Looking at the tone and spirit with which he has treated the question, it would have been a great satisfaction to us to have had the advantage of his great knowledge and experience. The right hon. Gentleman has paid a compliment to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has given unqualified praise to my noble Friend for the spirit with which he has conducted the negotiations; and I am glad that it should be known, both in Germany and elsewhere, that, so far as the substance of the Agreement is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman, representing as he does so large a proportion of hon. Members who sit opposite, should have associated himself with the general feeling of satisfaction that an Agreement has been come to with the friendly Power of Germany. I will not follow my right hon. Friend in the first part of his speech. I see with great pleasure that, so far as the African question is concerned, he considers that the rights of the natives remain in exactly the same position as now, and that the Agreement will not to any extent change their position. I am sure that he will also associate himself with the general feeling which I believe will exist in this House, that it is satisfactory to have terminated the race or competition with Germany in those regions, and that we shall, for the future, be able to pursue our colonising efforts without that jealousy which otherwise might have existed.
    770
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke with great discretion, and touched in the slightest possible manner, on what he called the error of my noble Friend in having concluded negotiations with Germany before he had invited France to consent to the proposal with regard to the protectorate of Zanzibar. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, through the delicacy with which he touched upon the question, has relieved us from the necessity of going into the matter during the pending negotiations with France, which, I believe, in a short time will be brought to a satisfactory termination. At any time after the negotiations are concluded we will be prepared to enter into a discussion of "the error," as he called it. With regard to Heligoland, we do not take any exception to the hope which the right hon. Gentleman expresses with respect to the declaration of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the status of British subjects in Heligoland and their children in the future. The question is a complicated one; it depends on the interpretation of German law. We are satisfied that the statement of my right hon. Friend was absolutely correct, and that the inhabitants of Heligoland and their children retain the full rights of British subjects. We have made every provision possible for the status of those from whom we part. The main point of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman touched upon the Constitutional question of the treaty-making power, and we must admit to the full the right and the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, holding the views that he does, in placing his most interesting and learned arguments fully before the House. He has saved the House from the remark that a matter of this kind had been passed over sub silentio. I notice that the friends of the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Lords did not raise the question. If they had done so my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have been most competent to deal with it. At all events, I am prepared to the best of my ability, though practically without notice that this particular point would be raised—but of that I make no complaint —I say I am prepared to deal with it. With one most important point in the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech let me at once attempt

    771
    o deal. The right hon. Gentleman said if we attempted to find a precedent for the course we had pursued in asking the assent of Parliament to the cession he doubted if we could find it. We do not for a moment base our argument on the assumption that the assent of Parliament was indispensable to the cession. If we were to say that by no other means would it be legal to make the cession, then there would be something in the argument of my right hon. Friend. Bat we do not take that ground. There is one point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not call attention, and. that is, that in the agreement itself it is stipulated between the Crown and the German Emperor that the assent of Parliament shall be given. It is a perfectly right contention that we were right or we were wrong in stipulating for the assent of Parliament, but it is not for Parliament to say that such an assent should be reserved to it. It is the Crown which has stipulated for the assent of Parliament, and it is the prerogative of the Crown to deal with the matter. But it was the wish of the Crown that Parliament should be associated with it in this case. My right hon. Friend called attention to the fact that some doubt has been expressed upon the point of whether the assent of Parliament was required. I think I shall have the assent of Members in various quarters of the House when I say that if there was any doubt on the point it was better that it should be solved by taking the assent of Parliament. But I do not rest upon that argument. I rest upon the argument that we were not obliged to ask the assent of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, with some ingenuity, put the question of the whole treaty-making power on this particular point, which involves the cession of territory. I should be as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to preserve to the Crown the Treaty-making Power. I know that is not the view of some hon. Members—those who contend that the Treaty-making Power should be transferred to this House. I am glad that we are strengthened by the very powerful speech of the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the policy of retaining the Treaty-making Power in the Crown. We do not wish to set the example that Treaties should invariably or generally be submitted to this House before they
    772
    are made. I wish to reinforce the argument of my right hon. Friend on that head. I wish to say that there are many cases in which to require the sanction of Parliament to the making of Treaties would be extremely impolitic. I am perfectly ready to leave as a general question the risks which the right hon. Gentleman intimated might follow, when he said that the present position was this—that it was the House of Commons, and not the House of Lords, with whom the ratification of the Treaty-making Power rested, because the House of Commons has the power of punishing Ministers, and the House of Lords is deprived of that interesting function. That power of the House of Commons, no doubt, is a great restraint upon Governments in negotiating Treaties, and it must keep the entire responsibility of it. But I am not sorry that, upon a point so vital as the cession of territory, in time of peace and not under the pressure of war, Parliament should have been asked to give its assent. It is not an indispensable assent. It is indispensable in this case, because the Crown has inserted a clause to that effect. I followed with attention and interest the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. None of those precedents bears even a near analogy to the present case. But the very fact that these negotiations were not an absolutely indispensable settlement of an international dispute, bat merely a matter of policy, adopted without pressure, and under no compulsion from any Power whatever, seemed to make it more desirable that we should have the assent of Parliament to the transfer of persons who are British subjects; because the cession of territory in which there are British subjects is a matter which should be dealt with with extraordinary prudence and the fullest consideration on all sides. We accept this responsibility. We admit that it is a departure in a certain sense from practice, though there is no precedent which would be exactly analogous to this case. This view does not involve that the assent of Parliament is indispensable to Treaty making, or even to the cession of territory. But there are occasions when the Crown, while reserving its full right of making a Treaty, if it chooses, may, on the advice of its Ministers, after an Agreement has been made and entered

    773
    into, which transfers British subjects from one allegiance to another, submit it for the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I have listened most attentively to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am as far as ever from understanding why the Government have thought it worth while, on a great constitutional question, to change absolutely in silence the whole practice of Parliament, affecting, as it does, the relations of Parliament to the Grown, and of one House of Parliament to the other. It is, I suppose, a part of that remarkably morbid passion which the present Government have for unnecessarily raising constitutional questions on matters where every one is agreed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deny that there is no example in the history of the English Constitution of a Bill of this character for such a purpose. The ordinary form in dealing with Treaties, whether they be Treaties of cession, or any other Treaties, is to lay the Treaty before both Houses of Parliament, and, if the Treaty is of sufficient importance, to move an Address of approval by Parliament to the Treaty made by the Crown. If, as in cases of minor cessions, the Treaty is not of sufficient importance, it lies on the Table; no one thinks it worth while to move an Address; and the cession takes place without the approval of Parliament. That is unquestionably the Constitutional Law and practice, and why has it been departed from? Why have the Government not, in both Houses of Parliament, moved an Address approving the Anglo-German Agreement? That is the constitutional practice, and if it had been followed we should have had the whole Treaty before us. But instead of that the Government bring in a Bill in a way never before heard of. They pick out one article, and the opinion of the House is not asked as to the whole Anglo-German Treaty, but only as to this one article referring to Heligoland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that nothing was said about this procedure in the House of Lords. I should think not; it is far too much to their advantage for them to raise any such question of law. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it was not necessary to ask the leave of Parliament, but that this was
    774
    done merely out of the bounty of the Crown. But I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this—that if there is anything clear and certain in the constitutional history of this country it is that where taxation or anything else has been empowered by prerogative alone, and the interposition of Parliament has been subsequently invited or enforced, that prerogative has gone. No constitutional lawyer can deny that, for it is proved in every chapter of history. The growing power of Parliament and the waning power of prerogative are attributable to the fact that Parliament has been introduced into matters that were once done by prerogative alone; and once 'the interference of Parliament has been established it cannot be disestablished. Do not let it be supposed that this is a small thing. There was another argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was hardly worthy of his abilities. He urged that this was nothing, because it was inserted in the Bill that the Crown had itself in the Treaty proposed the assent of Parliament. The Crown has always done that in the class of Treaties to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian referred. The Crown is obliged to do it. Take any Treaty of Commerce—your own Sugar Treaty, for example. In that Treaty the Crown inserted that it should be under the assent of Parliament. Was that because the Crown reserved the power not to ask the assent of Parliament? Why is the Parliamentary assent given to Loan Treaties or Commercial Treaties? Because it does not belong to the prerogative of the Crown to tax or lend the money of the people. Therefore, when a Treaty of this kind is made, the assent of Parliament is reserved exactly in the words that he used, because the Crown cannot do it without the assent of Parliament. The suggestion that the Crown has the power to do these things without the assent of Parliament is contrary to practice. Does any man deny that, in every case whore cessions have been made, they have been made by the prerogative of the Crown without a Bill? In 1783, when the great cessions were made in the Treaty of Lord Bute, they were violently opposed, as everybody remembers, by Lord Chatham If he could have argued that

    775
    those cessions to Spain and Franco must have the assent of Parliament by Bill, he would have advanced that argument. How did this unlearned doubt ever arise? This is a subject into which I was professionally called upon to inquire some years ago, and it was carefully sifted in the Courts of Law before a very competent tribunal. As far as I know, the idea that a cession of territory required the authority of Parliament was suggested for the first time in the Debate, during the Shelburne Administration, which gave rise to the notorious coalition, and which was started by Lord Carlisle in the House of Lords. The idea received some countenance from Lord Loughborough, but it was stamped out forever by a speech of Lord Thurlow's, then Lord Chancellor, who treated it with the greatest contempt, for he said that no one ever heard of an Act of Parliament being required for a cession of territory. Mr. Pox, and all those who were violently opposed to the cessions in the Treaty of 1783, would have used this argument if they could have done so. The cessions were far more important than that which the House is now dealing with. They included Minorca, Florida, St. Pierre, and Miquelon, and there was no attempt to carry them out by Bill. From that time the proposition that cession of territory requires the sanction of an Act of Parliament has never been maintained by any responsible statesman or by any author worthy of any credit or authority. People who have not examined the subject say that the cession of territory is different from other Treaty-making powers. They do not differ at all. Cessions of territory are almost always made for corresponding considerations to those in this case; and you cannot deal with one part of a Treaty without dealing with the whole. Although, apparently, in this case the House is asked only to deal with the cession of Heligoland, you are, in fact, dealing with the whole Treaty-making power. Commercial Treaties are generally made as separate Treaties, but cession is always a consideration for some other advantage, it may be the cession of some other territory, or it may be the settlement of some disputed question, as here. I venture to assert there is no precedent for asking the assent of Parliament
    776
    merely to a cession of territory. When the subject of the Ionian Islands was under consideration an hon. Member said that they ought not to be given up by Act of Parliament. Lord Palmerston said it was not a cession; but if it were he said that there was no question that the Crown, by its prerogative, might make a Treaty alienating such possession without the consent of the House of Commons, and that the history of the country furnished numerous instances in which cessions of this kind had been made, as in the case of Senegal, Minorca, Florida, the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which were all ceded by Treaty to some Foreign Power. Therefore, there can be no question as to the competency of the Crown to make the cession. I do not understand the Government to deny that this Treaty-making power resides in the Crown alone. It seems to me to be perfectly gratuitous to depart from the principle. It it were necessary I could show this by appealing to the highest authorities. Kent, in his Commentaries, says that wherever resides the Treaty-making power there resides the right of cession, unless the Constitution expressly excludes it. This subject was carefully considered by the founders of the American Constitution, to whom my right hon. Friend has referred in terms of well-deserved eulogium. In 1788, after the original Union of the States, and when the Federal Union was constituted, they carefully considered the Treaty-making power and the powers of the Executive of the United States; and there is nothing, I think, in the history of Constitutional Law so instructive as the discussion of those matters in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton. In an 1869 number he says—
    "The King of Great Britain can, of his own accord, make Treaties of peace, commerce, and alliance. It has been asserted that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that conventions with Foreign Powers are subject to revision and stand in need of ratification in Parliament, but I believe that this doctrine was never heard of until it was broached on this occasion. Every jurist of that Kingdom and man acquainted with its Constitution knows it is an established fact that the prerogative of making Treaties exists in the Crown in its utmost plenitude. Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering existing laws in conformity with the stipulations of new Treaties, and this may possibly have given birth to the imaginations that its co-operation

    777
    was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of a Treaty."
    I understand that that doctrine is not denied by the Crown. I have heard it said that this doctrine only applies to cessions made after a war. There is no foundation for any statement of this kind; there is no authority, no example. Cessions have been made in peace, as well as Treaties at the conclusion of a war, over and over again. For instance, in 1814 Bantam was conceded to Holland. It has been said that there might be a different rule in respect of Treaties for which Parliament has legislated. There is no foundation for that distinction at all. The Crown has conceded territories over and over again, besides the Indian territories, where Parliament has legislated in respect of them. I give, as an example, the cession of the Gold Coast to the Dutch in 1867 by the Government of Lord Derby. That Treaty was signed by Lord Carnarvon (whose loss, I am sure, we all deeply deplore) and by the present Lord Derby. In 1843 an Act of Parliament was passed specially dealing with that territory, and in order to enable Her Majesty to provide for the government of her settlements on the coast of Africa. I. would also give the cession of the English possessions in Sumatra, which were legislated for by Parliament. They were ceded by Treaty to the Dutch in exchange for the possession of the Straits Settlements, without an Act of Parliament. No instance can be given in limitation of the prerogative in this respect. I say this with some confidence, because it happened that in 1875 I was counsel in the Privy Council in a matter where this question was raised. The High Court of Bombay held the doctrine that an Indian cession was not valid because it had not been confirmed by Act of Parliament. On appeal, we challenged that doctrine. It was argued at great length before the Privy Council, and it is a remarkable fact that Lord Cairns, who was then the Chancellor, challenged Mr. Forsyth, who appeared as counsel on the other side, regarding this point. He was challenged to produce an instance; and he admitted that he could not. This is the first example introduced by the Government without a word of explanation or of warning to the House of Commons that they are changing the constitutional practice; and until the
    778
    Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, no account has been given of the remarkable course pursued. Something has been said about the American practice. I know there are gentlemen who think that the American practice should be adopted in this country; but this is not the American practice. It goes a great deal further than the American practice. If anyone wishes to understand the American practice I will recommend him to read a most interesting and instructive chapter in Storey's History of the Constitution, in which the author explains why the Americans adopted the concurrence of the Senate, and why it did not include the House of Representatives. It points out that there the chief of the Government is not, as in the case of the monarchy of England, perpetual. He only lasts for four years. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to have some other Treaty-making Power associated with him. But the Senate, and not the Legislature was so associated, and the Senate acts, not as part of the Legislature, but as part of the Executive. It is more like the association of the Privy Council with the Sovereign in matters of this kind. If anyone will consider the point, they will see how impossible it is to conduct the affairs of a great nation if the Treaty-making powers are dependent on the Legislature. Therefore, do not suppose that what the Government are doing is what the Americans have done; they are doing a great deal more than the Americans did. I ask what is the meaning of this departure on the part of Her Majesty's Government from the Constitutional practice in this case? I must say that a lamer reason than that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer I never listened to in my life. You cannot touch the Constitution of this country by bits. Any interference with one part of it is likely to bring down the whole edifice about your ears. The Government appear to labour under the notion that they can tamper with the Constitution without consideration and without warning. We must consider the future, and see how far these things reach, and I venture to say that this is a matter that reaches very far indeed. When you have once made Parliament a partner in this matter you cannot repudiate the partnership. In

    779
    my opinion the Government have by this proceeding destroyed the treaty-making power and prerogative of the Crown as far as the cession of territory is concerned. In my opinion they have gone further than that, because the cession of territory is only a part of a treaty, and we cannot consider the cession as a whole. Therefore, do not imagine that this is only an affair of today, because it concerns the generations that have to come after us. What are the consequences of this proceeding? The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to cessions made before, and said, "Oh, the argument that they will be invalidated is unfounded." I think it is perfectly well founded. If you pass an Act of Parliament to validate this cession you re-open all the questions which wore raised in the case I speak of in the Privy Council. In that case it was alleged that English jurisdiction survived because the cession was invalidated and incompetent, because it ought to have been ordered by the Houses of Parliament. In future people will point to the cession of Heligoland and say the authority of Parliament was necessary by Statute. In the cases of Sumatra, the Gold Coast, and India, the cessions have not been made by Act of Parliament. By their action Her Majesty's Government have tied the hands of the Executive. In my opinion the moment this Bill is carried the Government are bound to introduce a Bill to validate all past cessions which have been made without the authority of Parliament, and if this is to apply to a Treaty of Cession, why not to all Treaties? Annexations may bring with them responsibilities and dangers far greater than any loss sustained by cession. Why, then, are annexations not to be subject to the approval of Parliament? There are alliances offensive and defensive with the great military Powers of Europe. These involve consequences infinitely greater than the cession of Heligoland. Why are they not to be confirmed by the authority of Parliament? As my right hon. Friend has said, this opens up one of the greatest Constitutional questions that can be opened. Her Majesty's Government have taken a course which involves the rights of the Crown and the relations of both Houses of Parliament. It has been said that this is a question
    780
    of prerogative of the Crown, and so it is. But what is the prerogative of the Crown? In the old days, perhaps, it meant that the Crown had the right, irrespective of any control whatever, to enter into Treaties for the cession of territory; but that is not what it means now. In these days the prerogative of the Crown means the prerogative of the House of Commons. The Ministers of the Crown are the creation and the creatures of the House of Commons, and any impeachment of the prerogative of the Crown is an impeachment of the right of the House of Commons. The House of Commons can say how far the prerogative of the Crown shall be exercised, and that, in my opinion, makes the prerogative one of the most valuable of all the rights of the House of Commons, because the Ministers of the Crown exercise it under the authority and by the direction of the House of Commons. Therefore, no hon. Member who regards the prerogative from this aspect will be disposed to assent to the catting down of the prerogative of the Crown. Do not let it be supposed, therefore, that in fighting for the prerogative of the Crown we are fighting for anything that is opposed to popular rights, because we are, in truth, fighting for that which is one of the great weapons that can be used in support of popular rights. What is the effect of this proposal of the Government? I do not call it this insidious proposal of the Government, because I do not believe that the Government have ever considered its gravity. I do not suggest they have made this proposal in order to give to the House of Lords the power of veto in regard to the foreign policy of the country. I believe when Dr. Johnson was asked how some errors had occurred in his dictionary, he replied, "From sheer ignorance." I believe that that is the case with Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and that they have made this mistake in sheer ignorance. Had they made this attack upon the Constitution of the country intentionally, they would have been acting most unfairly both to Parliament and to the country. I believe, however, that that is not the case, and that Her Majesty's Government have introduced this measure sheerly from want of consideration of the important

    781
    change which it would effect in constitutional practice. The policy that induced Her Majesty's Government to bring forward this measure may have very serious consequences. In 1713 there was a Whig majority in the House of Lords, which supported the Duke of Marlborough against the Tory Government of Bolingbroke, and the Government had to create 12 Peers in one day in order to bring about the peace of Utrecht. Coming to later days, there was no period during the Foreign Administration of Lord Palmerston when he had not a hostile majority opposed to him in the House of Lords, and if matters of this kind had been submitted to that Assembly they would have destroyed his policy altogether. Over and over again the House of Lords passed Votes of Censure upon him, but Lord Palmerston, having the support of an assured majority of the Representatives of the people in this House, took no notice of those Votes of Censure. What would be the consequence if a Government, having a large majority in the House of Commons, were to find measures of this kind embodying their foreign policy thrown out by the House of Lords? The result would be to make the consent of the House of Lords an absolute condition precedent to a Treaty involving the cession of territory. I do not say it is the intention, but it will be the consequence, of this proceeding that any Treaty which the House of Lords disapproves cannot be ratified. Thus you give a veto to the House of Lords on the foreign policy of this country. This is a most dangerous and mischievous innovation. It is said if you do not do this the Isle of Wight might be given up. That is absurd. You might as well talk of vetoing the Mutiny Bill or the Appropriation Bill. These are points not worth considering. We are here dealing with a practical question. What is the situation? You have a principle founded on the Constitution. There is no exception. No authority can be quoted against it. In the case before the Privy Council it did not become necessary for the Court to decide the point, and the Judges are always very happy, when there is a large point and it small point, to decide on the small point. If you will look at that case you will see there is no doubt what the views of the
    782
    Judges were. About that no man who reads the case, in which I was concerned with my friend Mr. Justice Fitzjames Stephen, can have any doubt. Well, that is the situation in which the Government have sprung upon us this new proceeding. They had before them the plain and simple course of proceeding. If they had chosen, this important matter might never have arisen. They might have laid the Treaty on the Table, and allowed any one to question it. If they had thought fit they might have moved an Address of Approbation of the Treaty. They had the cases of 1783, 1815, 1863, and 1856. How was the opinion of Parliament invited in those cases? It was invited by an Address in both Houses, thus leaving it open to the House of Lords to approve or the House of Commons to disapprove. My opinion is that this is an enormous constitutional mischief. It touches the foundation of your Executive Government and your relations with every country in the world. How is a Government that has not the command of a majority in the House of Lords to treat with any foreign nation? A foreign country would say—"We cannot treat with you. You have not got a majority of the House of Lords; we are not going to enter into a Treaty." A more serious condition of things it is impossible to conceive. I can only express, in conclusion, my astonishment at the action of the Government in having thought it desirable, in this wanton manner, to violate all Parliamentary precedent. I can only say that I shall associate myself with my right hon. Friend in the action he proposes to take. We have no wish to raise any question with Germany in this matter. It is not a question affecting the foreign country. Germany has nothing to do with it. It is a question belonging to our own Constitution. The form in which you have presented this arrangement for our acceptance is one that is not in accordance with, but in complete contradiction of, the constitutional practice always pursued by this country. We do not vote against your Bill, because we do not wish to break the Agreement with Germany. We cannot vote for it for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend. It remains only for us to enter our solemn protest against the proceeding which the Government have taken,

    783
    in the hope that it may not form a precedent in the future.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): For one thing, at all events, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He accuses the Government in submitting this question to Parliament of having made a formidable breach of the Constitution. He accuses us of increasing the power of the House of Lords at the cost of the House of Commons; but he is good enough to say that we did not do it by design. I am thankful for the admission, because I remember the last time I came into conflict with him on a constitutional question he was good enough to accuse me, with regard to a certain proposed Standing Order, that my special object was to destroy the power of the House of Commons, and increase the power of the House of Lords.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I withdrew that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am utterly unable to understand whence has been born the right hon. Gentleman's new passion for the prerogative of the Crown. My impression was that, by conviction and tradition, the right hon. Gentleman was unalterably opposed to the prerogative of the Crown, and that his one desire was to diminish it. I now find him standing up as the champion of the prerogative of the Crown against, of all Parties in the world, a Conservative Government. I could not understand this strange protest until we reached the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and then I discovered that what he was afraid of was not the action of the House of Commons, but the action of the House of Lords; and if there is a thing that he dislikes more than the prerogative of the Crown it is the power of the House of Lords. The greater hatred has overcome the lesser hatred, and we have the right hon. Gentleman standing forth, for the first time in his life, as the great champion of the prerogative of the Crown. Now, what is the value of this precious argument that he has unearthed as to the possible action of the House of Lords with regard to a Treaty? He asks how any Government can negotiate a Treaty with a Government if it
    784
    happens to be in a minority in the House of Lords, which can set the Treaty aside? ["Hear, hear!"] Well, I am glad I have correctly stated his argument. Then let the right hon. Gentleman have the courage of his opinions. Let him be consistent. Let him withdraw from the House of Commons what it has now by immemorial usage, the right to have its assent asked to any commercial Treaty, to Treaties embodying financial proposals. We are told that to associate the House of Lords with us in any matter of this kind diminishes rather than increases the power of the House of Commons. Then, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, let him carry his argument to its logical issue. Let him carry out his new opinions, which we have heard for the first time in our history; let him advocate the doctrine that all Treaties shall be withdrawn from the cognizance of Parliament. Until he does that he has not a leg to stand upon, when he tells us that the power of this House is diminished or destroyed when we substitute the assent of Parliament for the prerogative of the Crown. I think that disposes of his argument. [Opposition Laughter.] Well, I will not say it disposes of his argument, but I will say that it disposes of the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is one argument which, if it had had any foundation in fact, would have had a far more serious import—I mean the argument that all previous Treaties ceding territories will be invalidated if we once admit the principle that the assent of Parliament is required. But the right hon. Gentleman must know that that is not good Constitutional Law. If we were to come forward and say to France, "We find that we have ceded you territory under conditions not in accord with the constitutional usage of the British Empire; you will be good enough to hand it back to us," France would laugh at us. The weakest State in Europe would laugh at us. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that such cessions are absolutely invalidated must fall to the ground.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not go to the full length of that statement. My argument applied only to the great danger which would arise in regard to Indian cessions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe I am right in saying that a cession made on the authority of the Sovereign is a valid cession. The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Loughborough had given his assent to the doctrine that Parliament was required to give its consent to the cession of territory, but then, he said, Lord Loughborough was a man of indifferent character, and his argument was immediately bowled over by Lord Thurlow. But then Lord Thurlow also was a man of very indifferent character, and I believe that historians to this day have not been able to make up their minds whether Lord Loughborough was a greater scoundrel than Lord Thurlow, or whether Lord Thurlow was a greater scoundrel than Lord Loughborough. I come down, then, to more recent days. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is not in his place now, but he quoted Lord Selborne as an authority for the doctrine that the assent of Parliament was necessary. [Cries of "No."]
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: He said it might be in a particular case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At all events he quoted Lord Selborne as having directly traversed the doctrine that he, the Member for Mid Lothian, has laid down, that under no circumstances could Parliament be required to give its assent. But there are other authorities of not less weight than Lord Selborne, and even of later date, and I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not know that. In two years, in the year 1870 and in 1884, I believe I am right in saying that the then Law Officers of the Crown expressed an opinion upon this great constitutional issue precisely in accordance with the doctrine now advanced by Her Majesty's Government. These are the opinions of very eminent legal gentlemen, who are responsible for the advice given to Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will you produce them?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that would not be a possible proceeding.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to order. I say that if those documents are not produced, they ought not to have been mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman is surprised I was not acquainted with
    786
    them. How should I be? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the value of them depends upon what the circumstances were, and what were the opinions taken, and to make a vague statement on the matter is worthless.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman calls that a point of order or not, but I have no objection to it. It is not necessary, however, that the opinion of the Law Officers should be produced in the manner required, because all that is wanted for my argument is to show that there may be and have been doubts expressed by competent authority. I should be very sorry to lay it down as a doctrine to be held by every Government that it was absolutely necessary to make a cession of territory valid that it should be done with the assent of Parliament. What I do say is that eminent Legal Authorities, consulted specifically, have given it as their opinion that such assent is necessary. The question is, therefore, in a nebulous condition. It is one of those undecided cases of constitutional practice and law. Such cases constantly arise, and must constantly arise in, every unwritten Constitution. They do arise under our Constitution, and the question the Government had to determine was this—the matter being so far undecided—on which side were they to lend the weight of their practice and authority? On which side should they attempt by a precedent to determine this undetermined question? I say we were undoubtedly right, having those two alernatives before us, to choose the alternative which gave greater authority to Parliament, instead of choosing the alternative which diminished the authority of Parliament. Now, does anybody doubt that? The right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Mid Lothian talked throughout their speeches as if this procedure diminished the power of the House of Commons. What is the power they claim for the House of Commons? The power of turning out the Ministry if the Ministry do not please them. Well, that power is retained; that power remains undiminished, and if they disapprove of a Treaty submitted to them they have only to pass a Vote of Censure, and the Government of the day vanishes into thin air. But I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that the control of Parliament

    787
    over the Executive, control after the event (to use a somewhat Irish expression), the control by punishment and not by prevention, is in all oases the best method of managing international affairs. I do not think it is the best method. I admit that you could conclude a Treaty at the end of a war without Parliamentary consent. You could not conduct delicate foreign negotiations through the medium of the Houses of Parliament. I go much further, and I say to require the assent of Parliament to those exchanges or cessions of territory, which have constantly attended the conclusion of a peace, would be wholly absurd, and I, for one, should never think of being a party to any precedent that would make such a course obligatory on the Crown. But when I am told that, in all cases, this power of punishing the Ministry is ample security for managing international affairs I venture to differ. Prevention, as we all know, is better than cure. Here the right hon. Gentleman does not prevent; he punishes; he cannot cure. Under these circumstances it does seem to me that in these days, when the whole tendency of events is to increase the power of Parliament over the Executive, it is good to give Parliament not merely the power of punishing, but of preventing the Ministry from falling into error. That has been the policy we have followed in this case.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It will be a binding precedent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman interrupts me by saying this is a binding precedent. I do not object to its being a binding precedent if you do not exceed the precedent. The precedent is this—that in a time of profound peace, when no great public emergency threatens the State, when no other and ulterior considerations were involved, when no difficulties of negotiation would be produced, then, and then only, a cession of British territory, and the transfer of British subjects to a foreign dominion, should not be undertaken until the assent of both Houses of Parliament had been declared. That is the precedent we have set. That precedent, I hope, will always be adhered to. and I hope—I do not shrink from it—the time will never come when, under the conditions I have enumerated, any Govern-
    788
    ment will attempt to concede portions of the British territory without first asking the assent of this House and the House of Lords. Is it not absurd that it should be a doctrine of our Constitutional Law that any Treaty which involves even a sixpence of expenditure should require the assent of this House and the House of Lords, but that a Treaty, which a eight involve the cession of places of vital interest to the safety of the British Empire, should be able to be passed unquestioned by a Ministry who might be called to account, but could not be prevented from carrying out their policy? I am not afraid, for my own part, of any conclusions that may be legitimately drawn from the action of Her Majesty's Government. The precedent we accept is one from which we do not shrink. It is a precedent which we think ought to be followed. We know that it does not interfere with the Treaty-making power of the Crown; we know that it does not interefere with the power of the Crown in a great national crisis, without the assent of Parliament, to pass Treaties which may involve far greater cessions than that of Heligoland; and we do not object, but rejoice in the fact that if this precedent has been set it will not be in the power of any Government to come, in a period of profound peace, to manipulate the territories of the British Empire without asking the assent of the British Parliament.
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: After the speech we have just heard we now know from the highest authority that the right hon. Gentleman not only defends the cession of Heligoland, but he rejoices in it and hopes it will be a precedent for the future. The precedent set by the Government in this matter is one of the most important constitutional changes that has ever taken place, certainly within my political recollection. Now, Sir, what is the position in which we stand in relation to this matter? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he makes certain limitations to the generality of the doctrine he has just laid down. If I understand him rightly, he says the Government deliberately intend, by the form they have given to this Bill, to set a precedent by which it will be impossible for any future Government to make any Treaty without the assent of Parliament under certain

    789
    conditions. What are those conditions? Anything more vague or more unsatisfactory cannot be conceived. There is to be no difficulty in a time of profound peace, but only in case of a national crisis. But who is to judge of whether there are difficulties of negotiation, or whether the time is one of a national crisis? Who is to judge, moreover, of whether there are ulterior considerations? Not only no lawyer, but no layman, would be able to grasp such a proposition of Constitutional Law as the right hon. Gentleman laid down. The proposition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is that there is an exception to the Treaty-making power of the Crown in certain cases, which he is utterly unable to define by words which are capable of being put into a proposition of law.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unwilling to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nothing in my speech implied any limitation upon the Treaty-making power of the Crown; it was entirely the power of ceding territory.
    SIR H. DAVEY: If you put, a limitation upon the power of ceding territory, you put a limit upon the Treaty - making power of the Crown to cede territory. No one contends that the Crown can cede territory otherwise than by Treaty. I believe I am perfectly accurate when I say that in not a single instance has any doubt been thrown upon the power of the Crown to cede territory. It is quite true that the Minister who advises the Crown to make a cession of territory may be impeached, but I am not aware that Parliament has ever been asked by the Crown to give its opinion as to a cession of territory or the manner of making it. Our Constitutional Law is based upon precedents. We. have no written Constitution. I ask where, if there are any precedents, am I to find this new constitutional theory? Black-stone, and all the great writers upon constitutional law are silent upon it. They place no limitation upon the power of the Crown to make a Treaty even for the cession of territory. The right hon. Gentleman said there were opinions quotable each way. I should like him to quote them. What is the use of telling me that the Law Advisers in a certain case gave certain opinions, unless I have an opportunity of reading
    790
    those opinions, and of knowing the circumstances of the case to which they apply? The opinion of a lawyer without the case on which it is written is of singularly little value. But here we have not got even the lawyer's opinion. We are only told that the lawyer has given his opinion. I shall discard from my consideration any of those apocryphal opinions of the Law Officers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer, for whom I have as high a respect as anybody. Sir Roundell Palmer, in answering a question in this House, said the Crown had power to cede territory, but that he thought there might be a difference when Parliament had legislated for the cession of territory. So far as I know there is no authority in any text book, and no authority in any precedent, for the qualification, for it does not amount to more than a qualification, which Lord Selborne (Sir Roundell Palmer) was disposed to make in giving his answer. Lord Selborne did not say anything about a time of profound peace or ulterior considerations or difficulties of negotiation. I would much rather pay attention to the opinion of Lord Selborne after he has heard the argument of counsel, and, with the assistance of Lord Cairns, gives the judgment of the Privy Council, than to an off-hand answer to a question in this House. What was it that Lord Selborne said in giving the judgment of the Privy Council? He said—
    "Their Lordships think it sufficient to state that they entertain such grave doubts, to say no more, of the soundness of the general abstract doctrine laid down in high quarters as to be unable to advise any decision on the question."
    I must congratulate the Party which calls itself the Constitutional Party on this new departure from Constitutional Law. In my opinion, it is revolutionary; in my opinion it is a precedent of a most dangerous character, and, so far as I can see from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman, not a single shred of justification has been given for this departure. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer given any justification for it? All he has said was that the Government did not think it right to cede territory in which there were British subjects living, and that there

    791
    were British subjects living in Heligoland. There are British subjects living in every portion of the British territory, and if the justification of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were sound, you could never cede any British territory at all without the assent of Parliament. The deliberate opinion of Lord Palmerston, who was a man of the highest experience in these matters, was that the Crown had, without the assent of Parliament, the most ample power to cede territory. Of course, if a Minister of the Crown does it, it is at the risk of being censured and called to account in this House. But subject to that limitation, it appears to me a precedent of a most dangerous character, which we are now told has been deliberately set in the form in which this Treaty has been made and this Bill has been introduced.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has described this as the most important constitutional change of the century, and one without the slightest justification. But the Government had no other course open to them than that which they adopted. Distinguished constitutional lawyers have told us that it still remains doubtful whether by prerogative of the Crown it is possible to cede territory, and still more it is doubtful when you include inhabitants for whom this Parliament has legislated. I have noticed that speakers on the other side of the House imagine that Parliament has only one way, especially the House of Commons, of controlling the prerogative of the Crown, and that is by moving an Address to the Crown. But it must be acknowledged that in any Treaty which requires a legislative enactment to carry out its terms Parliament must have full control over that portion of the Agreement. I venture to say that in many cases Parliament has exercised that control where the right of the British subject has been recognised by Parliament, and the Crown does not cede that right without the sanction of the Legislature. With regard to Heligoland, Parliament has legislated on many details affecting the residents; there is no doubt Parliament has control of Heligoland, and the Agreement
    792
    will affect a state of things which the Legislature has sanctioned.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the hon. Member give us the reference to the Act of Parliament?
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I daresay the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the power under which the Supreme Authority in England confers the right of legislating for the colonies by Order in Council. This is done by virtue of the General Statute Law, and the Order in Council merely carries out the general Statutes of Parliament. In my humble opinion, the Government have no other course but to come to Parliament, considering that in this particular case the Treaty would interfere with the legislative enactments passed by Parliament itself. It is no question whether the Bill forms a precedent or not, for it does not change the Constitutional action of this House in regard to the prerogative of the Crown. As to the general question, whilst no doubt we feel we ought ourselves, by reason of our experience, to make the best use of Africa, we should not object to other countries making some use of it. Personally, I have no jealousy of other countries; and I think that, provided we obtain low Import Duties and free transit routes, we need not fear any other Power, especially when we remember that we have in Africa a million square miles of territory which will surely form a sufficient area for our operations during the next century or two. Wherever our civilisation extends markets open for British goods, and we are able to obtain from the natives in return supplies of food and other objects of commerce which are very valuable to us. It has been said in relation to this Treaty that we need a free course for our trade from the Zambesi to the Nile. That is an argument which will not hold water. We do not want to go from the north to the south in Africa, but to carry our goods by the shortest route to and from the coast, and our course will be east and west rather than north and south. From this point of view I have no fear of the extension of German influence right up to the boundaries of the Congo State. I think it a great pity, however, that the Government has not been able to negotiate for the Protectorate of Damara land and Namaqualand. It has been said that

    793
    the German occupation of those terriories is purely our fault and not the fault of the Cape Colony. If we look at the history of the question we shall find that at no very distant date the Cape Colony absolutely repudiated any idea of extending British authority over those territories. In 1885 the Cape Parliament resolved upon the desirability of annexing the coast up to Walfish Bay, but they specifically excluded the interior from annexation. Sir Bartle Frere, with with the free assent of Lord Carnarvon, urged both Governments to annex the whole of the territory up to the Portuguese boundary. The Cape Government was at the time in some difficulty, and it declined to annex those territories. It also withdrew the two British Residents from them, because, as it was distinctly stated, the moral force with which they sought to control the districts had failed to control them, and they were not prepared to use any other force. In February of 1884 our Ministers began again to urge the Cape Ministers to combine with them on this subject. It was not till June that they got a reply from the Cape, and by that time it was too late, because the Germans, had taken possession of the territory. To my mind, there are very strong and urgent reasons why we should, if we could, have negotiated with Germany to got back these territories. I think, myself, that the whole of South Africa below the parallel of about 20 south-latitude, should be under one flag and united together in one confederation or dominion, and I am convinced that all the European races in South Africa are willing to come together in one confederation, and will inevitably do so as soon as local jealousies have time to cease. For this reason I should like to see Damaraland and Namaqualand made an adjunct of the Cape Colony or Bechuanaland, so as to round off the South African States system. These countries would, I think, be best opened up from the Cape and Kimberley—as we know they do not, as it is, deal direct with Europe. I regret that there is no arrangement from the retrocession of these great territories, but, at the same time, I think the Anglo-German Agreement will confer inestimable advantage on the whole of Africa and enable us to work hand-in-
    794
    hand with the other European Powers. I only hope that our negotiations with France and Portugal will be as successful as those with Germany. I do not think Her Majesty's Government had any other constitutional course open to them than to come to Parliament to sanction this Treaty to enable us to cede Heligoland. For we have legislated for the people of that island and could not hand them over to a Foreign Power without the consent of Parliament. (8.20.)
    (8.43.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I intend very briefly to give my reasons for supporting the Government. I have always desired to limit the prerogative of the Crown, and it is because I conceive that this Bill, whenever it receives the Royal Assent, will distinctly limit the prerogative of the Crown that I shall go into the lobby with the Government. If I had any doubt on the matter, my doubt would have been cleared away by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The right hon. Gentleman said that there were authorities quotable on both sides of the question, and that the Government had taken the course which he said was undoubtedly the right course to take, namely, that which gave greater authority to Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman's words have any meaning, they mean that the Government, a Conservative Government, has with its eyes open selected a course which will in future diminish the prerogative of the Crown and increase the authority of Parliament at the expense of that prerogative. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman said that the limitation of the power of the Crown will be confined to the precedent we are dealing with this evening. I submit that there is no distinction or possible separation of the Treaties under different categories, except so far as those Treaties already come under categories where Parliament has already authority. The Chief Secretary said that any future action in reference to such a matter will be limited by the consideration which he said governs the House now in relation to this Treaty, namely, questions as to

    795
    whether there was outside excitement, and a number of matters to which I need not allude. I submit confidently that the only precedent that will be possible for reference will be the precedent of the Statute itself, and that it will not be competent to go outside the Statute to discuss the reasons which may or may not tempt or induce Members of either House to concur in the passing of the Bill; that it is quite impossible to take anything exterior to the Statute itself to determine whether or not the Statute limits the prerogative of the Crown or the extent to which it limits it. That this Bill if it becomes a Statute will limit the prerogative of the Crown is clear. It will not be competent after this Bill becomes law for anyone to go behind it and say that it was doubtful or that it might or might not have been done in some other way. The whole of the utterances as to the limitation of the prerogative of the Crown in the highest Constitutional Authorities show a gradual limitation by Statute after Statute, and it has been held over and over again that it is impossible to limit the prerogative by words of doubt; it must be limited by words which I say we have here. This, by the assent of the Queen, will be a relinquishment of the prerogative of Her Majesty and her successors to make, in the words of one of our greatest Constitutional Authorities, Treaties, leagues, and alliances with Foreign States and Princes without the consent of Parliament. I submit that that is a legal submission which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will hardly dispute. The express words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were that the Government intentionally and knowingly proposed—I am not quite sure about the intention—to give greater authority to Parliament; greater authority against whom? It can only be against the Crown. There is no authority given by this Bill against anybody except against the Crown. It may be that the exigencies of the argument will require the Attorney General, who, I notice, dissents, to contend that the prerogative has been abandoned in this particular only. I assent, without fear of contradiction, that such a contention would be laughed out of any Court in the realm. There never has been the contention that the prerogative, limited in
    796
    one Statute, could be re-taken by the Crown of its own will; it needs the consent of the two Houses of Parliament to restore to the Crown the prerogative it has voluntarily abandoned, and the whole of the theory of our limited Monarchy and the whole of our Constitution has grown in that way, and it is because I desire to limit the prerogative of the Crown, to make the Chief Magistrate of this country subject to Parliament, because I hope that this proceeding may lead to the prevention of wars by preventing the making of Treaties which end in wars, that I intend to vote with the Government in support of this Bill. It has been said that the assent of Parliament is necessary, because it is a matter of doubt. I suggest that the burden is upon the Attorney General or whoever may reply to show one solitary case in which any Treaty has been impeached on the ground of the inability of the Sovereign of these realms to enter into it. It is quite true that there is the danger that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the power of the other House, as well as of this. I am not concerned with the other House. I am concerned with the powers of this House, and it is because I am sure that this Bill will increase the power of Parliament—meaning by that, both Houses of Parliament—and will limit seriously in this respect the prerogative of the Crown, that I intend to vote with the Government. It is said that as there is in the House of Lords a Party predominant over the Party to which Members on this side of the House belong, you will paralyse Liberal Governments. I am willing to take the risk of that. If I am sure I have reduced the power of the Crown to make Treaties which involve impositions upon the nation, I shall be quite content to rely on what experience has taught us, that when the House of Lords enters upon a struggle with the House of Commons on questions of public policy, it is the House of Commons that prevails. But at present the House of Commons is powerless against a Ministry in relation to a Treaty. A Ministry may be thrown out of Office by a hostile vote of this House, but the repudiation of a Treaty never follows. I intend to vote with the Government, and it is something to be able to defend

    797
    one's self before the country by showing that those who boast most of being constitutionalists, either intentionally or in ignorance, are most frequent in trampling upon the Constitution. It would be a special pleasure to me to assist the Government in modifying one part of the Constitution, because I had to struggle against them in defence of another part. I need not occupy any length of time; the way lies so clear that words weaken rather than strengthen the case. The point is not as to what Treaties have been before, but as to those we are to have in the future. I admit that whatever has been done by the Crown in virtue of prerogative; whatever has been done before this Bill becomes law, is not affected; but from the moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent, it is an admonition to the Sovereign that the Crown has no right to enter into alliances or engagements with any Foreign State or Prince without the authority of Parliament, and, therefore, not without the authority of this House. This is so clear to my mind that on this ground alone I shall vote with the Government in limiting the power of the Crown.
    MR. BAUMANN: Perhaps I ought to apologise to the House for descending from the Olympian heights of Constitutional Law to the prosaic level of the Agreement itself now before the House; but I do not think we ought to allow the constitutional aspect of the question, important as it is, entirely to obscure the merits or demerits of the Agreement which we are asked to assent to. The present Sir Robert Peel once said the Constitutional Lawyers were the greatest bores in the House of Commons, and at this stage of the proceedings I think it is a dictum that Members will not be disposed to deny. If we are to consider the Treaty itself, it is about time we said good-bye to Constitutional Law. Most hon. Members will agree that it is a new and sound departure in our foreign and colonial politics when we resolve to settle international differences by bargains rather than by battles, as in former days; and I am very glad to infer from what has been said by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that this Agreement is likely to create a precedent, and that we may in future, by
    798
    conceding in West Africa something to the just demands of France, settle without further disagreement the question of the Newfoundland fisheries. France has behaved towards us with great forbearance and comity in this matter, and I certainly hope that, having made this Agreement with Germany and having left France rather out in the cold in the matter, we shall not be slow, when we come to deal with the question of Zanzibar, to follow the lines on which Lord Salisbury has proceeded up to the present, and make some concession to France on the West Coast of Africa. With regard to the East African part of the question and the concessions we have made to and obtained from Germany, I will say only this, not being peculiarly well qualified to speak on the matter—that I think the settlement is of a statesmanlike character, and that it is well worth giving something to secure the friendship of the greatest Protestant Power in Europe. But with regard to that part of the subject which deals with South Africa, and about which I know a little more, I am bound to say that I cannot altogether approve the arrangement which Lord Salisbury has made, because I think the noble Lord has gone too far, and unnecessarily far, in allowing the Germans to come within our sphere of influence in that part of Africa. It is not only that he has allowed Germany to come east of the 20th degree of longitude, and as far as the 21st degree; but that when they reach the 18th parallel of latitude, he has allowed the Germans to go a great deal further east to Victoria Falls in such a way as to block or cross the path of our expansion in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. In order to appreciate what Lord Salisbury has done in admitting the Germans within our sphere of influence in South Africa, it is necessary to allude shortly to the history of that sphere of influence. Our sphere of influence was proclaimed with all due solemnity and deliberation on February 11, 1888, by Mr. Moffatt, then Acting Commissioner; and on July 25 in the same year, Sir Hercules Robinson wrote to the Transvaal Government that Her Majesty's Government regarded territory north of the South African Republic, South of the Zambesi, east of the 20th degree of east longitude, and west of the

    799
    Portuguese settlement of Sofala, as exclusively within the sphere of British influence. Now the phrase "sphere of influence" was new in colonial politics at that time, and it struck the ear of the Dutch Republic, and they asked the British Government to give an explanation of what was meant by "sphere of influence," and they asked what was the position under the law of nations of such territory, and as this is of great importance in colonial politics, I hope the House will forgive me if I read Lord Knutsford's answer. He instructed Sir Hercules Robinson to reply to President Kruger on March 29, 1889, in the following terms:—
    "In answer to the question in paragraph 5 of your Despatch as to what would be the position under the law of nations of territory exclusively under British influence, I am directed to state that such territory could not be without the consent of Her Majesty's Government, annexed by the South African Republic or by any Foreign Power, nor could any concession be made by any King or Chief within such territory which would place British subjects or British trade in a position of disadvantage."
    I ask with what face, having on those conditions rigorously excluded the Boers from the territory which marches with their own country, and into which they might legitimately ask that they might be allowed to expand and overflow, can we admit the Germans to it? I think the 3oers have some reason to complain that we have hemmed them in on every side, but I think they have a double reason to complain when we have told them somewhat bluntly that the Protectorate territory is moat not for them but their masters, and now allow the Germans to take out a large slice of this, to them, forbidden territory. I cannot help saying our conduct in this regard appears, I had almost said contemptible, when we compare it with our attitude towards Portugal. Before the awful personality of Serpa pinto we are arrogant and unbending: before Germany we are complaisance itself. It is extraordinary what a cementing bond of friendship is the mastership, mastership of many legions. I warn Lord Salisbury, however, that in admitting Germany within our sphere of influence in South Africa without, I believe, taking any counsel with the Government of Cape Colony, he is opening up a vista of future troubles.
    800
    I am afraid he is raising a crop of troubles in South Africa, because it is impossible that there we can have a double reign. I have, therefore, felt it to be my duty to protest against unnecessary concession to the Germans in South Africa, especially as we receive nothing in exchange. Viewing the Agreement as a whole, however, I regard it as a solid monument of statesmanship, and I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. PHILIPPS: The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has said that British interests should be above Party fights. Now, I remember that, on June 2nd, an hon. Member moved a reduction in the Vote for the expenses of Heligoland, on the ground that it would be desirable to trade away the island to Germany for some concession in Africa, and upon that 27 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 150 against it, who are now disposed to accept this Agreement, and, in view of these things, I am disposed to doubt whether the House does put British interests above Party fights. I remember, after the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had suggested the exchange of Heligoland for some advantage in South Africa, the Under Secretary for the Colonies said that
    "Not a shadow of reason or excuse for giving up one of the possessions of the Crown had been brought forward by the hon. Members."
    Well, we have not yet heard of the resignation of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and I do not think he is going to speak on this question. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) is a little sanguine in expressing the hope that this will be treated above Party considerations. It has been said in favour of giving up Heligoland that there is difficulty in defending an outlying possession such as this; that we have not an army to garrison such. But do we garrison outlying islands around our coasts? No garrisons are needed; they are defended by the knowledge that they are defended by the power of the British Navy, by the knowledge that if invaders landed, they would soon be surrounded, and have to surrender to a British Fleet. Surely there is no serious argument in

    801
    this difficulty that we cannot garrison our possessions. The cession of the island I do not regard as of very much importance, but it is a new principle that we should give up a population of 2,000 persons who have no wish whatever to be surrendered. The only evidence of their willingness is that Lord Salisbury said he had an impression that they did not object, and the Under Secretary has stated that we hear less and less of objection on their part every day. Well, I suppose that is natural, for the people are poor and powerless, and as they feel it is more and more likely they are to be handed over to Germany, they would naturally be more and more reluctant to raise objections. There is only one way of settling the question, and that is by taking a plebiscite. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of Heligoland, though I believe there is some evidence that Naval and Military Authorities do consider it of some value. The Under Secretary does not dispute that Heligoland is of greater value to Germany than to us. Its value to them, from a sentimental point of view, is considerable, and possibly it has a naval value. On that account we ought to get a very good bargain from Germany, but the fact is we have only obtained two things which can be called concessions at all, namely, certain rights in Uganda and in the Sultanate of Vitu. The value of these rights is very doubtful. They may be of certain value to trading companies, but my point of opposition to the Anglo-German Agreement is that we are seeking to create in Central Africa a place for future colonisation, and I do not believe in a pestilential place like Vitu or equatorial districts as a place where Europeans can settle, live, and thrive. On the other hand, there are in East Central Africa alone two things of great importance to us—first, the plateau of land to the East of Lake Tanganyika, which many travellers, Commander Cameron and others, say is suitable for European colonisation; and, secondly, a British belt running from north to south. With this we should have a frontier continuous with the Congo State and Lake Tanganyika as a frontier for 400 miles. Neither of these two things are obtained for us. The Government have reserved the right to a, road from one British territory to
    802
    another—I could have wished that it was the right to a railroad, which will be of far greater consequence. But it is in South-West Africa that we have made the most disastrous concessions. The value of that country has only recently become known. It is fit for pastures, and is of great mineral wealth. It is just as we have got to know its value that we have gone out of our way to surrender a large slice of it to Germany. The Germans are making no use of Damaraland and Namaqualand. I do not think there are more than 200 German citizens in all that vast territory. They are simply settling on it, waiting until the work and capital of our people make it valuable, and then they will step in and claim it. While I do not say the Government could have got it back I do say, repeating what has been said by the hon. Member for Peckham, that it is an outrageous thing that German territory should be extended from longtitude 20 deg. E. to 21 deg. E. at the expense of the Chartered Company, and by a strip of 300 or 400 miles to the upper waters of the Zambesi. There is no concession whatever made to us in that part of Africa. We have thrown away the interest of Englishmen, of Boers, and of all the peoples of South Africa, and have got no earthly advantage in return. It is a serious matter, for this is one of the richest countries in the world. It is rich as an agricultural country, it abounds in mineral wealth; it has gold, and gold attracts settlers. These will find a fine climate, where they and their families can live and thrive, land for pasture and agriculture, coal just under the surface, iron ore, and other minerals. From all this we deliberately shut ourselves out. There are other and minor reasons against the arrangement. The line of division will cut through the country of the Makololo and Baroto tribes, and experience on the Afghan frontier with the Turcoman tribes, under like circumstances, should warn us against troubles that may arise from this cause. We have heard a great deal about the Hinterland doctrine; we are told that where a country has the coast line it ought also to own the land behind it. But I have noticed in this case that wherever the Hinterland doctrine has been in our favour, the principle

    803
    has been departed from, whereas it has been kept when it has been against us. Why have we not the Hinterland principle applied in the case of Walfisch Bay? If the Government got the right to run a railway from Walfisch Bay into the interior, it would be some compensation for the wicked surrender which they have been making. I do not want to repeat what has already been said about Zanzibar. I think it is agreed that in 1886 we did practically exercise a Protectorate there. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has admitted that at that time our influence in Zanzibar was predominent and successful. In the year 1886, I repeat, we were exercising a Protectorate in Zanzibar, but by the action of the Government, Germany was allowed to get into the island, and now the only real concession which we have got under this Agreement is, that we are allowed to have back again the island of Zanzibar. At the same time, we do not recover possession of the five or six hundred miles of coast line which make the possession of the island valuable. The fact is, having once given up the island, we are surrendering Heligoland in order to get it back again. We are told, Sir, that we must not look at this Treaty bit by bit, but that we must consider it as a whole. But how can we do that unless we first take it bit by bit? We give a concession and we get a concession, and the question is, where does the balance of advantage come in? We get nothing given us except certain definite rights over two places in the Equator, the Sultanate of Vitu and Uganda. Moreover, under the Treaty, we shall have to buy the island a second time from Prance. That is a bargain which only requires to be mentioned in order to be condemned, and I am sure that if hon. Members vote as they feel, this Anglo-German Agreement will not meet the approval of the House to-night. I am not attacking the Agreement in any spirit of Jingoism. Jingoism is, I think, a hateful thing. We know what it is. We know that men on the platform shout about this great Empire, and howl about giving up the territory which our forefathers fought for, but I venture to think that their forefathers had little to do with the building up of this Empire. The reason why I dislike the Agreement is this. I
    804
    know that this country is a country in which white men can live. I believe it is a country where millions of our fellow subjects may live and thrive. You have many States happily coming well together. You have the Cape, Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State. They are getting on better and better, and we are coming rapidly nearer to the day when there will be a confederation of all the States in Africa. Yet we arc, by this Agreement, throwing in among them a German Official element, connecting them with another European country, with which they cannot coalesce or combine. In South Africa there are already nearly half a million of white men spread over the different States—an hon. Member near me says there are 1,000,000. I did not know there were so many, and I have stated there are 500,000, because I believe it is best to be on the safe side. But in the German territory in the South-West you have only about 200 Germans. Why, then, do the Government want to give up more territory to these few Germans, who do nothing to civilise these States, but simply sit down to take their ease, leaving it to British and Boer enterprise to develop the country and make it more valuable to them some day? In the meanwhile, the people of this country are increasing at an enormously rapid rate every year, and we must find some country for our emigrants in the future. I, therefore, deplore immensely that even one square mile of Africa should be given up without absolute necessity. It is difficult to understand why this Agreement was ever made. They tell us that we have the advantage of having secured the friendship of Germany. I hope that we have, but it seems to me that friendship may be sometimes too dearly bought, and I think it will be much too dearly bought if it is purchased by giving up valuable territories in the colonies and in Africa. We do not require interest in Europe. The less we have to do with European politics the better. I think that friendship purchased in Europe will prove a very dear bargain indeed if we give up for it valuable territory in the colonies. I am opposing this Agreement because of the intense interest I feel in this

    805
    continent and in the subject of colonisation. Africa is a country in which white men may live and thrive, and it is because of my regret at seeing Her Majesty's Government giving up even a small bit of this immensely valuable territory that I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Philipps.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: We must all congratulate Lord Salisbury upon having succeeded in closing an open sore between this country and Germany. No doubt it is possible to point out various localities in which we might have had something more, but to intimate, as the last speaker has done, that there has been a throwing away of an opportunity, and a neglect of the interests of our colonies, is very unfair. The feeling of the country will be that there is great cause for satisfaction at the conclusion of this Treaty. It is well to observe how marvellous has been the change of opinion during the past few years with regard to the acquisition of territorial influence. A short time ago we were anxious to get rid of, or, at all events, there seemed to be a feeling that we cared nothing for our colonies or colonial possessions—that they were a burden to us, that we had more on our hands than we could manage, and that we might get rid of everything outside our islands. The change from that state of feeling has been most marked, and only a few months ago we were oppressed with the fear that Germany had altogether out-stripped us in the race, and that we were likely to be crowded out of Africa altogether. There was fear that our commerce in seeking new outlets, and our missionary enterprises which had sent forward so many devoted men, and had expended millions of money, might have their
    806
    energies hampered. Because we must remember that it is this English enterprise and English zeal which has opened up Africa in the way it has been opened up. English money has been spent to a very large extent, and it is only right that we should have a full and free scope for our energies, both in respect to commerce and to missions. When, therefore, the Agreement came to light, it was agreeable to find that our interests had been safe-guarded to a very great extent. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken threw scorn upon Uganda, but it has been proved that the country, as described by Mr. Stanley, is a very rich one and fertile, and I hope that when opened up by the East African Company, as it will be, it may prove a very useful outlet for colonisation to develop and promote civilisation in these parts. When, too, we remember the tension which existed a short time ago between this country and Germany, and the good feeling and hearty good will which now prevails, we shall feel that great importance should be attached to the present Agreement. The East African Company, which has already done so much, and is competent to do more, and the Missionary Societies will now be able to go forward with the sure knowledge that their energies will not be hampered. The House has heard a good deal of high oratory this evening respecting the clause which makes the Agreement subject to the assent of the British Parliament, and that high oratory has come from those who are, no doubt, well qualified to speak on the matter. We have been told that this is a great blow at the Royal prerogative and the hon. and junior Member for Northampton has said that he will support the Bill because it is a clear limitation of the Royal prerogative. My right hon. Friend the Irish Secretary, always an advocate of a heroic policy, has rushed forward in defence of the clause, and at once wished to take the view hat it would have great effect in the uture. I hardly know whether other Members of the Government will take exactly that view. I, myself, have regarded it not so much in the light of a precedent, but I think that this clause was inserted at the request of His Imperial Majesty

    807
    the German Emperor, who wished this Agreement to be not merely a Treaty with the British Government, but one with the British people, for he desired the question to be decided in amity between the two nations, and to be regarded as a token of the wish of the two peoples to live in strong friendship. This being the case, I hope and trust that, whatever we may think of the legislative achievements of this Session, we shall at all events look back upon this Agreement of 1890 as one which forms not only a bond of union between the two peoples, but also a precedent to the settling of such matters in a spirit of mutual concession and conciliation, which will enable them to go forward in the future in the work of civilisation in which these two Christian peoples are working together.
    DR. CLARK: If it were not for the African question I should strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill. I am glad that the Government have given up Heligoland, but, inasmuch as a great tract of valuable land is being given up in Africa as well, I shall oppose the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is mistaken in saying that the Cape Government refused to take over Namaqualand. The fact is that in 1883 a Mr. Spence was organising an expedition in Cape Colony to go to Namaqualand, and take over some land for which he had obtained a concession there. About that time a German subject obtained from a Hottentot chief, for a few pounds and some cattle, a concession of some five miles of land, and the object of Mr. Spence's expedition was to turn the German out. Prince Bismarck asked the British Government whether we had a Protectorate in Namaqualand, or whether we would undertake to protect German subjects there. To that question for many months Lord Derby gave no reply. From September, 1883, until June, 1884, both Mr. Montana, as Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Scanlan, as Prime Minister, wrote to the High Commissioner strongly urging
    808
    that the Imperial Government should take over the country, and when that Ministry was displaced by Sir Thomas Uppingham strong representations continued to be made to the Imperial Government to take over Namaqualand. Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed to Lord Derby urging that the Imperial Government should accede to the wishes of the Government of Cape Colony, but Lord Derby telgraphed back asking Sir H. Robinson to prevent the matter being brought before the Cape Parliament. Those facts I learned in conversation with members of the Cape Ministry, and they also appear on the Despatches. Yet we are told by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that neither the Imperial nor the Cape Government would take over Namaqualand, and hence the Germans took it over. It was not until Prince Bismarck had waited for months for an answer which he did not get that he stepped in and declared the five miles or so of land which were claimed by the German subject to be German territory. Now that has blossomed into one-half of Africa. No doubt the Liberal Government are to blame, but the Cape Government expected that in a matter of that kind the present Government would ask them whether they would sanction the course about to be taken. Then, why should the Government hand over to Germany a portion of Bechuanaland upon which so much British money has been spent? The Makololo and the Bechuanas will be partly under English and partly under German control. In exchange for all that territory, we are getting a strip of coast land. But everyone knows that in Africa the coast line is the least valuable, because of the fever, which makes it impossible for white men to live there. The really valuable land is in the well-watered uplands some 5,000 or 7,000 feet above the sea, and that is the kind of land which has been given up to the Germans. There is now a more friendly feeling than there has been for a long time between the two sections of the population of South Africa, the Dutch and the English. There is less race feeling existing there now, and the first step has been taken this year by having a Customs Union. The men who have

    809
    been fighting us are becoming loyal to the Crown, and there is a still more kindly feeling developing in the Free State and the Transvaal, where a British subject can have a vote after two years, and can become naturalised after five years. But now you are introducing the German element in Bechuanaland; you are bringing it to within easy distance of the Transvaal. I do not disapprove of the cession of Heligoland, which is to Bremen and Hamburg what the Isle of Man is to Liverpool and Manchester; but as regards South Africa, nothing more foolish has been done in the last 20 years than has been done. I yet see the sources of strained relations with Germany. In certain territories British subjects are prevented from entering by German officials. That those who have spent their money and time there are to be subject to a few people on the coast seems to be the height of folly. I say you have introduced an element of discord when Boers and Englishmen were beginning to see the merits of each other. You have brought the German force within a fortnight's march of the borders where the Crawford incident took place. Her Majesty's Government have done this, when they might have developed the magnificent territories and obtained the assistance of the Cape Government in establishing a position which they have now sacrificed.
    MR. E. BECKETT: Sir, though this Agreement seems likely to encounter no very violent opposition in this House, and will probably be sanctioned without a Division, I do not think it is one in which the Government and the country need take any particular pride. I think the Conservative Party have not studied the question, feeling the utmost confidence in the statesmanship of Lord Salisbury. Still, I fear that they have an uneasy sense that all is not well. They do not think it is quite what they would have approved of in 1885. It certainly is a fact that if any cession is proposed by the other side of the House, we shall not be able to oppose it with the freedom we should have felt had this
    810
    Agreement not been in existence to bear witness against us. Lord Salisbury, in his speech in the House of Lords, did not claim any great merit for this arrangement, though extravagant eulogies have been passed upon him by his supporters. He said that the chief merit of this Agreement was that neither England nor Germany gained any advantage over the other. I think it will be granted that England will get no advantage from Germany, but no one will say that Germany does not get very considerable advantage from England. Germany has been too much favoured and England too much forgotten. We have made a cession for which we have received no adequate return. We have thrown away huge territories in Africa with a reckless prodigality that reminds one of the rake's progress, and in our passion for parting we take the Gibraltar of the Baltic and chuck it into the German Emperor's lap in order that he may say to the world, "Behold, another Bismarck is here!"A great deal has occurred in South Africa which I think is best illustrated by taking a description of England in Africa a few years ago written in a German journal of high authority—
    "England has laid her hand on all South Africa, whore the Orange Free State alone prolongs an independent existence for perhaps only a few years. She has assumed a semi-autocratic position in Egypt and Zanzibar, and the cry has gone through the English papers to win the great and newly discovered territories of the Congo for Great Britain and to create in them a new and gigantic market for Egyptian merchandise."
    After dazzling his readers with this picture of England sitting enthroned in the Continent of Africa, the writer added in a deprecating way, "But Germany ought not to resign this immense spoil to England." Nor has she. You cannot say that now our possessions in Africa are like an ocean whose broad expanse is broken only by a solitary island. The Transvaal has emerged from the waves. The waters have receded from Damaraland and appear likely to leave Swaziland tin-covered. Our autocratic position in Zanzibar has been resigned and only partially resumed; so that all that remains to us is our semi-autocratic

    811
    position in Egypt and a bare half of our former possessions in South Africa. It has been contended that we ideally have no Protectorate over Zanzibar, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs used rather a hard expression, for he said that we would not resume the Protectorate of Zanzibar in a concrete form.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not use that word.
    MR. E. BECKETT: Our relations with, and our services to, Zanzibar date back 30 years and more. In 1860 an insurrection, organised by the Sultan's brother, was suppressed by our aid, and the Sultan saved from ruin. Ho and his successors were devoted to the British alliance, our object being, independent of trade, the suppression of slavery. We also provided a Christian Church, and have something like 10,000 children in Christian schools. Furthermore, we have greatly reduced, if not altogether abolished, the Slave Trade. In 1872 we sent Sir Bartle Frere on a special mission to Zanzibar to arrange for the suppression of the Slave Trade. We have by these and other events established a virtual Protectorate, which was acquiesced in by the Powers of Europe, and the Sultan looked to us to support him. In 1873 there was no mail service to Zanzibar except that of England, and in 1875 the Sultan visited England, where he was received with great state and cordiality. On his return new rules for the suppression of the Slave Trade were made, and in 1875 the Bishop there wrote that the Slave Trade was practically at an end. In 1879 Egypt thought to secure the trade of Central Africa, and senta fleet to Zanzibar. This, however, was protested against; the protest was supported by England, and Egypt gave way. In 1880 Sir John Kirk, our able and zealous Consul there, left on two years' leave of absence. He was received with great demonstrations, and treated with special marks of distinction. On his return he decorated the Sultan with the Grand Cross of St. Michael and St. George sent by the Queen, and in the following year the Sultan entertained the officers and men of the British Fleet. From 1883 dates the growth of German
    812
    influence. Owing to the apathy and indifference of the English Government the Germans tried to undermine and oust us. The Sultan, however, still looked to England, and in 1884 he wrote—
    "Confiding in the good Providence of the Most High God and relying on Her Most Gracious Majesty we have no fear of aggression from any one."
    In 1886 Germany made claims which were resisted by the Sultan, but a convention was made between England and Germany which deprived Zanzibar of nearly all its possessions, but reserved a 10 mile zone on the mainland. This was done to satisfy English public opinion. The Government did not dare to hand over unconditionally the territory of a faithful ally, who had trusted us and followed our advice for a quarter of a century; but in 1888 the territory of Zanzibar was further contracted, and the whole mainland was practically surrendered to Germany, and what was the result? From the date of that usurpation the natives became dissatisfied, and rebelled; murders were committed; Germany expressly bound herself in 1886 and again in 1887 not to operate in, or permit operations in, the territory we have now surrendered to her. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has to-night made use of a very remarkable expression, for he said we did not assume this Protectorate in a concrete fashion, but that our operations in this part of Africa were for the common good of the human race. It seems to me that to say we only go to Zanzibar on philanthropic considerations and for the good of the human race in general is hardly a thing worthy of consideration. It is said that we have trading rights over the German sphere of influence in East Africa. We had already trading rights over the German sphere of influence, but Germany has excluded British traders and caravans from that sphere and placed great obstacles in the way of our traders. The utility of our trade route has been made light of. Is it as useless as some seem to think? Before the Anglo-German Agreement was published, I stated that the Power becoming

    813
    possessed of this route would have the control of the inland trade, which has been valued at £15,000,000 a year, and I predicted that Germany would stand firm. Lord Salisbury has said that rather than give way Germany would have broken off the Agreement; bat it must be remembered that we have trading rights secured by the Berlin Act of 1885, which, however, have been absolutely disregarded. They tried to ruin Mombassa. A South African told mo that it was almost impossible for Englishmen to trade in Damaraland. In 1888 the Consul made a claim on the mines in Damaraland, saying that by the law of Germany the mines could only be owned and worked by German subjects. The Germans are bad neighbours, and their action in Africa has been marked by continued hostility to us, while we have been putting into their hands the sticks with which they beat us. We have meekly yielded to their aggressions, each concession having been the prelude to a fresh claim. With regard to the presence of the Germans in Uganda, Bishop Smythies writes—
    "The result of the Germans coming has been that, after living safely among the people for 20 years, our relations with them becoming ever more friendly, we now see our work hindered, our lives possibly endangered, and our religion degraded, because we are now associated with violence and oppression. And all to what end?"
    We may well ask to what end? And the answer is, the aggrandisement of Germany and the humiliation of England. We have allowed the Germans to extend in Damaraland, Namaqualand, across to the Zambesi, so that we cannot reach the fertile lands except through the German territory. It was proposed to construct a railway from the Victoria Falls to the Zambesi, the Portuguese having given a concession for that purpose. If it were made, unquestionably it would open up a valuable market in a highly fertile region. The hon. Member for Caithness hit the right nail on the head when he said that the arrangement was unfortunate at the present moment for the South African people, because we have allowed it to appear to the natives that another nation has taken advantage of us and is stronger than we are. It we
    814
    wish to unite the white men in South Africa in a confederation with the Government of England, we must show that we are prepared to assert supremacy and power. The day of confederation will be postponed as long as Her Majesty's Government show that their policy is one of shuffling and retreat. No one can pretend that we have gained anything in South Africa, and we have gained nothing in East Africa to which we had not a right before. I do not think that anyone has attempted to assert that we have obtained a good bargain in Africa, and I do not see why concessions in Europe should have been added to our concessions in Africa. We must look at this South African question in the light of past history, and it is an unfortunate thing that to the African mind of late years we have always appeared in the light of surrendering something to somebody. A Union, under the headship of England, is now the dream and aspiration of South Africa. If Germany could have been induced to clear out of Damaraland and Namaqualand a great stride would have been made towards the realisation of that dream. Confederation will become easier in proportion as the over-mastering power and ruling capacity of England are felt and recognised; but as long as our policy is one of shuffle and surrender, so long shall we postpone the day of confederation. As it is, Germany has gained an extension of territory to the Congo, and absolute possession of the coast line, and she has only ceded regions none of which ever belonged to her, while we have only gained a resumption of our Protectorate over Zanzibar, which Germany boasts she can render valueless to us if so inclined. We have yet to know what we have to pay for Zanzibar. But if our bargain has been bad in Africa, what has it been in regard to Heligoland? In return for Heligoland I think the Government might have asked Germany to retire from these disputed portions of the African territory. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary thing in the negotiations for surrendering Heligoland that we should have said that the island was practically useless to us. No doubt it is valuable to Germany, but it was also valuable to us;

    815
    indeed, in the event of war with Germany the possession of Heligoland would be invaluable to this country. Its possession would have the full worth of a fleet to us, and this was the opinion of one of our greatest Admirals—Admiral Russell. A German paper —the Hamburger Nachrichten —says—
    "England has always possessed in the island the means of keeping Germany strategically insecure, of indirectly molesting her, and of dangling before her eyes the great value of her friendship. Think of the rôle which Heligoland played in the wars of 1864 and 1870! Its possession, in short, gives us the command of the North Sea; the commerce of Hamburg will gain by its cession to us, for a blockade of the Elbe will now be an impossibility."
    No doubt if we were to go to war with Germany the cession of Heligoland must add heavily to our responsibilities, because the attempt to blockade Hamburg and the mouth of the Elbe would be exceedingly difficult, dangerous, and expensive. I believe that Germany would have been willing to have given up much more than she has ceded for the possession of Heligoland. Its value to Germany is very great. It gives her an eye to see, and an arm to strike at Holland, Belgium, France, Russia, and Denmark. We do not want anything in Europe that Germany can give us; we are perfectly able to protect our own coasts. Would the friendship of Germany prevent Russia from attacking us in India, or France from harassing us in Egypt? Would it make negotiations with Franco easier in Newfoundland? It remains to be seen whether this would be the case, but, at all events, if friendship is worth anything it should be reciprocal, and Germany has shown very little reciprocity in this Agreement. She is anxious to take everything; we seem anxious to give everything. It was, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, who said the other day that Heligoland was the tomb of Jingoism, and that in it were interred the principles of Lord Beaconsfield's foreign policy. I confess that, although I am not a Jingo, the policy so described had its good points as well as its faults. We must not forget that one of its fruits was
    816
    peace with honour. Although the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had its merits, one of its chief results was war with dishonour; and, for my part, I prefer the aggressive principles of Lord Beaconsfield's foreign policy, which shattered Zululand and reduced Afghanistan, to the moderate principles of the foreign policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, which dictated the disgraceful Transvaal surrender and the desertion of Gordon.
    SIR LEWIS PELLY: The hon. Member for Mid Lanark is mistaken in saying that the Sultanah of With was awarded to us. It was the Port and Island of Lamu that was submitted to arbitration, and declared to belong neither to us or to Germany. Subsequently, the Sultan of Zanzibar handed Lamu to us. It is also a mistake to suppose that "Hinterland" has been given to Germany, but not to us. Our boundary line runs along the first parallel of South latitude, right across to Victoria Nyanza, and into the region South of Uganda, where it turns a little South and embraces the mountain Mfumbiro. It then continues West, until it strikes the frontier of the Free State of the Congo. Our "Hinterland," therefore, is reserved to us almost equally as well as the Hinterland of the Germans is kept for them. It is in vain to compare the position of political affairs on the East Coast of Africa, with a condition of affairs which obtained at some more or less remote date. I remember the coast of East Africa at a time when the word of a British Representative round the whole shore line of the Indian Ocean was law. Those days are gone. Then no foreign Power interfered with us. Now, other Powers have come in, and we have had to take our place with them. The question is, what was the position immediately before this Agreement was made? The East African Company, finding that Germany had declared a Protectorate over an immense region lying between the Rivers Jana and Juba to the North-

    817
    ward of the British sphere of influence, and thus finding themselves squeezed in, both to the South and North, by Germany, felt it would be impracticable for them to carry out the enterprise they had in hand. But the result of this Agreement is, that while the Germans surrender their Protectorate over that vast region, our influence reaches up to the northernmost tributary of the River Juba—thus increasing our shore line by 200 miles, giving us access to the river itself, and increasing our Hinterland until it strikes the frontier of the Congo Free State beyond Lake Albert Nyanza. I think we have no reason to complain of the provisions of this Agreement. On the contrary, it strikes me as being a measure that has been carried out with great tact, great patience, great skill, and great success. I believe I speak the opinions and feelings of those directly interested in the present political, commercial, geographical, and other interests in this region, when I say they are very much obliged to the Government for the manner in which the arrangement has been effected. We obtain the finest port by far on the coast and nearest to the British Empire in India. I allude, of course, to the Port of Mombassa. We obtain access to two great rivers and one inferior river—namely, the Juba—the Tana, and the Sabaki, and we obtain the nearest line of railway from the coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza. Those of us who are directly interested in the arrangement are quite satisfied with the advantages which the Government have secured for this country.
    MR. BRYCE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into the question of the advantages that the Agreement will secure for the Royal East Africa Company, because it would be impossible to do so, unless you, Mr. Speaker, were to permit the innovation of the suspension of a gigantic map from the clock to the Bar. I think the satisfaction the hon. Member expresses will be qualified in the mind of the House by the knowledge that he represents the Royal East African Company. The complaint that has been made with regard to the delimitation of Eastern
    818
    Africa is that the interests of England in other parts of Africa have not been sufficiently kept in view, and that valuable territories in the South, valuable lines of communication in the interior, have, been surrendered in exchange for some hundred miles of arid coast. I do not propose to refer to the constitutional question arising out of this Bill for the cession of Heligoland, because that has been sufficiently dealt with earlier in the evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, further than to repeat the demand they made—that the Law Officers of the Crown should produce the precedents on which the Government rely for bringing in a Bill to ratify a Treaty for the cession of territory. One thing at least is clear, that although there have been many cessions of British territory in various parts of the world, none of these has yet been thought to need a statute to effect it. I desire, however, to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted the very doctrine for which my right hon. Friends contended, namely, that this is a constitutional change of great magnitude, and one that cannot help having its results in the future. The argument of the Chief Secretary goes to show that this will be no longer resintegra, but that when the question of any other Treaty arises the Government will have to consider whether it should or should not embody it in a Bill and place it before Parliament. If any Members on this side of the House have not fully apprehended what is the ground on which we consider this a change of profound import, whether for good or for ill is a matter which I do not now inquire, let me remind them again that this is not a question of increasing the powers of the House of Commons in regard to the foreign policy, but of enlarging the powers of Parliament which includes another Chamber. Whatever power the House of Commons may have in future for rejecting a Bill will be, under this precedent, equally enjoyed by the House of Lords. The power given to the House of

    819
    Commons will be counterbalanced by the veto of the House of Lords. I hope if there is any authority for the course the Government have adopted in bringing in this Bill, the Law Officers of the Crown will not be slow to furnish us with it. As to the merits of this Agreement, I must frankly own that I cannot dissent from the view taken by Her Majesty's Government as to the small strategic value of Heligoland to us, seeing that for the 83 years during which it has been in our possession we have made no attempt whatever to fortify it. It has been said that notwithstanding that fact it would have been of great service to us in the event of our being involved in a war with Germany. I hope, however, it will not go forth from this House that there is any danger, or even a remote possibility, of our being involved in a war with that country, with whom we have for such a long period been on the terms of the greatest friendship. We have not been at war with Germany since the 13th century, and I think we may fairly hope that in no time we can contemplate now will any likelihood of such hostility arise. At the same time, it is only fair to say that by the possession of Heligoland we always held a trump card, which we could play whenever we desired to make a bargain with Germany, as it is well known that that country sets the highest value upon the island. There can be no doubt that in a war between Germany and any neighbouring Power the possession of Heligoland would be of great importance, and I think we may, therefore, say it was the duty of the Government to secure substantial advantages in return for it. I confess, however, that I cannot express myself equally favourable with regard to another point arising upon the Agreement. I think that we are entitled to hear from the Under Secretary some evidence as to the feeling of the people of Heligoland with regard to the cession. We should have evidence laid before us that the Heligolanders, if not in favour of it, are not opposed to it. No such evidence has been given. Not a single word has been said in this House, or in the House of Lords, to show that any steps whatever have been taken to ascertain the wishes of the people of Heligoland.
    820
    The case before us is, no doubt, a small one. The population of the island is small, less than that of an average English parish, but as a precedent it is important. This is the first time that this country has established the precedent of handing over British subjects to another Power, as if they were cattle, without even ascertaining their wishes, much less obtaining their consent. I pass from that subject, having made this protest, and desire now to observe that we require a far stronger justification for the cession of the island than any yet offered. Such justification of the cession as has been made is to be found in the settlement of questions affecting Africa, and what we have to ask is, are the advantages which this country is to receive in Africa adequate compensation for the giving up to Germany of a possession which is to her of so much importance in Heligoland? I am anxious in what I say about Africa not to be misunderstood. I do not wish to be thought to give any countenance to the doctrines of African annexation and extension, doctrines which are not held on this side of the House, though they have found expression opposite. We have no more right to Africa than any other European Power. We have no right to any exceptional position of authority there. There was never a time when England, though she has much reason to be proud of the work of her discoverers, has formally founded upon that work any exclusive claim to the possession of the interior of tropical Africa. I am sure that there is no country which can so well spare something to other countries as can England. He would be a rash man who would ask us to undertake, with our existing colonial and foreign responsibilities, the task of reducing to order the gigantic territory of Equatorial Africa. Surely there is the greatest difference between the acquisition of land in temperate climates, into which our own people can overflow, and where their commercial genius can grow and flourish, as in Canada and Australia, and the acquisition of a tropical country, with unhealthy coasts and savage inhabitants, where enormous sums would have to be spent in laying the foundations of trade. Much has been said of trade to come;

    821
    but remember that is a distant and doubtful prospect, and between us and that prospect lies vast expenditure and the likelihood of sanguinary conflicts with native races. I should like to invite the attention of the House, also, to this consideration—that all these distant dominions, for which France, Portugal, Belgium, and Germany show an appetite, can only be hold by the sea. While England holds command of the sea these possessions are virtually hostages. They are a pledge that if these countries quarrel with England, they place within the hands of England their communications with, and possibly even the ultimate ownership, of these outlying territories. I hope, therefore, that the House will not allow this prospect of enlarged territories in Africa to fascinate the imagination. Let us also remember that this Agreement with Germany gives us no additional direct rights over the soil and the inhabitants. It does not even infringe upon the rights possessed by any other European Power, except Germany. It is a simple Agreement between England and Germany that within certain limits they will not interfere one with the other. Do not let this Agreement be quoted as an Agreement for the sanction of annexation. For my part, I should have preferred an Agreement in the nature of a self-denying ordinance for East Africa, similar to that made for the Congo basin in West Africa. However, let us come to this Agreement, and examine it in the light in which Ministers present it to us as a bargain. So regarded, we shall find it to be a poor bargain. It constitutes no triumph for British diplomacy, and I do not think the Government can go to the country on the strength of it, and ask for a vote of confidence in their foreign policy. I had hoped to hear from the Undersecretary an acknowledgment of the very exceptional forbearance he has received from the Opposition by questions or Motions during the last four years. We have been extremely careful in not interfering with pending negotiations, lest any harm should be done, and the Government have been allowed greater scope than was allowed in the period from 1880 to 1885 to their predecessors. I want to ask whether the Government,
    822
    having these exceptional advantages, have used them properly. I do not altogether disapprove of the general tone and line Lord Salisbury has taken, and, indeed, we have some reason to congratulate him upon having come over to the pacific views entertained on this side the House. The hon. Member for Whit by said that this is not an Agreement that Conservatives would have approved of in 1885. We agree heartily with him in that declaration. In the fact that it is wholly unlike the former attitude of the Tory Party consists the main virtue of the present Agreement. Let me briefly recall to the House some of the leading incidents in Lord Salisbury's conduct of foreign affairs. He began, in 1887, by withdrawing from Port Hamilton. That surrender was allowed to pass by the Tory Party because it came from their own leaders. It was a very proper act, and we took no exception to it. Next came the question of the New Hebrides, and the Government were obliged to buy out the French, who had no right whatever in the New Hebrides, by surrendering British rights over the Island of Raiatea. Next we had the question with regard to Germany and Samoa. Here the Government left the assertion of our rights, and those of poor King Malietoa, as against Germany to America, and all that has been gained is due to the efforts of the United States. It is not necessary to go over the points of surrender in the present Agreement as regards Africa. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) has referred to the South West, the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has complained of neglect of the wishes of the people of Cape Colony, and the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Beckett) and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Philipps), in his able and vigorous speech, have condemned the whole Agreement from beginning to end. The defence on the points raised by these Members has been very imperfect. A settlement is always obtained by the Government by the simple process of always surrendering to their opponents. In point of fact, the Government have advanced no reason for the surrenders they have made in South Western and Central Africa, except that, when Germany asked it was much easier to submit than to stand

    823
    out and contest the point. Now, a few words upon Zanzibar. Zanzibar is a great trade emporium, and from it goods are distributed over all the adjoining parts of Africa. What I want to know is whether we are to understand that complete Free Trade is now secured between Zanzibar and the different ports of the mainland which is to become German. Is Germany to be prevented from establishing Custom Houses on the mainland, and from thereby destroying the commercial value of Zanzibar? That is a point on which no information has been given. Why, when this Agreement was being made, were steps not taken to have the whole area secured for Free Trade, carrying out thereby the provisions of that Berlin Act to which Germany was a party? If this has not been done it is a very serious omission and greatly reduces whatever value there is in the Agreement. Nothing has been said to explain why the. Government consider Zanzibar of more value now than it was in 1886, when they virtually abandoned our interests there. It has been admitted that in 1886 Zanzibar was virtually under the control of this country. Sir John Kirk was virtually master of Zanzibar by the consent of the Sultan. The Sultan recognised in him a capable and upright adviser, and British ideas and policy were virtually supreme at that time. That was the case in 1886, when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian quitted Office. Why was that position of advantage thrown away? If Zanzibar is as valuable as we are now told it is, surely our position there was well worth keeping. Why was Sir John Kirk recalled; why was his influence taken away and the place practically left for the Germans to do as they pleased in it. It seems to me we are simply buying back in 1890 a part, not by any means the whole, of what was thrown away in 1886, and that view is confirmed by the language the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has used. He said that we had not even now assumed in any practical sense the protectorate of Zanzibar; he said that a protectorate has not been taken in any concrete fashion.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I once more say I never used that word?
    MR. BRYCE: I took the right hon. Gentleman's words down at the moment, because they surprised me, and they were "in any concrete fashion." I can only suppose this Protectorate is an abstract Protectorate, and what is meant by that? What is the value of it? However, I do not wish to insist on any phrase which is repudiated, but to inquire what is meant by the language, the Under Secretary has used. Whatever value the Protectorate may have seems to be still further reduced by the fact that it is subject to the consent of France. I should be sorry to say a word which would hamper the Government in the negotiations with France; but when we find that what we have got from Germany has been got subject to the consent of another Power, and we do not yet know what that other Power is going to propose as to the terms of its consent, it is clear we have not got the whole matter before us. We do not yet know what the demands of France are, and we do not know what terms are going to be made with Portugal as regards her claims on the Zambesi, claims very material to the use that can be made of the Nyassa region. Altogether, therefore, the House is asked to sanction that of which we cannot yet say whether it will turn out to be a benefit or not. It would have been more satisfactory if the Government had been more candid. Why did they not tell us, in the first instance, that France had to be consulted? Looking at all these points, if I am asked whether this Agreement is a good bargain, and one that reflects credit on Her Majesty's Government, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. If the Government are going to the country and claiming to counterbalance the defects of their domestic policy by the skill with which they have conducted foreign policy, it is the duty of the Opposition to put on record its opinion that their conduct of foreign policy has not been successful, and that in this matter they have not shown themselves skilful in making a bargain. It is true the Opposition have no intention to vote against this Agree-

    825
    ment, not because, though "willing to wound, we are yet afraid to strike." On any fitting occasion I hope we shall always be ready to record our opinion on questions of foreign policy, just as upon questions of domestic policy It is sometimes the duty of an Opposition to denounce and resist a Ministry which is pursuing a dangerous course abroad, and so we did denounce and resist Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury from 1876 to 1879. In this instance, however, opposition, though it might injure the Ministry, would not necessarily correct what has been done amiss. We, therefore, do not propose to divide against the present Agreement, because we feel that when an Agreement such as this has been made the position of things has been vitally altered, and that it is not possible to go back to the state of things which existed before the negotiations began. The Agreement may be faulty, and yet the injury to national interests from rejecting it may be greater than those which an acceptance of it could involve. I admit that some arrangement was needful, looking to the jealousies of competition and the danger even of conflict between the pioneers of England and the pioneers of Germany in East Africa, and I think Lord Salisbury was well advised in being anxious to put an end to the difficulties of the situation. I think that we must also feel that the rejection of this Agreement would mean some ill-feeling on the part of Germany. She has come to feel that Heligoland is by this time virtually hers, and to take it back once it has come almost within her grasp would be regarded as an unfriendly act. And we ought to be friendly with Germany, with which we are connected by the ties of blood and of religion, and with which we have had no national hostilities for many centuries. Therefore, without at all desiring that we should have any exclusive alliance with any Power, we must on both sides of the House welcome and approve the desire which Lord Salisbury has shown to live at peace with Germany, even though we may think that he has given far more to her than she had any title to claim. From what has passed this evening we have seen that there is a good deal of discontent
    826
    among the Conservative Party as to this Agreement, and the Liberal Party might, had they given vigorous opposition to it, have reduced the Government majority to a point which would seriously injure their authority in the country. I hope, however, that hon. Members opposite will give us credit for never having had any such intention. We have felt that there are far higher interests and duties in matters of foreign policy than those connected with Party, and that there in this case are interests involved which may determine the future of colonisation in Africa for centuries to come, and we feel that the rejection of this Agreement might lead not only toill-feeling on the part of Germany, but to a general scramble amongst other European Powers for territory in Africa. Therefore, although mere Party motives might have prompted a different course, and although we may feel that the conduct of the Government has not been marked by as much skill or judgment as we could have wished, nevertheless, in the interests of the country at large, we feel bound to allow the Agreement to be ratified.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Why?
    MR. BRYCE: Because far greater evils might follow from its rejection than are likely to follow from its acceptance. One evil might be the growth of a bitter and angry spirit with Germany.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: How about Prance?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not see that our position is made worse with regard to Prance by this Agreement. We desire to be friendly with Prance also; and there is nothing in the substance of the Agreement arrived at, though the manner of introducing it might have been more courteous. Its rejection might aggravate the condition of the inhabitants and retard the measures being now taken for the extinction of the Slave Trade. Therefore, whilst retaining the opinion I have stated as to the character of the Agreement, I must feel that, upon the balance of loss and gain, the advantage of accepting it is greater than anything to be gained by moving its rejection.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir. R. WEBSTER,): I do not wish to detain the House at any length, as we are all anxious that a Division should be taken to-night, but I should be wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and also the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and others who have made appeals to me, if I did not make some reply to their challenges. It is a little difficult quite to understand for what section of the House the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke, because if we contrast his observations with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, it is difficult to conceive that the two speakers were in accord. In his most interesting speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian began by stating that he must congratulate Lord Salisbury not only upon the spirit in which he had entered into the Agreement, but also on the terms of it, and he devoted the greater part of his speech to the constitutional question, without making any severe criticisms on the terms of the Agreement itself.
    MR. BRYCE: My recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is quite different. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the ungrudging spirit in which Lord Salisbury had entered into the Agreement, but I did not understand him to express approval of the Agreement in its details.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I will not enter into a controversy with the hon. Gentleman, but I listened to every word the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian spoke, and I certainly failed to hear any real criticism or expression disapproving of any of the terms of the Agreement, though, perhaps, that was intended to be part of the unspoken criticism. All I wish to convey to the House is the impression which reached my mind. I now propose to deal with the constitutional question. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, among others, that there never has been any difference of opinion on this question, and that no person whose opinion is worth quoting has ever expressed any sanction of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Govern-
    828
    ment in advising Her Majesty to insert in the Treaty that the cession of Heligoland should be subject to the assent of the British Parliament. Some caustic observations were made on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not produce precedent after precedent to the House. I confess I thought that that argument came with little grace from a speaker who must 'admit that not the slightest notice was given to any Member of Her Majesty's Government that this point was to, be raised. Of course, it is the duty of the Opposition so to conduct opposition as to embarrass the Government; but I must point out that it is somewhat ungenerous to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to twit him with not being prepared with chapter and verse on the spur of the moment, especially when in the most interesting Debate in the House of Lords there was no allusion, direct or indirect, to this point, although such high authorities as Lord Rosebery, Earl Granville, and others, took part in that Debate. What has been the excuse for this? I think that the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in the House of Lords will be somewhat surprised to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Of course they did not raise the point, because it did not suit the House of Lords," suggesting that they were willing to extend their own power even at the risk of sacrificing the privileges of the Crown. I venture to think that Lord Herschell, Lord Rosebery, Lord Granville, and Lord Kimberley, hardly deserve such treatment at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. Before this point was put with such great confidence it would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman had extended his researches to a little later period than that of Lord Thurlow and Lord Loughborough. The hon and learned Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby fell foul of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary because he did not produce and read the opinions to which he referred. Well, no one knows better than they that while my right hon. Friend was right in pointing out

    829
    that it is not correct to say that no one of any position expressed any doubt on this matter, 'yet my right hon. Friend would have been wrong to produce opinions which would have disclosed negotiations on other matters perfectly well known to Her Majesty's advisers at that time. But I can give the right hon. Gentleman the weighty opinion he desires. In 1870 there arose an important question respecting the cession of the Gambia to the Emperor of the French. Questions were asked in the House as to whether negotiations with a view to the transfer had taken place, and whether it could take place without the consent of Parliament. I may remark at this point that the European population of the Gambia at that time was 39 males and 18 females. In answer to questions by Mr. R. Fowler—now Sir R. Fowler—and Sir John Hay, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said—
    "That his impressson was that such an arrangement could not he carried out without the consent of Parliament. He could not answer positively, hut such was his impression and belief."
    A little later the right hon. Gentleman added to what he had already said with reference to the power of the Government—
    "That there had never been the slightest intention of taking any proceedings of the kind without the consent of Parliament."
    If modern history is searched, it will be found that proposals were made for the cession of the Gambia to France, though they were not carried out.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: But not by Bill.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The proposal was one to obtain the sanction of Parliament by Bill. This is not the first time that the question has been raised. There was a Debate in 1854 on a proposal to cede the Orange River Free Territory, and a Motion was actually moved that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to re-consider the proposal for the abandonment of her sovereignty over the Orange River. The opinions of Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Wills were read to the House, stating that the
    830
    territory having been fully recognised as a colony, the Crown could not, by virtue of its prerogative, constitute any branch of its subjects into an independent State, and could not, without the consent of Parliament, cede its sovereignty over that territory, and much less over any of its subjects. I strongly protest against the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that nobody whose opinion is worth anything has ever expressed the views which have, on this occasion, actuated Her Majesty's Government. In the Debate of 1854 speeches were delivered by the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Sir Frederick Thesiger, which proves that most weighty opinions were expressed on both sides. It is clear that Sir Roundell Palmer looked on the matter as one which required to be carefully considered, for he spoke as follows:—
    "When British subjects have settled in newly discovered territories they carry with them the laws of this country. In that case cession cannot take place without the consent of Parliament. In the case of conquered or ceded countries, if Parliament had legislated concerning them, then the concurrence of Parliament might be necessary."
    The consent of Parliament which is there implied is not a consent to approve the transaction or turn out the Ministry of the day; but a consent to make the cession operative. I contend that there is no change whatever in the Constitution involved by the procedure of the Government. It is a question of its being in the power of the Crown to act in one way or the other, there being undoubtedly more than one method open. It has been assumed that there has been no legislation for Heligoland. But there have been Orders in Council founded upon general Statutes, and I can well understand that if it had suited the purpose of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we had proposed to proceed by Royal prerogative, they would have founded a strong argument against action being taken without the assent of Parliament. There is no change in the Constitution involved in this mode of procedure. It is a question of its being in the power of the Crown to act in one way or the other, there being undoubtedly more than one method open. I do not contest the right

    831
    of the Crown to cede territory without the consent of Parliament, when the nature of the negotiations or of the interests involved render it desirable to proceed in that way, but the fact that the prerogative of the Crown has sometimes been exercised in that way does not preclude the Crown from proceeding in the other way when it appears expedient. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) cannot shake the argument away by shaking his head. I challenge the right, hon. Gentleman to show by instances that when the Crown elected to act in one of two ways the other mode of action ceased to be within the prerogative. If in the case of financial and commercial Treaties it is not un-constitutional to ask the consent of the House it cannot be suggested that it is wrong in a case of this kind. Nobody can say it is un-constitutional to ask the consent of Parliament in a case where there may be other considerations which may come into play and lead Her Majesty's Government to hold their hand. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to advise Her Majesty to assent to the Treaty, believing that its terms are for the interests of the nation, but which they are ready to subject to the criticism and judgment of the House of Commons. It has been argued by Members on either side of the House that the conduct of the Government in allowing Germany to extend her Protectorate over Damaraland and Namaqualand is such as cannot be approved, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen has said no reason for their action has been given by Her Majesty's Government. But it is conceded that in 1884, by the action of the then advisers of Her Majesty, which we may regret, but cannot do more, Germany was allowed to assume the Protectorate over Damaraland and Namaqualand. That being the case do hon. Members suggest that the Government ought to contest the matter hostilely with Germany? I venture to think that if that had been the spirit in which the negotiations had been carried on, they would not have deserved the encomiums of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. It is necessary to conduct the negotiations on the basis of the existing state of things, and in accordance with the action of the Government of 1884. for in these
    832
    matters of foreign policy there must be continuity,
    MR. BRYCE: I said no reason had been given for the extension as far as Victoria Falls and the Zambesi.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It is based upon the arrangement made in 1884, With respect to Uganda it has been said that the Government have not acted with wisdom, because the Protectorate of Great Britain was recognised there long before the advent of the Germans in that part of Africa, My information does not lead me to that conclusion, but to the conclusion that grave questions certainly exist as to the extent of the recognition accorded to the British Protectorate, and as to the limits within which German influence prevails. What is the alternative policy that is proposed? Is there to be a steeplechase, or rather go-as-you-please contest in Africa? Is each nation to struggle to get what it can, the interests of the natives suffering in consequence? For my part, I believe that it is far wiser to negotiate in a conciliatory and friendly spirit with the Powers likely to colonise, and to fix our limits of influence once for all in order to avoid contentions and disputes in future. The House has heard criticisms of the arrangements made by the Government from Gentlemen on both sides of the House, some of whom are, perhaps, not quite impartial, being connected possibly with companies which have been disappointed, or companies which have been gratified, I confess it is a satisfaction to me to notice that in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby there was very little tangible argument against the Agreement. They rode off, in fact, on the so-called great constitutional question, and I hope I have shown to the House that that point does not deserve the importance assigned to it. When this matter comes to be canvassed I think the House and the country will be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government have reason to be proud of the arrangement they have

    833
    made. The hon. Member for Aberdeen said the reason why success has attended the Government in foreign matters is not because the policy of Lord Salisbury is altogether approved of, but because the Opposition have been so indulgent as to foreign matters.
    MR. BRYCE: I did not make any such large claim. I said that the Government: of Lord Salisbury had had an advantage in their foreign policy which previous Liberal Governments did not enjoy: they had not been constantly questioned and worried.
    SIR. R. WEBSTER: I think, however, that if Her Majesty's Government had been discredited there are gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who would not have failed to avail themselves of the opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has over and over again said that he has no fault to find with the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, therefore I think it has not come with very good grace from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen to attribute the success of Her Majesty's Government in foreign matters to want of interference on the part of the Opposition. I hope I have now sufficiently dealt with the points raised. I submit to the House that this is an instance of an Agreement conducted and carried through in no selfish spirit, with no desire to grab or get for Great Britain anything to which she is not entitled—an Agreement which, I believe, will be to the future advantage of both countries, arid which Her Majesty's Government do not desire to carry through simply by virtue of the prerogative, but which they are by no means ashamed to submit to the judgment of the House and the country.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman takes shelter from many disagreeable arguments behind the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Our contention and our complaint
    834
    is that there has been no quid pro quo for the cession of Heligoland. We also complain that it was only by process of time that we were able to discover what the Agreement with regard to Damara-land was, the two maps published presenting a very different appearance. Lord Salisbury said Heligoland was to be taken as equivalent for Zanzibar. All Great Britain seems to get is a Protectorate over Zanzibar and Pernba, a territory under the rule of a native chief, which will make our responsibilities there of a very difficult character, while the Germans receive in freehold a coast line of 600 miles. It was some time before we discovered what the Sultanate of Zanzibar means. Lord Kimberley, when he asked a question in another place, was informed that a Sultanate bore the same relation to a Sultan as a monarchy to a monarch, but subsequently we come to the information that the Sultanate was restricted to the two islands, and did not include the 600 miles of coast line. Was not this sufficient concession without throwing Heligoland into the pot? Heligoland should not have been ceded except as an equivalent for Damaraland. Not even yet have we had an answer to the question whether the Germans can restrict our trade by the establishment of Custom-houses on German territory. For the last 100 years we have traded supreme in districts now held to be within the German sphere of influence on a continent where, seven years ago, Germany did not possess a square foot of territory. The Under Secretary has referred to the state of matters at Zanzibar, when that great man, Sir John Kirk, was there, and we have never been told why he was recalled or why the system, which was much more to the interests of this country. A virtual Protectorate without the actual responsibility entailed by this new system was abandoned. Much as we value a good understanding with Germany, and little as we desire to embark in landgrabbing in Africa, I do not think that Her

    835
    Majesty's Government will have much cause for congratulation over this Agreement.
    Mr. W. H.SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: The Debate has opened a grave and important constitutional question, the discussion of which occupied the earlier portion of the Debate. The second part of the subject can scarcely be said to have been adequately discussed. I hope the House will allow the Debate to proceed.
    Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

  (11.53.) PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL. (No. 389.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. SEXTON: I have pointed out that among the 16 Gentleman named there is no Irish Representative, and I gather from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is not unwilling to amend a flagrant omission, and, therefore, I move the first of two names of which I have given notice, that of Mr. Thomas Redington. He is a gentleman well-known, Deputy Lieutenant of the County of Galway, a member of the Royal Commission on Piers and Harbours, and in every way fully qualified.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, after the word "esquire," to insert the words "Christopher Thomas Redington, esquire."
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Christopher Thomas Redington, esquire,' be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): It is impossible for me now to accept a name at such short notice. There has been no time for me to consider the point or to communicate with other gentlemen whose names have been suggested. It
    836
    would be necessary also to communicate with the gentleman nominated.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has given no intelligible reason for refusing the Amendment. As soon as the Bill was printed, and I had the opportunity of examining it, I gave notice of my Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has not said a word, nor I suppose does he find himself able to say a word, against the gentleman I have named. His qualifications must be, I think, known to the Chief Secretary. I shall feel it my duty to press both names to a Division.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to press the point. I have no information from the gentleman himself as to his willingness to serve. I have no doubt he is well qualified, but I would ask the hon. Member not to press the matter now. I do not know how far it is desirable that names should be added, but I cannot accept the Motion now, and the hon. Member, if he insists, may prejudice his own case and create a false impression.
    MR. STOREY: I think, Sir——
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again up on Monday next

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolution [17th July] reported. (See page 103.)
MR. CONYBEARE: On this Resolution I do not intend to make any lengthened remarks, but I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether an opportunity will be afforded me on one of these Votes to make certain remarks which I think I have a right to make with regard to certain affairs in Ireland?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND(Mr. A. J.BALPOUR,): I do not understand that the hon. Member has any special observations to

837
make on this Vote. I think he desires to speak on the Prisons Vote.
MR. CONYBEARE: I think I should have a right to speak on the Resident Magistrates Vote, but I will forego that right on the assurance that I shall have an opportunity of speaking on the Prisons Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, but we do not pledge ourselves to stop business at an earlier hour than usual for the purpose.
MR. SEXTON: I wish to draw attention to a charge delivered in Ireland by the Lord Chief Baron, for it has an important bearing on the salaries of the Resident Magistrates in connection with this Vote. His Lordship declared that any one in Ireland had a perfect right to refuse to deal with any other person, or any combination of persons had a right to refuse to do so, provided the combination was voluntary, and not for a malicious purpose. During the last three years the Resident Magistrates in Ireland have repeatedly sent persons to gaol for acts of the very kind which the Lord Chief Baron now declares to be legal. I would therefore ask the Chief Secretary to take steps to inform the Resident Magistrates that many of the sentences they have passed in the time stated have been illegal, and also that they have no right to send any one to prison who, individually or in combination, refuses to deal with any other person or persons, unless it is shown that the combination is obtained by duress or is for malicious purposes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The charge of the Lord Chief Baron to which the hon. Member has referred will be brought under the notice of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. But I must not be understood to endorse the inference drawn by the hon. Member from the remarks of the Chief Baron.
DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary if he will take notice of the grave and scandalous charges against Mr. Gardiner, who holds
838
a judicial position in the City of Cork? One of those charges is a charge of seduction of the worst possible kind, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether or not Mr. Gardiner is worthy to continue to exercise the functions of a Resident Magistrate in the city from which I have the honor to come.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolutions [18th July] reported.
First Resolution (see page 229) postponed.
Second Resolution (see page 275):—
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I wish to draw the attention of the House to one matter in connection with this Vote. The question of national education in Ireland did not receive any attention whatever from the House during the fortnight the Irish Estimates were discussed. The particular point to which I wish to draw attention is that there has been a complete change in the curriculum of the education of girls; a new departure has been taken, and I think that change ought not to be passed over without notice by Parliament. According to the new departure, when girls have passed the Fifth Standard they are to be deprived of all further intellectual training, and to devote the remainder of their school life to "industrial work," which means needlework. Up to the present the adoption of this rule has only been optional, but now it is proposed to make it obligatory. I think the change should not be enforced, because I believe it will have a very injurious effect on the future of those girls, and will tend to swell the already overcrowded ranks of sempstresses. I hope the House will express in some way its desire that the training of the womanhood of Ireland shall continue on the same lines as in the past, and that consequently this new departure will not be sanctioned.
COLONEL NOLAN: I only wish to say that I disagree with everything that has fallen from

839
the hon. Member on this subject. I know a parish where the girls, thanks to instruction in needlework, have been able to contribute materially to the support of their homes. I hope the Chief Secretary will do something for boys also, by giving them some teaching in agriculture.
MR. MACARTNEY: I also differ from the hon. Member. Nothing better could be done for Ireland than to give young girls a training which will fit them to be good housekeepers and wives.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that the National School Commissioners never reject any representation made by a school manager to relax the rule in favour of his particular school. There is therefore a large elasticity in the working of the rule that will prevent any evil results arising from it. If a manager thinks that the education in his school is prejudicially affected by these regulations, he has only to make a representation to the Board of National Education, and his application will be considered. The rule has worked well in the past, and I hope it will continue to do so in the future.
Resolution agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions (see page 275) agreed to.
Postponed Resolution to be considered to-morrow.

POSTAGE RATES BILL.—(No. 302.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LIFE AND PROPERTY PROTECTION BILL.—(No. 277.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): In assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill I have simply to state that the Government
840
cannot give its assent to all the provisions it contains.
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask whether the Government propose to give their sanction and approval to the extraordinary doctrines enunciated in this Bill. If so, I think that that is a proceeding which does not redound to the credit of the Government, and that we ought to take exception to it.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman objects to the Bill it cannot be further proceeded with at the present moment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion for Adjournment:—
SIR J. SWINBURNE: May I be allowed to ask when the Post Office Estimates will be brought on again? Hon. Members are kept here awaiting their discussion, and it would promote their convenience if the Government would fix some definite time for the further discussion of these Estimates.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): This is a matter in which the Government propose and the House disposes. I think, however, the Post Office Estimates will be taken immediately on the conclusion of the discussion of the Heligoland Bill.
SIR W. LAWSON: I should like to have some statement from the Government as to when the Local Taxation Bill will be taken. Is there any intention of bringing it on to-morrow; and, if not, when will it come on?
MR. JACKSON: It will not be taken to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

NEW PEER.
E. Temple—William Stephen Gore Langton, Earl Temple of Stowe, having succeeded to that title on the death of his uncle Richard Plantagenet Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Earl Temple of Stow, &c, by virtue of a special limitation contained in a patent bearing date the 4th day of February in the Third year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Fourth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT ILL.—(No. 205.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOUGHTON: In asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, I need not detain you at any length. This Bill has come to your Lordships from the other House, where it was backed by Members of all Parties, and where it met with no opposition of any kind at any stage It was slightly amended in one or two particulars, as I shall explain to your Lordships in a few moments. I think at this time of day it is quite unnecessary to enter into any elaborate defence of the system of Public Libraries paid for out of the rates. I think your Lordships will all agree they have been of great benefit to the districts which have adopted them. The only charge I have ever heard brought against Public Libraries is that too many novels are read at them. But when you consider that the persons who use these Libraries are naturally obliged to use them more for the purpose of recreation than of study, I do not think that charge can be regarded as a very serious one. Just to show your Lordships how the matter stands, I will explain shortly what the previous legislation on the subject has been. The first Act under which Public Libraries were formed was passed in the year 1850, and the first Public Library was opened at Manchester two years later. Since then the Act has been
  670
  amended in the years 1855, 1877, and 1887, and last year. For some time after the passing of the first Act the formation of Public Libraries did not make any very great progress; but the statistics of later years show a much more satisfactory result. In 1879 there were only 87 Public Libraries open; in 1886 there were 133, and at this moment there are 209, being an increase of 76 in the last four years. At the same time, it would be a mistake to suppose that districts are always ready to adopt Public Libraries. On the contrary, there have been as many as 12 refusals in one year after the matter had been submitted to the ratepayers. Some supporters of this movement go as far as to say that the time has now arrived when a poll might be dispensed with altogether, and when Public Libraries might be formed on the motion of the Local Authority only. This Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships does not go so far as that, though I am bound to say that if such a proposition was made, I should, for my own part, not be prepared to oppose it. There is no doubt that the cost of the poll, which in some cases amounts to hundreds of pounds, is regarded by the ratepayers as a serious obstacle to having a Public Library at all. As regards the Bill itself, its object is, I think, clearly stated in the Memorandum annexed to it. Clause 1 substitutes for the very broad electorate which now votes on this matter, in boroughs the burgesses of the borough, and in counties the county electors registered in respect of their qualifications in the district. The object of that is to carry out what is supposed to have been the intention of Parliament in consolidating all the local franchises into one, and also to give a clear and authoritative list of the persons who would be entitled to vote for this object. Upon Clause 2 the Memorandum is not exactly accurate. It was originally proposed that in places having a population of less than 5,000 the proceedings should be, if it is so desired, by public meeting and not by voting papers. An Amendment was, however, introduced in the other House on the ground that public meetings cause a good deal of needless trouble and expense to the ratepayers, and that Amendment was accepted by the promoters of the Bill, Therefore, as the

  671
  Bill now stands, the proceedings will be in every case by voting papers. Clause 3 enables voters to state, if they so desire, and if a request has previously been made accordingly, that they wish to have a halfpenny or three-farthings rate instead of the statutory penny rate. Clause 5 prevents the question, when once it has been settled by a vote, being re-opened for a year from the time that the poll was taken. Clause 7, which is, I think, one of some importance, enables Ecclesiastical, Parochial, and Charitable Bodies to convey their property, under proper restrictions, for purposes connected with Public Libraries. Clause 13 states that the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Ireland; and, as far as Scotland is concerned, the reason is a very good one—that Scotland has already a very good Public Libraries Act, which was passed in 1887, and from which, in fact, many of the provisions in this Bill are borrowed. With this short explanation I appeal with confidence to your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, and to allow it to pass in the shape in which it has come from the other House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª —(The Lord Houghton.)
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, this Bill appears to be a very desirable one, but there is one clause in it which was inserted at the very last moment when it passed the other House. I refer to Clause 8. I do not think the other House or the noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships intended that this clause should have the effect which it undoubtedly will have in regard to open spaces. By this clause any land which is left, we will say, as an open space for ever, for the benefit of the citizens of this Metropolis, or of any other large town, might be alienated from that purpose. It might be either given away or sold or exchanged for a Public Library; and I know one piece of ground in a very densely-populated part of London which, under this clause, might be built upon which would involve a very great loss to the people. It would be possible for the Trustees, if they liked, to sell that open space for the purpose of building upon it a Public Library. I do not imagine that the noble Lord desires that this Bill should have that
  672
  effect, and I therefore propose in Committee to move the addition to Clause 8 of the following words:—
  "Provided also that land held on trust to he possessed as an open space or on trusts which prohibit building thereon shall not be granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act."
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): My Lords, I think it will be hardly necessary for me to say anything upon this Bill. Though it is not a Government measure, yet it had the assent of the Government in the other House of Parliament and I do not suppose it will meet with much opposition in this House. It there should be any Amendment to be made, it can, of course, be made in Committee.
  LORD HOUGHTON: As far as I am concerned, I cannot conceive that there could be any objection to accepting the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord provided it does not go further than he has stated.
  On Question, agreed to,
  Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, perhaps you will allow me to say a very few words to explain what the object of it is. In Scotland, as your Lordships are probably aware, it is the practice for a great many persons both in regard to the occupation of houses and also in service to change their houses and their service at the respective terms 15th May and 11th November. But a practice has grown up in Scotland under which it has been customary for people to remove from their houses or to exchange their service not at the exact dates of these terms, but to be allowed a few days' longer before the actual removal from their houses or the transference of service takes place, the time being generally about a fortnight. It has been found that this time varies very much in the

  673
  counties and in the burghs, and the natural consequences has been that great inconvenience has been caused to those so removing, because sometimes they have to remove from one occupancy or service before they are entitled to enter upon another occupancy or service. To remedy this inconvenience an Act was passed in 1881 called the Removal Terms (Scotland) Burghs Act, which fixed the terms for removal as being the 28th of May and 28th of November respectively. But it was found afterwards that that Act, which referred only to burghs, did not do away with the inconvenience as regarded counties, and a subsequent Act was passed in 1886 which applied that Act to counties as well as to burghs, fixing the terms both as to counties and burghs as the 28th of May and the 28th of November. But that has not done away with the whole difficulty, because those two Acts did not refer to terms of service, and it has now been found that as the terms of service may vary from the usual terms of removal very great inconvenience, and in some cases even hardship, has followed from the present practice. The object of this Bill is to make the terms of removal of service; identical with those in respect of houses. I think your Lordships will see that it may sometimes happen, especially among agricultural servants, that a servant may be obliged to leave one service before he is entitled under the present Acts to take up another, and he may be without shelter for a few days. The whole object of the Bill is to make the terms of service in agreement with the two Acts of 1881 and 1886. I may tell your Lordships that this proposal has met, as far as I know, with universal acceptance in Scotland, where this state of things is prevalent. I have myself received many applications on the subject; and I am sure that, under the circumstances, your Lordships will see it is very desirable to get rid of what is, though perhaps, a small hardship, is one which it is extremely desirable should be remedied. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

  SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 185.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); further amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
BANKRUPTCY BILL—(No. 188.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill which comes from the House of Commons. As your Lordships know, this matter has attracted a good deal of attention in various quarters. In the House of Commons, both in Grand Committee and in the House itself, the Bill has been very fully discussed in all its stages. It has been before all the Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom, and it has been approved by them all. I hold in my hand a Petition from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, a body which I believe includes all the Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom except the London Chamber, praying your Lordships to pass the Bill during this Session, and I am informed that the London Chamber of Commerce is prepared to present a Petition to the same effect. Under these circumstances, I think the Bill comes before your Lordships with a strong claim to the favourable consideration of the House. It cannot be denied, and certainly I am not concerned to deny, that the Act of 1883 has worked fairly well, quite as well in almost every respect, and in some respects certainly better than any one of its numerous and short-lived predecessors. But the Act has now been in operation for six years and a half, and it is not surprising if, in the course of that period, many points have been discovered in which, at any rate, it is reasonable to think that the Act is susceptible of improvement. The Amendments which this Bill proposes are many and various. There are slips in the Act of 1883 which require to be corrected. Here and there in the construction of the Act there has been a view taken or a decision pronounced which is, I will not say erroneous, but which has certainly been unfortunate, and not, I should fancy, in accordance with the in-

  675
  tentions of the framers of the Act. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one instance by way of illustration. The Board of Trade has power to remove a Trustee for misconduct. That is a very useful and a very wholesome power, and, as far as I know, the Board of Trade have always exercised it with discretion and firmness. But I am told that this has happened: A man is Trustee of several estates; in one he is found to have misconducted himself, and the Board of Trade promptly remove him; but having done that, the Board of Trade, as I understand, are advised they can do no more, and that they cannot remove him from the Trusts of the other estates in which, it may be, he has not yet had an opportunity of misconducting himself or in which his misconduct has not yet been discovered. I cannot think that is satisfactory. I think it is almost scandalous that a man who has committed a breach of trust in regard to one estate should not be immediately removed from other similar Trusts which he holds. On that point I think your Lordships will have no difficulty in agreeing to the Amendment proposed. I only give that instance by way of illustration. There are many other Amendments which are important, no doubt, but yet which do not involve any question of principle. For instance, the Bill deals with the much-vexed question of proxies. It cannot, I think, be disputed that creditors who are unable to attend in person at meetings of creditors ought to be allowed to have an opportunity of expressing their opinions by proxy in as full and ample a manner as is consistent with the due and safe administration of the estate. On the other hand, there is nothing so mischievous as trafficking in proxies. There is nothing, according to my experience, which so much conduced to the discredit which attached to the Act of 1869 as the trafficking in proxies to which that Act gave rise. The consequence of that discredit was that with regard to proxies the Act of 1883 is very severe. Many people think it is unduly strict, and accordingly the Bill deals with that matter. Your Lordships will find there is a greater latitude allowed with regard to proxies, but yet there are restrictions which I should hope would prevent the recurrence of any such abuses as were
  676
  rife under the Act of 1869. Then, my Lords, there is another point. Your Lordships will find elaborate provisions are made with regard to compositions and arrangements, the object being to make the procedure in compositions and arrangements more expeditious and more in harmony with proceedings in bankruptcy under the Act of 1883. Those are all matters of detail or administration, and it would not be right that I should detain your Lordships now by dwelling upon them; but there are, as it seems to me, some matters which are matters of principle, and perhaps I may be allowed very shortly to refer to two or three of them before I sit down. The most important provision in this Bill, and the one which, it seems to me, will be the most far-reaching, and I should hope the most beneficial in its effect, is a provision with regard to the discharge of the bankrupt. Your Lordships may perhaps remember that, under the Act of 1869, it was made a condition of the bankrupt obtaining his discharge either that he had paid 10s. in the £1, or that the creditors—and I ask your Lordships to note that the power was by that Act given to the creditors—should pass a special Resolution stating that, in their opinion, the bankruptcy or the failure to pay 10s. in the £1 was due to circumstances for which the bankrupt was not justly responsible, and that they were desirous that the bankrupt should obtain his order of discharge. At first sight that seems a very reasonable provision, and, one would think, not specially open to abuse. But, unfortunately, there are creditors who care more for their pockets than for an abstract idea of commercial morality; and it was found that when the creditors had obtained all they could get in the bankruptcy, they were supremely indifferent as to what became of the bankrupt—whether he got his discharge or not. That led to various abuses. It led to bribery. Many a bankrupt obtained his discharge by means of bribery, and sometimes by fictitious votes, who, if the matter had rested with the Court or with an official body, such as the Board of Trade, would have been severely dealt with. The consequence of those abuses was that there is no similar provision to be found in the Act of 1883.

  677
  Under the Act of 1883 a bankrupt is in precisely the same position with regard to obtaining his discharge, other matters being equal, whether his estate pays a dividend of 6d. or 15s. in the £1. That, again, has led to abuses. A trader in a bankrupt condition, hoping against hope, goes on long after there is any possibility of retrieving his position, and the consequence is that, under the present Act, dividends are miserably small. On this point there is a very strong feeling among the commercial community. They think a man ought to know the state of his affairs, and they think he is bound to stop as soon as he finds it is impossible for him to retrieve his position. They think he is not justified in going on and wasting money, which, in reality and in truth, is not his own, but which belongs to his creditors, either in keeping up appearances or in a hopeless adventure. The Bill, therefore, proposes in this matter to return to the principle of the Act of 1869; but with this important difference: that the power which, in the Act of 1869, was rashly confided to the creditors is placed in the hands of the Court. Under this Bill the fact that a bankrupt estate has not paid 10s. in the £1 is one of the facts on proof of which the Court has power cither to refuse the discharge or to suspend the discharge, or to grant the discharge under certain conditions. I trust that that alteration, which is a very important one, will commend itself to your Lordships' judgment. Then there are two other provisions which, in some respects, certainly touch on a question of principle, to which I will very shortly refer. There is one which deals with so much of the debts provable in bankruptcy as consists of interest. That provision is directed against a class of persons who have very few friends. I do not think that even the Liberty and Property Defence League will take up the cudgels on their behalf. It is directed against the class of money-lenders. Money-lenders trade, of course, upon the necessities of mankind, and they protect themselves in this way: as regards the principal, they advance in cash as little as they can; and as regards interest, they demand a rate which is certainly liberal, if not exorbitant. Now, the Bill proposes to deal with that matter in this way: It proposes that, as regards debts provable
  678
  in a bankruptcy, so much as consists of interest should be calculated as between the creditors and in the administration of the estate at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent., leaving the money-lender as regards any balance to look to the estate after all the other creditors have been paid in full. I think, under all the circumstances, that is not an unjust provision. The only objection that one feels to it is that it seems rather like paying money-lenders in their own coin, in holding out to them the some what illusory hope that, after all, the bankrupt estate will prove to be solvent. There is just one other provision, and I mention it with some diffidence, because I have heard it said that this House will not fairly consider it—I do not in the least degree believe that—and that is the provision with regard to distress. Your Lordships will find the power of distress, which, under the Act of 1883, was available for the recovery of 12 months' arrears of rent,is, under this Bill, to be available for six months' arrears only. No doubt that is an important change, and some people think it an unwise one. But I am sure your Lordships will consider it fairly. Your Lordships will bear in mind that it only applies to cases of distress levied after the commencement of the bankruptcy. You will also remember that the Act of 1883, as originally introduced, proposed to do away with the right of distress altogether; and perhaps this is a case in which your Lordships may think it better, in view of the present current of legislation, to secure one-half instead of standing out for the whole. My Lords, with these observations I leave the Bill in your hands, and I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2ª (according to order).
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: With regard to the Committee to which the Bill should be referred, perhaps your Lordships may think it right that it should be referred to a Committee of the House. The time of year is getting very late, and there are only one or two matters of principle which must, as it seems to me, be decided by the House, and it would be no advantage to pass a preliminary judgment in one of the Standing Committees. I therefore move

  679
  that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
  Moved," That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: If my noble and learned Friend will tell me that he has considered all the details of the Bill so as to be able to vouch for it, then I should not oppose the Motion; but, judging from other measures which we have had before us, although they have come up after consideration by the other House, they have not been without the necessity of careful revision.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I think this Bill stands in rather a different position. I may say that 'I have gone carefully through it, and I think it is one which your Lordships might deal with in Committee of the whole House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I hope the House will think twice before it makes so great a breach in its custom of referring such Bills to a Committee. Of course, we all place the greatest possible confidence in the assurance of the noble and learned Lord, but if it is to be a rule that simply upon the assertion or upon an assurance on the part of a noble Earl who brings in a Bill that it is of no use for the Bill to go to a Standing Committee, then I think the use and value of Standing Committees will be greatly diminished.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I need not say that I was not in the least claiming anything of the sort for myself. It was only in consequence of the late period of the Session that I ventured to suggest it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have still got a good three weeks, I think.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would only point out that this Bill involves important questions upon the Bankruptcy Law, and I think if a Bill dealing with somewhat delicate and difficult subjects of that nature is not to go to a Standing Committee it would be very difficult to say what Bills ought to be so referred.
  LORD BRABOURNE: In regard to referring the Bill to a Committee I think this is one of the instances in which a
  680
  very important Bill would be practically withdrawn from the cognisance of the House by being referred to one or other of the Committees. This practice, I think, is really becoming exceedingly unpleasant. We never know to which Committee a Bill is going to be referred; and if such a Bill as this, at the present period of the Session, is to be referred to a Select Committee, the practical effect will be that it will not receive the consideration of the House, and I do not think really that a Bill of so much importance ought to be withdrawn from your Lordships' cognisance.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot at all agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. The House is just as much cognisant of the details of the Bill after it has gone, and in spite of its having gone, to Committee, as before. And, more than that, I will venture to say that I can prove that Bills after they have gone through Committee, have been more discussed in this House than, according to former precedent, they would ever have been before.
  LORD BRABOURNE: What I meant was that they are withdrawn from the cognisance of the public by being withdrawn from the consideration of the House. They have not the public eye upon them, as they would have if discussed before the Committee of the House.
  EARL BRAUCHAMP: I must say, in a matter like this, affecting the interests of the great commercial community throughout the country, that a Bill of such importance should not be referred to a hole-and-corner Committee upstairs. It is very important indeed that the public should know not only what is actually done by this House, but also the grounds of our decision; and though our Debates may not be as fully and perfectly reported in the public journals as we may desire, I would point out to your Lordships that there is still a complete record of our Debates in the imperishable pages of Hansard. There, at least, a Report of whatever may have been said in this House will be found. Small Bills, like the Public Libraries Act, may, no doubt, be very properly and effectually discussed in Committee, but when we are dealing with great interests affecting the whole commercial community, I

  681
  think it is very desirable that the deliberations upon them should not be withdrawn from the cognisance of the public, as they certainly are when such deliberations take place in a small Committee upstairs, and not in full Committee of this House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would point out to the noble Lord that this "hole-and-corner" system, as he describes it, was adopted by the other House in reference to this very Bill, and I apprehend that there must be there at least as many Members as in this House who have regard to the commercial interests of the country. I think, therefore, we shall be at least pursuing a course which has a very good precedent in what has been done elsewhere.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very glad to find that the noble Lord is so fond of precedent.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I propose, then, that the Bill should be referred to Committee of the Whole House.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to move, as an Amendment, that it be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the words ("a Committee of the Whole House") and insert ("the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
  The House divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 46.
  Resolved in the negative. Bill committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, accordingly.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMEND. MENT ACT (1802) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 213.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment), read and discharged.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 215.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clause 3.
  A verbal Amendment made.
  Clause 5.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There was one point with regard to Clause 5 to which I had desired to call the attention of my noble and learned Friend; but it is too late now, I think, before the final stage of the Bill is reached. This is an Act to amend the Judicature Act of England, and I am unable to see what possible benefit can be gained by applying it to Scotland or Ireland.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is to amend the Supreme Courts of Judicature Acts. There is nothing in the body of it confining the Bill to England, and it might be held to apply to Ireland but for those words.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It certainly could not be held to apply to Scotland.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Perhaps if you say Scotland you say Ireland too.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause I now propose to move, if my noble and learned Friend has no objection, is with regard to the question which was raised the other night with reference to another Bill concerning costs being granted under the Judicature Act; but it appears to me this is not a fitting opportunity to settle any doubt upon that point, and I will, therefore, not move it if my noble and learned Friend will allow a little time for considering it. What I propose is that, subject to the rules of the Judicature Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings in the Supreme Court, including the administration of estates and trusts, shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge, and that the Court or Judge shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent such costs shall be paid.
  LORD HERSCHELL: If my noble and learned Friend will allow me, I should like to see that in print before I say anything with regard to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By all means; then, I will move it now.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 4, to insert as new clause—
  "Subject to the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, and the rules of court made thereunder,

  683
  and to the express provisions of any Statute, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings in the Supreme Court, including the administration of estates and trusts, shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent such costs are to be paid."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Agreed to.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 183.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3ª to-morrow.

  SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL. (No. 218.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, upon this Motion I desire to say a word or two with regard to what took place when this Bill was in Committee. I am not going at all to revert to the subject which was then discussed, namely, the question of adding another person whose concurrence shall be necessary before the regulations which shall be made by the County Councils with regard to the reception and accommodation of the Judges are sanctioned. It is merely with reference to the operation of that clause that I desire to say a few words. It seems to me that its effect has not really received sufficient consideration. I do not propose to move the Amendment now, but what I would venture to throw out for your Lordships' consideration is that it would be really much better that the rules referring to these matters should be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department than that they should be made by the County Councils, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. I will point out in a moment my reasons for saying so. The proposal in the Bill might obviously in particular cases lead to a deadlock of a very disagreeable character, and one which, I think, would not tend to the dignity of the Judges in the administration of justice, or to the advantage of the country. The Bill proposes that these rules for the reception of the Judges
  684
  and their accommodation should be made by the County Councils; but the rules would be absolutely ineffectual unless the Lord Chancellor concurred in them. No doubt that was put in as a safeguard in order to secure that arrangements which would be suitable in the administration of justice on circuit should be made, or, at all events, that no others should be made. But let me ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what would happen. Supposing County Councils made rules which the Lord Chancellor did not think fit to concur in; he would refuse to sanction them, and the consequence would be that in that particular county there would be no rules at all. Matters then would, I presume, go on as at present, and the Judge would be left to determine upon the mode of conducting the arrangements as between himself and the Sheriff. He would still have the power which he has now of enforcing his views, and the Sheriff would have to submit to them. Therefore, the result of the Lord Chancellor not concurring in the regulations proposed by the County Councils, would be that things would be brought to a deadlock and the Sheriff would be left under his present liabilities. I cannot help thinking that, in a case where the Lord Chancellor did not concur, disputes would be engendered between the Lord Chancellor and the County Councils, and that the kind of discussion which would take place as to what was sufficient accommodation for the Judges, or what sort of lodgings would do for them, or what other provisions should be made for their reception, would not be likely to be of a very edifying character, or be calculated to be of much advantage in the administration of justice. It seems to me it puts the Lord Chancellor in a very undesirable position, because there would be a possibility of his being thus brought into collision, or into something like conflict, with any of the various County Councils, because each one of them has to form its own regulations, and to carry out its own conception of what is proper accommodation and a proper mode of receiving the Judges. It seems to me, having regard to the fact that the administration of justice is a matter of general concern for the whole community, although the administration of

  685
  justice may be carried out by the Judges going to each county, that the country at large is interested in the proper administration of justice and in ensuring that everywhere proper rules shall be carried out relating to the accommodation and reception of the Judges. But there is this further reason; if the whole of these expenses fall upon the county then I quite understand the feelings that the County Council ought absolutely to determine what the extent of those expenses should be. But many of these expenses do not fall entirely on the county. That part of them which relates to the accommodation of the Judges falls almost exclusively on the Treasury, and in many counties exclusively. I do not understand that my noble Friend who introduces this Bill intends that the County Councils should pay any expenses which they do not at present pay. The provision is that the regulations should be made by the County Councils, and that, of course, relates to the accommodation of the Judges. I have looked at the evidence which was given before the Committee, and it comes to this, that in many counties a very large portion of the money is found by the county for the accommodation of the Judges. The view is that they should find that money, and the only question is as to the amount to be found. Then, as regards the other expenses. When a third Assize is necessitated the Sheriff assisted in bearing the expense of that Assize. The Sheriff largely contributed to the expense of that third Assize. That, of course, would continue. Therefore, as regards the third Assize the money will be found largely by the Treasury, while the County Council is given expressly jurisdiction over the rules relating to the expenditure of that money. Of course, I am not suggesting that in every case, or in many cases, you would be likely to have these questions arising as to how the Judges should be received, or what accommodation is sufficient for them. But I can conceive County Councils existing in the future, though not, perhaps, at the present day, where there might be discussion of a very undesirable kind regarding the administration of justice, arising out of circumstances which might have taken place owing to the manner in which justice had been administered.
  686
  Now, that seems to me to be a result which it is very desirable to avoid. But, my Lords, I have this further reason, that in the view which may be adopted hereafter, when this matter is more thoroughly dealt with, I apprehend the counties will not have to bear any part of this expense. There are counties now which I believe bear practically none of these expenses. An arrangement is made with the Under - Sheriff, by which the fees that are raised are taken by him, and ho bears the necessary expense of the shrievalty, so that in those cases no burden would fall on the county; and I know that is the case in a very largo county which I have in my mind. At the same time you would relieve the counties of matters of Imperial interest where the burden should not fall upon them. Of course, that state of things is not brought about by this Bill, but I hope that will ultimately be the case everywhere. It is very undesirable to bring the County Councils into a matter of this description, and for them to make the rules now, when, if you have, say next year, a complete measure dealing with this matter, they will be parties really not interested in making the rules at all, because they will not have to bear the burden of the expense. I would submit under those circumstances, whether, if this be a temporary measure it would not be better to leave the determination of these matters to the Home Secretary, in which case you could not have any of these difficulties and differences of opinion, probably resulting in a deadlock, which you might have if these proposals were carried out. I do not think it is conceivable that any injustice would in that way be done to anybody, and I think that it would be better for the matter to be carried out uniformly over the whole country, than that each County Council should act according to its own ideas in reference to the rules under which the administration of justice shall be carried out.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the proposal of my noble Friend, as shadowed out by him, is rather a large one to make at this stage of the Bill, and until we see the Amendment drawn out in terms, I should prefer to reserve such remarks as I may have to make to

  687
  it. But there are one or two things which I should like to say to your Lordships which strike me at this moment. In the first place, this question of substituting the Home Secretary for the County Councils and the Lord Chancellor had not escaped my attention, in the first instance, and I have taken steps to try to ascertain whether such an arrangement was likely to be approved of. I am bound to say I did not find that that arrangement was likely to meet with approval in certain influential quarters. But, leaving that point, there is another one which I think the noble and learned Lord has almost entirely passed over, and that is that the County Councils will have to find the money. The noble and learned Lord says the County Councils will not have to find the money, because ultimately the Under Sheriffs will become the officials of the County Councils, the fees which are received by the Under Sheriffs will go to the County Councils, and the County Councils will bo able to make such arrangements as to make the sum which is received in fees recoup them for all the expenses which have been incurred in respect of the duties of the High Sheriff. That may, or may not, be the case; we do not know how that will be until it is proved; but, at all events, even if it happens, as the noble and learned Lord supposes, that the County Councils will have the control of the Under Sheriffs, the Under Sheriffs will be the officers of the County Councils, and the money will therefore pass through the hands of the County Councils. So that, to that extent at all events, the County Councils will have to find the money. Now, with regard to the Judges' lodgings, I must remind your Lordships that the Judges' lodgings is only one of the matters concerned, and that the other point, the protection of the Judges, was left unnoticed altogether. But is it true, as a matter of fact, that the Treasury do find the money at present, and are they prepared to find it in the future? I know that in certain cases the Treasury do find a very substantial part of the money, if not the whole of it; but there are a great many other cases in which they do not, and I think the Treasury would be very reluctant to take upon themselves any additional burden. Of course, if the Trea-
  688
  sury will come forward and say that they will take upon themselves the whole expense of lodging the Judges, and if they are also prepared to take upon themselves the whole expense of protecting them and managing the business of the Assizes, then I quite admit the argument is a very good one, and that we may hand over the making of these regulations to the Home Secretary, or to any other official whom the House may choose. But we have to deal with the state of things which at present exists, and here I must point out that the High Sheriffs' expenses are not limited to finding accommodation and lodgings for the Judges, but that the High Sheriff has also to find the javelin men, or else to arrange for the attendance of police who are to protect the Judge. Those police are to be paid for by the county; and when it is also proposed by this Bill to throw upon the county any other expenses of that kind which may be incurred, I think the county will be very reluctant to say that they are prepared to pay whatever expenses the Home Secretary may choose to throw upon them. The reason why the Bill at present proposes to enable the County Councils to make these regulations is because it expects the County Councils to pay, and I do not know why we should not trust the County Councils in the matter. I apprehend the whole principle of our local legislation is to trust the County Councils as far as we can in these matters. Of course, it is possible there may be certain cases where the regulations made by County Councils may not be approved. The Lord Chancellor may not approve of the regulations which are made by the County Councils. If such case occurred, what would happen? Why, you will have to fall back upon the present practice, and if the present practice would be discreditable then it is discreditable now, and it is the more discreditable because it is universal. That is the reason why this Bill is introduced My Lords, I shall not offer any further remarks until I see the Amendment, but I think, at the same time, it is a very large Amendment to make at this stage of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl has not quite sufficiently answered the ob-

  689
  jection which has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell.) He says you will revert to the old practice if the Lord Chancellor and the County Councils disagree. I do not find that in the Bill, and I very much doubt whether that is a true construction. It seems to me things would then come to a deadlock, and I do not find any provision as to what is to be done in that event. I can only say that I cannot find it in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPBEDOWN: If I may be allowed to give an answer, I think what would happen would be this: If a deadlock arose the Judge would settle the matter with the High Sheriff by telling him if he did not do so-and-so, he, the Judge, would fine him, just the same as at present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I very much doubt whether that is the true construction of the Bill. It seems to me to deprive the Judge altogether of any such power as he now possesses. Of course, I do not acquiesce that he does possess any. As the Bill is framed, it seems to me to leave the particular cases pointed out by my noble and learned Friend unprovided for. I point that out to the noble Earl, because, if that is so, and that is my present impression, he will probably think it right to meet that in the event of the Bill going further. I can. only say for myself that so long as I keep my present office I shall be heartily grateful to anybody who will transfer this function to any other member of the Government. I do not feel at all anxious to exercise the jurisdiction which this Bill puts upon me, and I am not quite certain that arrangements might not be made by the Home Secretary with the County Councils which probably would satisfy everybody. I will take this opportunity of referring to the statement of the noble Earl who spoke the other night of a Judge threatening a High Sheriff for not wearing a particular coat, and I said I had no knowledge of such an occurrence; but I must mention that I have received a letter from a gentleman who says that he remembers the circumstance well, and he goes on to give the name of the persons concerned in the incident. This only shows how such things can be exaggerated. I do
  690
  not name the persons to the transaction, because some of the actors in it are alive, and it might give pain to do so. It was a matter which occurred long ago, and so far from its having any relation to the dress worn by the High Sheriff, the fact is that the High Sheriff had been guilty of the greatest possible impropriety and defiance of the Queen's Representative, and it was for that that he was fined £500. It had no more relation to Court dress, or to the coat the High Sheriff was dressed in at the time, than it has to do with this Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is just one point to which I would refer with regard to the compulsion upon the County Councils to pay. I apprehend as the Bill stands, whether they make regulations or not the construction which has been put upon the Bill is correct, that they will have to pay. It would be a considerable punishment to them that they would still have to pay all the expenses; but I really do not think we need be so very distrustful of these County Councils. We have constituted them, and our whole wish is to make them useful and responsible bodies. In most of the counties they consist of persons of considerable position in the county, and they are the principal body now in the county itself. I cannot think, therefore, that it is at all necessary we should show the distrust of them which is apparently shown by my noble Friend behind me. I have no doubt they will feel, as we all feel, that the dignity of the Judges should be consulted, and that everything which is proper to be done for the purpose of showing respect for whatever is connected with the administration of justice will be done. If it should happen, unfortunately, that any County Councils should fail in their duty, it may probably be necessary to deal with them in another way; but I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend behind me, that if the regulations are to be imposed upon the County Councils by an authority from without, then it is only reasonable that the Treasury, that is to say the Secretary of State, should act in the matter, and I do not suppose my noble and learned Friend would make any great objection to that arrangement.
  Bill to be read 3ª on Monday next.

  BIRSTALL WESLEYAN CHAPEL TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.— (No. 204.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a"to-morrow.
ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, the object of this Bill is so to re-construct and re-organise the roads and tracks in the neighbourhood of Pirbright and Bisley Common that a sufficient track may be found for rifle practice with the long range rifles without any undue danger to the public. The Bill has passed through the other House, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I propose that the Bill should bo referred to a Committee of the whole House.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee for General Bills the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath) for the consideration of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875) Amendment Bill, and the Lord Watson and the Lord Macnaghten for the consideration of the Marriages in British Embassies, &c. Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 188.)
  Petition in favour of; of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom; read, and referred to the Standing Committee for Law, &c.
PENAL SERVITUDE.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON: In rising to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill next Session on the subject of the length of terms of penal servitude, said: This is a repetition of the question which I put to the Lord Chancellor
  692
  at the end of last Session, and I need not repeat the reasons for the question, which I gave at full length then. The answer that I got from the noble and learned Lord was, that he was aware that the subject was under the notice of the Home Secretary, but that it had not been considered by the Government. I understand now that a Bill is ready drafted, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell your Lordships that it has been approved. What I want to know is, now that the commencement of the next Session is so very near, if the noble and learned Lord can tell us whether the Government have made up their minds to introduce this Bill early next Session. I can only say it is a far more important Bill than it seems from the size of the Bill, the proposition being simply to restore among the terms of penal servitude a minimum term of three years which was omitted in the Act of 1879. In a very interesting little pamphlet, published by Sir Edmund Du Cane, in 1885, he pointed out two things: first, that a very great mistake was made by Parliament in 1854, when penal servitude was substituted for the exhausted and no longer practicable punishment of transportation. I served upon the Committees which considered this subject myself, and I protested then, as Sir Edmund Du Cane says, against the mistake of assigning periods of penal servitude in proportion to the previous terms of transportation, which was a punishment, as your Lordships know, of no similitude whatever to the substituted punishment of penal servitude. It was also a mistake, that not only were the maximum terms a great deal too long, but by the omission of the minimum term, the term which comes between the maximum term of imprisonment and the minimum term of penal servitude in the Act of 1879, there is a want of sequence in the scale of punishments which is very detrimental to their efficacy. As Sir Edmund Du Cane puts it, the two punishments of imprisonment and penal servitude are absolutely similar. They are, indeed, only two kinds of the same category of punishment, the latter being the longer and ending in service on public works. But the two ingradations would make a complete scale of

  693
  punishments. The longer terms of penal servitude had lost much of their deterrent effect by their length, which is the principal object of all punishment; but this minimum term which has been omitted would be found to be most useful, and, by its omission, leaves a gap in the centre of the scale, and I am perfectly convinced myself that the simple restoration of that minimum term of three years, which is the whole object of the Bill which I understand the Home Secretary has ready drafted for introduction, would make the punishment of imprisonment a much more useful weapon in the bands of the Judges and Magistrates of this country. They ask for that restoration, and I believe we should not have the number of re-committals to prison, which is a painful subject of comment by all visitors of prisons at this moment. It is at this moment, I believe, the only thing which arrests the steady decrease of crime in this country which has been brought about by our improved system of education, Reformatories, and Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies. I therefore hope the Government will be able to assure your Lordships that they intend to introduce a Bill for that purpose early next Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I am unable to give my noble Friend anything very satisfactory, because what I was about to state he appears already to know, that is to say, that [the Bill he mentions has been drafted, and has been approved of. It contains in it the clauses to which he refers, that is to say clauses for the introduction of a minimum term of penal servitude of three years. With regard to the other point which he asks about, I am unable to give him any information as to the time when Her Majesty's Government will introduce the Bill, as its introduction will depend on the state of public business.

MARRIAGES IN MALTA.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government—(1) Whether any regulations now proposed to be made, under an ordinance to be submitted to the Council of Government in Malta, to regulate the civil effects of marriages celebrated
  694
  heretofore, or which will in future be celebrated in that island, will in any way invalidate, or cast any doubt upon the validity of, any mixed marriages heretofore celebrated in bond fide with the sanction of the constituted authorities of the island; (2) on what ground of law it is proposed to be declared that any marriages so celebrated will be invalid in the future, said: My Lords, the questions of which I have given notice, and which are upon the Paper, arise out of certain statements which appear in the Correspondence connected with Sir Lintorn Simmons's Special Mission to the Vatican with regard to religious questions in the Island of Malta, and I must say that the statements as they stand have given rise to a great deal of disquietude. I need scarcely assure your Lordships that I shall not introduce any religious exasperation into the discussion of questions like these, although they are very important from a religious point of view. I shall import no odium theologicum into the question, but I will just read, in the first instance, two paragraphs from a letter of Sir Lintorn Simmons to Cardinal Rampolla, and when I have done so I think you will agree with me that it was not wonderful that they have occasioned disquietude. The first paragraph is this—
  "The undersigned (that is, Sir L. Simmons), hag to inform your Eminence that Her Britannic Majesty's Government will cause a project of law to be introduced in the Council of Government of Malta in accordance with its declarations."
  The first declaration—being a declaration of the Pope, having for its object to regulate the civil effects of marriages celebrated heretofore, or which will in future be celebrated—is this—
  "That marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both contracting parties be Catholics, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, valid if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent."
  And a second declaration of His Holiness was—
  "That persons professing any other religion may validly celebrate their marriage without the necessity of going through the form established by the Council of Trent."
  Well, a vast amount of, I do not hesitate to say, 'alarm and anxiety has been

  695
  created by the statement that what are called mixed marriages between Roman Catholics and persons of other religions are not at the present moment, and shall not be in future, valid unless they are celebrated according to the regulations of the Council of Trent. There have been a very great number of marriages during the. last 90 years, since we first entered upon the occupation of the island, which have not been celebrated in that manner, and, therefore, the Pope's declaration goes to show that all those marriages are invalid, that all marriages so celebrated will, in future, be invalid. That declaration affects all ranks of persons in our own Church, as well as Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, in great numbers, who have been married upon the faith of a licence from the Bishop of Gibraltar, or upon licence issued by the Governor of Malta. All those marriages, according to this declaration, are at the present moment invalid, and it is declared that no valid marriage can be celebrated in future except in the particular manner described. Of course, also a great deal of property, a great deal of character, and a great deal of position, depends upon this declaration. The British Government intend, as we were informed by a letter which appeared in the Press, by direction of the noble Marquess, on the 18th of this month, to remove the doubts which have arisen by legislation in cases in which neither party is a Roman Catholic. It is desirable to remove those doubts by legislation, and in order to secure that legislation it has been found necessary to consult the Vatican. Well, there is no doubt as to what the answer from the Vatican is. Of course, marriages in which neither of the parties is a Roman Catholic will be considered from this time as valid. But the question of mixed marriages remains. That is a very serious question, and in Malta a very large one, if the Pope's declaration is to be our law. Very serious civil effects will be created by the declaration that they are not valid unless celebrated according to the decrees of the Council of Trent, which require that where either party is a Roman Catholic the marriage shall be celebrated before a Roman Catholic priest, and the custom has grown up in modern times of a refusal on the part of
  696
  Roman Catholic priests to celebrate such marriages at all unless there is a promise that the children shall be brought up as Roman Catholics. That is the first point. There is another promise, though of less importance, that the marriage shall not be celebrated again by a minister of any other religious body. The action to be taken of declaring Protestant marriages, as we speak of them, to be valid in future, would seem to make those mixed marriages which have not been celebrated with Roman Catholic rites more doubtful than they can be regarded as being at present, and would make them impossible in future. It would certainly leave a wretched inheritance. There is no question whatever as to the force of the language. It speaks of marriages which have been celebrated "heretofore," and the state of matters which I have described will greatly curtail the liberty of English people in the future. We contend that such marriages are valid already, and that they do not want validity at all. We do not admit that they want to be made valid. The whole view of those who desire to introduce this legislation, that is to say, to adopt the declaration of the Pope (those persons not being, of course, our own Government, except as a matter of necessity or policy), is that these marriages are now legally invalid, and to be treated as invalid in future. But that most serious issue rests upon a single assertion. That single assertion is this, that the Canon Law is in Malta the Civil Law in respect of marriage. It is asserted that the Civil Law in Malta is, and always has been, as regards marriage, the Canon Law of the Roman Church. That is stated by Sir Lintorn Simmons perfectly distinctly in a Memorandum with which he himself, upon the advice of the Law Officers in Malta, furnished the Court of the Vatican. He says—
  "The law of Malta in regard to the forms neceesary to the validity of a marriage even as to the contract is the Canon Law, and in that respect the Canon Law is also the Civil Law of Malta"
  Now, my Lords, what does that mean? Does it not present itself as a very singular thing, in the first instance, that Canon Law should be the Law in Malta as regards the marriages of all persons? I need not refer to the fact

  697
  that the Canon Law rules as regards ecclesiastical benefices, advowsons, and matters of that kind. Of course, it does. But we are told that a single fragment of the Canon Law exists in Malta for all persons for this one purpose. My own idea is that neither this nor any other part of the Canon Law has been the Civil Law in Malta. I should like, parenthetically, to insert a single consideration here, namely, that it is not the Canon Law which is named in the Declaration of the Pope, but the decrees of the Council of Trent. Now I wish to observe, in passing, that it is admitted on all hands that the decrees of the Council of Trent are not ipso facto part of the Canon Law; they only become part of the Canon Law if there is some special law or Order of State by which they are inserted, importing the provisions of the Council of Trent into the Canon Law. That is a matter on which I do not wish to speak further now, and I pass it by for the present, because the point now rests upon the assertion that the Canon Law is the Civil Law of Malta. But how is it shown that the Canon Law is the law of Malta? We have had lately a Report from the Crown Advocate of Malta on this subject which the Right Hon. Mr. W. H. Smith read the other evening in another place, and with your Lordships' permission I will quote it. In his answer to a question put to him on the subject the Right Hon. Mr. W. H. Smith said—
  "The Grown Advocate at Malta has reported that the matters which in Malta are governed by the Canon Law are marriages, ecclesiastical benefices and advowsons. The Canon Law of these matters was introduced into these islands by usage long before the British occupation, and has remained in force to the present day."
  Now, I particularly call your Lordships' attention to what immediately follows in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. "This is the whole of the Report."
  There are no grounds of law alleged at all upon which that is laid down. The whole of the statement is that—
  "The Canon Law on these matters was introduced into the island by usage long before the British occupation and has so remained."
  But, my Lords, usage is never quoted in matters of this kind, and things have never been settled upon usage when there is an enactment to be produced, and clearly there is no enactment to be
  698
  produced in that sense. But, on the other hand, we have an enactment to produce on our side. There was an enactment made in the contrary sense, and I say the onus rests upon the Crown Advocate and other Law Officers of Malta to show us when and how the enactment was superseded, which I shall lay before your Lordships, and that it is not sufficient merely to make a statement of that kind. I will take, then, this as the text, that the existing law as regards marriages is the Canon Law, and that that was the usage in the island before the time of the British occupation. Now, it is mere matter of history that the law under which the island was governed at the time of the British occupation was a very distinct Code, called the Code Rohan. Rohan as your Lordships know, was Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, and by the year 1782 the Code Rohan was fully established. A provision in the Code Rohan orders that—
  "If a marriage shall have been contracted between a foreigner and a Maltese woman, or between a Maltese man and a foreign woman, in default of written compacts and agreements, it shall be considered as having been contracted in accordance with the practice and usage of the country."
  That is to say, unless there is some written contract or compact, or agreement to the contrary, a marriage contracted (it does not say how, there are no limitations) shall be considered to have been celebrated according to the practice and usage of the country. Therefore, of course, in the supposed case, it was not contracted according to the decrees of the Council of Trent, since an article in the Code Rohan has to state that it was to be considered as if it had been contracted in that way. So that under the Knights of Malta the Code Rohan was in force containing a provision to the contrary of what was said to be the provision of the Canon Law; and it had been so for a long time before that, because there is a book called Appeals from Malta, published in 1811, where it is pointed out that the Code Rohan (I should tell your Lordships that these appeals are put forward by the nobility, gentry, and people of Malta to the English people') differs very little from the Code which was in existence in the year 1721. Then came the occupation by the French Republic, and it is quite certain that the French did not introduce the Canon

  699
  Law. But we find in the history of Malta that one of the chief objections of the Maltese people to the dominion of the French arose from the feeling on the part of
  "The clergy, who not only saw themselves despoiled of their resources, but withdrawn from the influence of the Court of Rome."
  It is very clear, therefore, that the island had a distinct Code, and that in that Code there was an article which touched the question of mixed marriages, and ratified them, without providing that the supposed foreigner must he a Roman Catholic. Then, in the next place, I suppose, it will not he contended that the English introduced the Canon Law. In the year 1811 was published this book of Appeals of the Nobility, Gentry, and People of Malta to the consideration of the British Government, and there we read a complaint on this very account that the British Government had adopted and recognised this very Code Rohan. It is stated there that the Code of Rohan and the Decrees of Hornpesch, who succeeded Rohan, were in force. Those were the only rules of justice and the lex scripta actually in force; and this book is actually a tirade against the British Government for governing-the country still under the Code Rohan. I have seen the terms of the Proclamation of 1801 quoted on the other side. That declares that
  "The King's Majesty of England will protect your country, your holy religion, your persons, and your property."
  It is a promise to protect their country, religion, and rights, and not to introduce the Canon Law. That it was in force is refuted by the bold tirade against our Government which runs through this book of 1811, complaining that the Code Rohan has been adopted by the English. Throughout the whole book there is not the slightest mention made of, or request for, the Canon Law. I pass over a number of other passages, as I do not wish to weary your Lordships. But we have abundant proof there, that the Canon Law was not recognised as the law. Then there is a well-known book, or materials for a book, on the history of Malta, published in 1811, which gives us the condition of Maltese law. It states—
  "In the present practice of Malta, whenever difficulties arise, not only precedents are sought
  700
  for of cases formerly decided in the Island, but the Roman Law and the decisions of the Italian Doctors are referred to."
  Then came the Proclamation of the year 1813, which is in its terms very like the Proclamation issued in the year 1801. I need not detain your Lordships with that. But let us see if any of the learned persons who have investigated the question on the spot have ever found, or even heard, that the Canon Law was the Civil Law in Malta. There is not a trace of it. Take the Report of Mr. Austin and Sir George Cornewall Lewis in 1839. That bears out all that we have seen already. This was an inquiry into the law of Malta, and it says—
  "The law of Malta is mainly derived mediately or immediately from the Roman Law; its technical language for the most part is the language of the Roman Law, and it is the boast of the people that they have the Roman Law."
  Again, Sir George Cornewall Lewis and Mr. Austin say—
  "Most of the Maltese Law is derived directly from the Roman Law; and there have been new principles introduced into the Roman Law from the Law of England,"
  but not from the Canon Law. They say that many of the principles of the law of England have been introduced into it. There is not a mention of the Canon Law having any part in determining the destinies or affecting the property or persons of the people of Malta. Then, again, it is stated that
  "The members of other Churches; that is, other than the Roman Catholic Church, have complete protection in their public worship."
  I apprehend that would not have been the case if a member of any Protestant denomination was obliged as a solemn act to be married only before a Roman Catholic priest; so that if he is not married before a Roman priest, he is to lose his civil rights as a married man, and that his children shall lose their rights; or if he had been bound, upon the celebration of his marriage by a Roman priest, to make a promise as to the bringing up of his children, and also that he would not go into his own church to be married by licence of his own Bishop in accordance with the rites of his own Church. There is no indication of anything in the least like that; and the Article of the Code Rohan was established as the law of the island on this point. But, besides that,

  701
  we have had a perfectly continuous current of authority upon the matter from time to time. We have had the interpretation of 90 years. During the whole of those 90 years licences have been granted by the English clergy, and Civil Authorities in the island, whether the Bishop or Governor; marriages have been celebrated by our clergy, and by the ministers of other denominations there, and the certificates of those marriages have been, I am assured, received in Probate and Divorce proceedings, both in our own country and in the Courts of Malta, as establishing the validity of such marriages. My contention is, that the marriages are valid; and I say the last thing we want is that they should be now made valid by an enactment. My Lords, it would introduce a state of things in which, by our own law, every child of a mixed marriage in Malta would have to be brought up to be a Roman Catholic. There is no such state of things anywhere else in our dominions. We have other places quite as Roman Catholic as Malta—Quebec and the Mauritius, for example—and in both of those places people can be married by their own rites, and mixed marriages can be carried out without any difficulty. Such is, and should be, the case in Malta. The Canon Law is not the Civil Law of Malta, and to make it such would be to introduce the decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time as the Law of Marriage in the island. The Canon Law has had its power over all Catholic countries at one time or another; but what I particularly contend is that all I have said shows that in Malta, in regard to this particular point, it long ago came to an end there as elsewhere. It is not oar marriages that need vindication, but so strange an assertion as that in this day in respect of civil marriages—the Canon Law is the law of Malta. This would fix the yoke of the Canon Law and the Decrees of the Council of Trent together upon marriage for the first time. As I have said, the Decrees of the Council of Trent did not, and do not, become part of the Canon Law or Civil Law in any country unless by special intervention of the State. My Lords, there is a very strong feeling on this matter both among Nonconformists and Church
  702
  people. This very week the great Wesleyan Conference is debating this matter, and I would urge that law and justice should be done in this matter. We desire to be fair and just to Roman Catholics, and to recognise the rights of Roman Catholics, but justice to Roman Catholics in this case does not certainly involve or require the sacrifice of the rights or the violation of the consciences of our own people. I am convinced that the desire of the Government is to be just on all sides, but it would not be acting justly to our own people that these arrangements of Sir Lintorn Simmons should verbatim et literatim be carried out. I have very little doubt that the Government will be able to give an answer that will allay the great disquietude that exists on this matter—an uneasiness that is increasing from day to day; and, in these circumstances, I have thought it right to ask the Government whether they intend to do anything which will cast doubt upon the mixed marriages which have hitherto been considered valid when celebrated bond fide under the authorities of the island, and also on what ground of law it is proposed to declare that marriages so celebrated will be invalid in the future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, in reply to the most rev. Prelate, I have to state that the ordinance which has been referred to in his question has only been sent over in draft for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It does not in itself invalidate any marriages which have been heretofore celebrated. It is proposed in the Ordinance to validate marriages as to the validity of which doubts have been entertained. Those doubts have not been, and are not, created by the ordinance itself, but they have existed for many years. In the year 1865 the question was raised and laid before the Law Officer of Malta, and before the Law Officers of this country, and, after full consideration of all those opinions, Mr. Cardwell, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, advised that the doubts should be removed, and that validity should be given to marriages contracted by formalities which the parties themselves believed to be binding. He suggested that for this purpose a local ordinance should be passed under the powers given to the

  703
  Local Legislature to pass Acts validating past marriages. Such powers were given by the Imperial Act 28 & 29 Vict., cap 64. It does not appear, however, that anything was done at that time. There is no question as to the validity of mixed marriages celebrated in Malta by Roman Catholic priests, but doubts have arisen as to the validity of mixed marriages which have not been celebrated before a Roman Catholic priest. The highest Legal Authorities in Malta, including the present Chief Justice and the present Crown Advocate, have all advised us that marriages in Malta are governed by the Canon Law, of which the Decrees of Trent form an integral part. My answer, therefore, to a great part of the most rev. Prelate's argument is that the Law Officers have advised that the Canon Law is the law of Malta, and that the Decrees of the Council of Trent are part of that law. It may be contended that the Decrees of the Council of Trent have no force in the island unless it is proved that the Council was duly promulgated; but the Legal Authorities in Malta have advised that it was duly promulgated there; that it was accepted by the Civil Authorities; and that it has ever since continued to be the Civil Law of the island. Upon this assumption, the same Legal Authorities have advised that the celebration of mixed marriages before a Roman Catholic priest has always been deemed indispensable in order to give validity to such marriages. I understand now, from the argument which has been brought forward by the most rev. Prelate, that he disputes the opinion which is held by these Maltese Legal Authorities —namely, that marriages in Malta are governed by the Canon Law. It would, of course, be quite out of place now for me to argue in defence of the opinion which has been formed by the highest Legal Authorities in Malta, but I should like to refer very briefly to one or two points brought forward by the most rev. Prelate. In the first place, he has referred to Quebec and Mauritius. Those colonies were in a very different position from Malta, inasmuch as both were conquered, and the Canon Law was not in operation there before they were conquered. In Quebec the law is founded on the old French Code Civile,known as the Coutumes de Paris.In Mauritius no question could
  704
  have arisen, as there is a civil marriage under the Civil Code known as the Code Napoleon and the Civil status ordinance of 1801. As regards the Code Rohan, which has also been referred to by the most rev. Prelate, I can only say I do not profess to give a legal opinion on the clause he has mentioned, but I put a very different construction upon it. The word used in it is "forestieri," strangers, foreigners, and it provides for the case of a foreigner marrying a native, but there is nothing in that particular article to show that they may not both be Roman Catholics. All it says is that if a foreigner, a "stranger," marries a Maltese the marriage should be conducted according to the laws of that country.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The words are "shall be considered to have been" performed according to the laws.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: That is, for the purposes and in regard of the partition of property. The whole of that chapter, from beginning- to end, refers to the partition of property arising out of a marriage, nor, as far as I am aware, is there any provision as to the mode or formalities of celebrating marriages. However, I do not wish to argue the question. I can only say that the construction of it, as I am advised in the matter, is entirely different from the construction placed upon it by the most rev. Prelate. The Report of Sir G. C. Lewis and Mr. Austin refers to certain parts of the law of Malta which have no bearing upon marriage, and the very words quoted by the most rev. Prelate show that the Commissioners were not dealing with the whole question. I think I may say that there is, in truth, no allusion to the Marriage Law of Malta in the whole of that Report. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, carefully consider and will submit to the Law Officers of the Crown any legal opinions or arguments which may be given on this question in opposition to the view which we have been advised is correct, namely, that the Canon Law is the Civil Law of Malta. We have certainly proceeded on the assumption, which we believe to be correct, that marriages in Malta have been, and are, governed by the Canon Law. This is not the place to hold a legal argument, especially between the most

  705
  rev. Prelate and myself, who do not speak with authority upon the legal views of this question; and I have only to add that Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of the subject, and that no decision will be arrived at until all the points have been carefully and fully considered.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should like to ask one question upon a point which arises out of this discussion and the answer which has just been given by the noble Lord. I understand his position to be that certain high Legal Authorities now express the view that the Canon Law at present governs the law of Malta. What I should like to know is this: Whether this has been the view acted upon by the most rev. Prelate, that these mixed marriages, which, according to that view, would be illegal, have taken place over a long series of years and have been recognised as valid marriages not only in the Courts of this country, but in the Courts of Malta. I think it is an important matter to know whether that is the case, and whether during the many years that these marriages have been taking place, they have been held judicially in Malta to be invalid, or, on the contrary, have been held to be valid, and the children of them to be legitimate and entitled to the ordinary rights of legitimate children.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I understand the noble and learned Lord to refer to mixed marriages which have not been performed before a Roman Catholic priest?
  LORD HERSCHELL: Yes.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: We are not aware of a single case which has been brought before the Court of that kind. There have been cases in Malta where the parties have been married before a Roman Catholic priest and have been some time afterwards married before a Protestant minister, but we are not aware of any case in which that question has been raised before the Maltese Courts. That is why I am not prepared to argue the question now. I think it is quite probable that where the Governor has given a licence, and a certificate has been granted, it may be recognised in the Courts here, but I am not aware of any decision in the Courts of Malta.
  LORD KINNAIRD: May I ask whether it is proposed that any power which the Governor of Malta has hitherto exercised should be taken away under the new project of law?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble Lord is asking a question in regard to the future. As my noble Friend has stated, the proposals of the Maltese Legislature in draft are now before Her Majesty's Government, and will be subjected to the most careful consideration. Therefore, it will not be possible for us to say in the present state of affairs what future legislation there may be.
  LORD KINNAIRD: May I ask whether the matter will be brought before this House before it is finally ratified?
  [No answer was given.]

TITHE RENT-CHARGE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BRABOURNE,in rising to ask the Prime Minister whether, before the re-introduction of any Bill upon the subject of tithes, he will cause to be laid before Parliament statistics as to the varying incidence of the tithe rent-charge in English counties, the proportion in which the same is now paid by owners and by occupiers not being owners, and the number of distraints for tithe rent-charge which have been levied in English counties during the last three years, said: My Lords, the question I have put upon the Paper will only require a few sentences on my part to explain it, but it can hardly be denied that the matter is an important one. During the existence of the present Government several measures have been introduced upon the subject of tithes, all of which have from the force of circumstances been withdrawn; but, as far as I am aware, no statistics whatever have been placed on the Table of either House with regard to the important question with which those Bills have dealt. I think it has very often been said with regard to these measures by supporters of the Government that they really do not reopen the settlement of 1875; but how that can be said when proposals are made to alter the conditions in the country with regard to it it is rather difficult to

  707
  imagine. When it is said that that will be the effect that will be produced by legislation, it is desirable we should know the facts not only with regard to the difficulty which tithe owners will have in collecting their tithes, but also the present number of tithe rent-charges in the different English counties. I have seen it stated that four or five English counties pay more than half the entire rent-charge. This, I think, is a matter on which we should obtain information before we legislate on the matter. But there are other points which I think press even more severely upon us; that is to say, it is more necessary they should be elucidated, because various Governments have dealt with them. It is believed in this country that what the Government have intended to do, and will, no doubt, wish to do, is to make the owners pay some impost: and it is desirable to ascertain whether there are any owners who do not pay the charge, and whose occupiers pay the rate instead. Again, it is desirable we should know whether there is a large number of owners who do pay, what the position of the tithe-payers has been, and how the whole question will be affected. Then there is another question, and that is the number of distraints for tithe rent-charge which have been levied in the English counties during the last three years. I think it is desirable, before any legislation is proposed, that we should know something upon these points, and for this reason. We are told in many quarters that the whole legislation proposed has been in consequence of the opposition made in parts of Wales to the collection of tithes, but as far as I can understand this has not been at all in connection with the collection of tithes, but in consequence of the incidence of the tithes themselves. Of course, if the Welsh people choose to disobey the law, as long as it is the law, it is the duty of the Government to put the law in force; and why there should be legislation unless you show that there is some necessity for it upon the basis of statistical information rather passes my comprehension. The importance of this question can, I think, hardly be denied. I do not know whether the Government are aware of the gathering feeling, especially in the southern counties, with respect to the
  708
  legislation that has been already proposed upon this question, but that it is gaining strength I cannot doubt. I have recently seen a letter written by a very near relative of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, of which I will only say it shows that sons do not always take the same view as their fathers take; and, therefore, I do not wish to suggest for a moment that the noble Marquess is bound by the opinion of his relative, but the writer of the letter presses for this kind of legislation, because he considers that we are upon the eve of a struggle for the endowments of the Established Church. Without passing any opinion upon this judgment, I am quite satisfied that if we are upon the eve of such a struggle, the sooner there is full inquiry made as to the endowments likely to be attacked, and they are placed on a sound footing, the better will it be for those who have to defend them. Therefore, I merely put the matter before your Lordships, that as we are threatened with a re-introduction of a Bill on this important subject, it is most desirable that statistics should be laid before Parliament which will enable Parliament to come to a just conclusion in regard to the actual position of the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will follow the good example of my noble Friend by avoiding all contestable matter in reference to this subject, and will simply address myself to answering the question he has addressed to me. I am afraid, in the first place, I cannot make the re-introduction of the Bill of the Government subject to the completion of the statistics for which the noble Lord asks, because, even if the statistics were to be easily obtained between this and November, considering that that period includes the habitual holidays of all sorts of persons employed in public offices, I do not think there would bo sufficient time to enable the statistics to be collected with the care and accuracy necessary to give them such value chat they could be used with confidence and certainty. But, even with that deduction, I am afraid I can hardly give an unqualified affirmative to the question of my noble Friend. He asks me to lay before Parliament statistics as to "the varying incidents of the tithe rent-charge in English counties,"

  709
  and I should have been very glad if my noble Friend had appended a gloss which would have indicated the precise meaning which that phrase would bear when submitted to the officer who would have to make up the Return. What is "the varying incidence of the tithe rent-charge?" The tithe rent charge was imposed by the provision and machinery of the Act of 1836, and I do not think there is any general incidence for any particular county or locality. There is simply laid down by agreement what is thought to be a fair rent-charge under the provisions of the Act of 1836, and that is returned to the Tithe Commissioners. I do not believe there is any such general principle either over large or small areas as the question of my noble Friend assumes. As to "the proportion in which the same is now paid by owners and by occupiers not being owners," there is no authority that has the slightest cognisance of the facts.
  LORD BRABOURNE: There is the incumbent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no public office which has cognisance of the state of facts. It would involve the question in each case whether the man who paid the rent-charge was of a particular bit of land the occupier or the owner. Very often a man is the occupier of a certain number of fields, and the owner of a certain number of adjoining fields; he might pay the tithe for the whole of this land, and the incumbent would have no power of distinguishing between that which was owned and that which was occupied. A Return, the value of which would depend upon its accuracy, and which must contain many very complicated figures to be obtained from 20,000 clergymen all over England—well, I will not say more of it than that it would not be completed by next November. I am not sufficiently acquainted with legal practice to know whether it is possible to obtain a Return of "the number of distraints for tithe rent-charge which have been levied in English counties during the last three years," or whether materials for that Return exist. Of course, where there have been distraints ordered by any Court they would not be difficult to
  710
  ascertain; but those restraints are not ordered by the Court, and, therefore, I am at a loss to know where to obtain the necessary materials; but if it is possible there will not be any objection to the Return being produced.
  LORD BRABOURNE: What I mean by "varying incidence" is the amount of the tithe in relation to the letting or rateable value of the land; in some counties the proportion is very high, and in others it is very low.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That, I think, is quite impossible as regards entire counties, for I know by my own experience that of two fields lying next each other the amount of the tithe in relation to the value of the land or the rent it bears will vary as much as possible, and to get at these variations you would have almost to take each particular field from one end of the country to the other.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I suppose there would be no difficulty in giving the total amount of tithe paid in each county? It varies, no doubt, in a most remarkable manner; but I think it might be obtained.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is already before the House.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Lord Beau-champ moved for the Return two years ago.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I believe that showed that the tithe rent varied very greatly in different parts of England. I am not moving now for the Return.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My noble Friend will see that Lord Beauchamp's Return gives it for each county, the total amount in each parish, and the amount of appropriation between the lay impropriators, the ecclesiastical establishments, and the schools.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.