Sitting of 25 July 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL.
  MR. COURTNEY: As this is a Bill in which I have a personal interest, I beg to move that the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee shall act as Chairman.
  Question, "That the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee be Chairman of the Committee upon the Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill," put and agreed to.

  CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL [LORDS]—(by Order.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. J. WILSON: In moving the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper, I desire briefly to explain to the House the reasons which induce me to do so. As Member for the Govan Division of the County of Lanark, I naturally take a deep interest in everything that concerns the interests of my constituents. Besides being myself a resident, I am a, large employer of labour in the parish of Govan. The present Bill proposes no

  879
  new scheme of dock works, but the promoters, who are the Clyde Navigation Trustees, propose to abandon certain powers which were declared by Parliament in 1883 to be for the public benefit. In that year the Trustees acquired land for the purpose of erecting docks. Now, the River Clyde runs from east to west, and the main road between Glasgow and Govan follows the River Clyde, and almost runs parallel with it until it reaches Renfrew. The road runs on the south side of the river, and the proposed docks are also on the south side. The Local Authorities and the people of Govan do not object to the docks as docks; but what they do object to is that this Bill, if passed, will cut in two a main artery and a turnpike road which has been from time immemorial a public highway. The land acquired for docks is in Govan; but if the proposals of this Bill are accepted, they will practically cut the burgh of Govan into two halves, and leave those on the west side of the docks out of touch with the other part of the burgh on the east side. Parliament in 1883, in conferring additional powers upon the Clyde Navigation Trust, stipulated that the existing turnpike road should be maintained, and that it should form a point of continuity by means of two swing bridges. The object of the present Bill is to do away with the road and the two swing bridges. It must not be forgotten that in 1883 Parliament recognised the importance of this road, and required the Trustees to make a solid road for the purpose of serving the large amount of traffic that is carried over it. The Govan road is one of the best, one of the widest, and one of the most important roads which go into the City of Glasgow. It is computed that on the average some 13,000 persons travel upon it daily, in addition to vehicles. The plea of the promoters is that there is difficulty in passing the swinging bridges by vessels using the dock, but I maintain that it is no difficult matter to cant a vessel so as to pass a swing bridge, and the Harbour Master of Glasgow told the Committee that the canting of a vessel in the river was a more bagatelle. The cost of constructing the two swing bridges and their upkeep is estimated at £125,000; and the Clyde Trustees, if the present Bill is carried,
  880
  propose to put that sum into their own pockets as well as to absorb the public property on the roadway which runs through the centre of the proposed docks, without giving the community anything in return. There can be no difficulty, so far as shipbuilding is concerned. The longest steamer is the City of Rome, and that vessel was in the Clyde in 1883, before this Bill passed, and experienced no difficulty in using the river. Indeed, it was clearly demonstrated to the Committee by nautical engineers and other exports that there could be no difficulty in taking out the very largest vessels afloat—even vessels 600 feet long. That view was supported by Sir Frederick Bramwell, the eminent engineer, who is thoroughly conversant with the Clyde navigation as well as with the docks of London. In answer to Mr. Pember, the counsel for the Local Authorities of the Corporation of Govan, Sir Frederick stated that, although in these days he was hardly astonished at anything, he did think that it would be a piece of the greatest hardship to do away with the swing bridges and compel the public to travel a long distance round. Nor were the Committee unanimous in passing the Preamble of the Bill. I believe that they had the greatest difficulty in making up their minds upon the subject; and I fear that in the decision which they ultimately arrived at, they overlooked the main point which was in the minds of the Local Authorities. The question is one which concerns the public, and pre-eminently the working classes. Those of the working classes who are employed in the West End, but live in the East End, will be required, if this Bill passes, to go round the docks in order to reach their work some 1,400 yards, or, taking 300 days as constituting the working year, to travel something like 300 miles per annum unnecessarily. The Local Authorities have no personal advantage to gain in opposing the Bill; their only object is to preserve the rights of the public. Under these circumstances, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words, "now read the third time," in order to add the words "recommitted to the former Committee, with an Instruction to the Committee to provide that the line authorised by the Act of 1883 with

  881
  regard to the portion of the road passing through the centre of the docks be adhered to, with this alteration, that one swing bridge instead of two swing bridges be constructed."—(Mr. John Wilson, Lanark)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CALDWELL: This matter has already been determined before two Select Committees, one of the House of Lords and the other of the House of Commons, and the points raised by my hon. Friend have been carefully considered. In one place the inquiry lasted four days, and in the other six. In these circumstances, it is quite unprecedented to ask this House to go into matters of evidence and detail with a view to overturning the decisions of the Committees of both Houses of Parliament. The promoters of the Bill are acting in the public interest. My hon. Friend said the Trustees would save £125,000, but who would have to pay it? Acting in the interests of their constituents, the ratepayers, the promoters desire to carry out the scheme at the least possible expense. With regard to the swing bridges, the plans contained in the present Bill are essentially different to those contained in the Bill of 1883, and it was in order to get rid of these bridges that the old scheme was abandoned. The advantage to Govan from this Bill will be very great indeed, as the assessment of the new docks will prove an additional source of revenue. The new road will lead through the centre of the extended burgh, whereas the present only runs along the riverside.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to the Bills mentioned on page 841.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is only one other point in the speech of my hon. Friend to which I will call attention. I venture to say that very little inconvenience will be caused to the working classes. It will not take them more than
  882
  260 yards out of their way from Govan to Glasgow, and it should also be borne in mind that there is a very efficient service of penny steamers running up the Clyde from Govan to Glasgow—a distance of three or four miles—so that those who wish to travel from one place to the other have every convenience. In addition to that, we find that the working classes in Govan are a migratory population, and if a man finds he is put to any inconvenience by having to go a little out of his way, he can easily shift his home. On the other hard, it is, of course, impossible to shift the River Clyde. So far as the working classes are concerned, there is no outcry against this scheme. If it inconveniences a few of the people the scheme will convenience the many, and I therefore submit that there is no reason for traversing the decision of the Committee.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: As Chairman of the Committee of this House which considered this Bill, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words on the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. The question put before the Committee was a very simple one, and was not complicated by any side issues. It was whether the Commissioners of the Clyde should be allowed to meet the demands of the shipping of that port according to the only plan that they thought useful and practicable, or whether, in the interests of the working classes, it was desirable so to curtail the plan as to practically spoil it. Now, the Clyde Commissioners are a Public Body, and have no private interests to serve in this matter. They have done great service to the Port of Glasgow. In 21 years the increase of their revenue has been from £143,000 to £335,000. They have long felt that they wanted a new dock, and have purchased 100 acres of land for nearly £500,000, in order that the dock might be constructed. The Committee came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the balance of advantage was in favour of the scheme of the Clyde Trustees, though they quite acknowledge the hardships of the working man in having, from one point, to make a détour of 800 yards. They took into consideration the fact that great benefit would accrue to the people of Govan by the expenditure

  883
  among them of £1,500,000. It was, no doubt, a serious thing to divert an old-established road; but the question is, whether such inconveniences as that are outweighed by the stronger claims of the whole shipping interests of the Clyde. The great majority of the Committee felt, without hesitation, that it was unnecessary to call upon the counsel for the Clyde Trustees to continue his observations; and the same thing happened in the House of Lords. I think it will be greatly regretted if, after Committees of both Houses have passed the Bill, the House should reject it.
  DR. CLARK: If I had entertained any doubt before, the two speeches I have heard in favour of the Bill would have proved quite sufficient to determine the course I ought to take. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division was not of the character I should have expected from him. I do not know whether he is ignorant of the facts of the case, or whether he is trying to throw dust into the eyes of Members of this House; but he must know that the ratepayers have nothing to do with this matter, and that the cost of the works will not be defrayed by them. It will have to be paid out of the shipping dues. My hon. Friend apparently was anxious that the House should not realise what is the real point at issue between the Corporation of Glasgow and the Burgh of Govan. The question is whether you are going to have a bridge to connect the two sides of the dock. The proposition of the Corporation of Glasgow is a very wise one. It is simply a question of keeping in existence a road that has been established 400 or 500 years. I am sure it would cost less money to build the bridge than it cost to oppose the proposition. If they had been wise the Clyde Trustees would have assented to the scheme. My hon. Friend has suggested that this is not so serious a matter for the working classes, as they can migrate to other houses if they choose; but why should the value of property be thus depreciated? This is evidently a question of the classes against the masses, and the latter will go to the wall. I hope the House will insist on having a bridge erected, for I have heard no reasons advanced why there should not be one.
  Mr. GILES: I cannot understand what advantage would be gained by the re-committal of the Bill. The Committee would only have before it the evidence on which they have already decided it. In 1883 Parliament passed a Bill which did away with the direct Govan road, and a new road was made 237 yards longer. If the diversion proposed in this Bill be compared with the road of 1883, it will be found that the extra distance will be 269 yards, instead of 800 yards as contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As an engineer, I do not hesitate to say that the present plan is infinitely superior to that of 1883. I would have done all I could to get rid of even the one swing bridge. I can only say that the necessities of Glasgow and of Govan are such as to render it expedient to have a dock to accommodate the larger class of steamers; and I think the Clyde Trustees have adopted very proper designs. It is not a question of money. The Commissioners are going to spend £1,500,000 in order to increase the dock accommodation on the Clyde, and surely it would be foolish to throw over the scheme simply because some working men will have to walk two or three hundred yards further than before. Supposing there was a swing bridge, and it happened to be open just as the men were going to work, they would be delayed and probably lose a quarter of a day's work. With this uncertainty, would it not be better that they should be compelled to go oven a quarter of a mile out of their way, for they would then know what time to start in order to reach the works in time? I hope that the House will not upset the Bill.
  (4.17.) The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 81.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTIONS.

  MATCHES SUPPLIED TO THE HOUSE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can inform the House under what head, in the recent Return "Contracts with Foreigners," appear the

  885
  proportion of matches supplied to the House of Commons marked "Manufactured in Sweden," but in boxes otherwise scarcely distinguishable from those in which the products of London labour are sold by Bryant & May, Limited; and, further, if the goods supplied by Government contractors in the United Kingdom are examined, with a view of preventing foreign-made articles being introduced into a consignment?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The matches marked "Manufactured in Sweden" do not appear in the Return referred to by my hon. Friend, because the contract for them is made with an English firm, Messrs. R. S. Mendey, of 106, Fenchurch Street. I understand that they are manufactured by Messrs. Bryant & May, at the "Lion" Factory in Sweden. I apprehend that all goods supplied by contractors are examined to see that they are according to sample or specification.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Does the specification not require that British goods shall be supplied?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I believe not; it merely requires that the matches shall be supplied by the firm.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice that I shall move that they be labelled.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS ON THE MASSEREENE ESTATE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the four evictions which were carried out last week on the Massereene Estate, County Louth, by bailiffs in the absence of the Sheriff, the bailiffs had their appointment from the Sheriff in writing to carry out those decrees; and if it is true that Constable Brady, of the police hut Monasterboice, reported that a shot fired by an emergency man named James Parks grazed the side of his cap; and, if so, will the authorities order an investigation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that the bailiffs referred to were regularly appointed Sheriff's bailiffs. The facts are not accurately stated in the second paragraph. The person mentioned is not an emergency man, but a new tenant. No com-
  886
  plaint appears to have been made that the shot grazed the constable's cap, and the District Inspector who has inquired into the case is of opinion that there would be no ground for such an allegation.
  MR. BLANE: Is it true that a shot was fired at the man named Morgan?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I have received no report of that kind.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the present unsatisfactory state of the Government Medical Service in the Island of St. Christopher (colony of the Leeward Islands), whereby in four medical districts (Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6) covering an extent of nearly 50 square miles, with an estimated population of over 20,000, there are only two medical officers; whether he is aware that the last quarterly Report of the Analyser of Vital Statistics stated that the high death-rate of the island was to be attributed to the large number of deaths of infants of the labouring classes, and that at least one death of a poor woman in childbed had occurred from want of medical attendance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): It is true that there were till lately only two medical men to four districts in the Island of St. Christopher, but there were three other medical officers in the island. One of the two districts had been left vacant for some years, because the Royal Commission which visited the island in 1883 had reported that the medical staff was larger than was necessary, and because St. Kitts has more doctors in proportion to its size and facility of travelling than perhaps any other West Indian island. However, in response to urgent local representations, the Secretary of State has already taken steps to appoint a new medical officer to the vacant district. The hon. Member's quotation from the Analyser of Vital Statistics is practically correct, though in the same Report it is stated that the general death-rate was probably lower than in any previous

  887
  year of the century. I may add that the Report assigns special causes for the great infant mortality quite distinct from any want of medical attendance, to which no reference is made.

  HORSE BREEDING.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government can now announce their intention to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding in their Third Report, with regard to raising the amount disposable for Queen's premiums and the encouragement of horse breeding from £5,000 to £10,000, and the advisability of preparing Returns containing reliable information as to the number and description of horses in the United Kingdom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): My attention has been already directed to this subject, but I am afraid that the Returns recommended by the Commission would involve considerable difficulty. The matter, however, is being considered, and I hope to be able to make some improvement, at all events, in the existing system before the next Returns are issued. With regard to the first part of the question, the experiment of devoting the sum in question to Queen's premiums instead of Queen's plates has been exceedingly successful, and personally I should be very glad to see it raised from £5,000 to £10,000, but that is a matter for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequor.

  RAINE'S BEQUEST.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Petition has been presented to His Excellency, objecting to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commission in regard to the Raine's Bequest in County Derry; and when the scheme will be presented to the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A Petition of the nature referred to has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant. The scheme was accordingly laid before Parliament yesterday.

  RUNCORN GUARDIANS.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the irregularities at the late election of Guardians of the Poor for the township of Runcorn, whether he is aware that the clerk's office is at Frodsham, a distance of eight miles from Runcorn, so that qualified electors who may not receive Voting Papers have either to-walk that distance or make a railway journey to obtain them; whether he is-also aware that the counting of the votes-takes place at Dutton Workhouse, which is still further from Runcorn, and not accessible by railway, so that it is practically impossible for anyone neglected by the distributor or collector of Voting Papers to record his vote; and, whether,. in view of the fact that the township of Runcorn contains more that half the population of the Union, and that contested elections in the other townships, are almost unknown, he will direct that Voting Papers should be procurable at the overseers' township office at Runcorn, and that the counting of the votes should take place there?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am aware that the office of clerk to the Guardians of the Runcorn Union is at Frodsham, and that the Dutton Workhouse, where the counting of the votes, in the election of Guardians takes place, is still further from Runcorn. I find that, according to the Census of 1881, the-population of the township of Runcorn was considerably less than half that of the Union. A contested election took place in another township during the present year. The regulations applicable to the election of Guardians require that the counting of the votes shall take place at the Board-room of the Guardians, but it rests with the Returning Officer to fix the place at which Voting Papers may be procured by persons who have not received them. The Local Government Board will communicate with the Returning Officer, with a view to considering whether any alteration should be made in the places where Voting Papers may be procurable, and where the counting of the votes shall take place.

  WARD'S NIGHT SIGNALLING.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the date at which the system of an American gentleman, named Ward, of night signalling for use in the Naval Service was proposed, and when it was rejected; whether experiments were carried on at the expense of, and, if so, at what cost to the Admiralty; and what sum was paid to Mr. Ward on the rejection of his system as compensation for his failure?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Mr. Ward's system of night signals was submitted to the Admiralty in 1859, and, after various practical experiments with these signals, it was decided in 1864 that they were not adapted for use in the Naval Service. The action of the Admiralty was confined to permitting the signals to be tested in one of the dockyards, and on board ship. The only payment made to Mr. Ward was £100 in 1866.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: Will the expenses be covered?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I believe so. There is no very accurate record.

  THE TOWN CLERK OF SALFORD
  MR SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the examination in bankruptcy of Thomas Harrop, an auctioneer at Mexbro', at Sheffield, on 16th May last, and to the serious allegations then made respectihg Mr. Samuel Brown, the Town Clerk of Salford, in regard to his pecuniary dealings with the bankrupt; whether he has observed that the Official Receiver stated on that occasion that he must insist on Mr. Samuel Brown being examined, but that, nevertheless, at the adjourned examination on 12th June, he refused to summon him for examination, although an offer was made by a creditor to pay the expenses for so doing; and whether there is any process by which the said Samuel Brown can be brought to account in respect of his dealings with the bankrupt?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am informed that, in the case referred to, it is alleged that Mr.
  890
  Brown received moneys from the bankrupt, which he ought to refund, but which he refuses to refund, on the ground that he has a counter claim against the bankrupt's estate. The Official Receiver was superseded by the appointment of a Trustee at the first meeting of creditors, and it is no part of his duty, under such circumstances, to undertake proceedings for recovery of moneys alleged to be due to the estate. That duty now devolves upon the Trustee, who has ample powers under the Bankruptcy Act both for examining the parties concerned and for obtaining the judgment of the Court upon any question involved.

  PERMANENT PENSIONS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been recently consulted, and have recorded the grounds on which they "consider to be permanent in character" the payment of £965 hitherto made yearly to the Duke of St. Albans as Master Surveyor and Keeper of the Hawks;, that to the Duke of Hamilton of £45 10s. yearly as Keeper of the Palace and Gardens of Holyrood; and that to the Marquess of Downshire of £54 3s. 4d. as Constable of the Fort of Hillsborough; and whether he will communicate such grounds to the House; whether he will give the names of the persons to whom the sums of £50 and £37 15s. 4d. are paid yearly, as Deputy Keeper and Porter of Holyrood; also the names of the present recipients of £162 10s. yearly as Warders of the Fort of Hillsborough; whether he will explain what "real and substantial saving to the Nation" is gained, as per recommendation of the Select Committee of 1887, by the Treasury disbursing 26·945 years' purchase to Lords Exmouth and Rodney; and whether he will give an approximate date at which any "obligation of an onerous kind" ceased to attach to the offices of Constable of the Fort of Hillsborough and Master Surveyor and Keeper of the Hawks?
  MR. HANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, will he state how much of the sum of £965 is for the employment of persons who are not employed, and for the keep of birds which are not kept?
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Preston will be good enough to put his question on the Paper. With regard to the question of the Member opposite, I have to say that the Law Officers of the Crown have been recently consulted on the permanency in character of all the existing perpetual pensions, allowances, &c, with the exception of the payment to the Marquess of Downshire as Constable of the Port of Hillsborough, which case has been on two previous occasions referred to the Law Advisers of the day. The opinions given by the Law Officers, who had all the original grants before them, have been to the effect that all the payments in question, including allowances, are legally and permanently binding; but it would be contrary to practice to make public the grounds (if any be recorded)?on which these legal opinions are based. The names of the Deputy Keeper and Porter of Holyrood are Mr. James Auldjo Jamieson and Robert Morrison respectively. The payment in respect of the Warders of the Fort of Hillsborough is made direct to the Marquess of Downshire, and, therefore, the names of the present recipients of the pay are not known to the Treasury; but I can obtain them if the hon. Member desires to have them. The amount of Government securities yielding annual dividends equal to the amount of each of the perpetual pensions of Lord Rodney and Lord Exmouth, which is the true measure of the cost to the taxpayer of such pensions, would, at the present price of Consols, be £75,000, whereas, under the present proposal, each of the grantees will receive a capital sum of £53,890—that is, less than the equivalent in Consols by £21,110 in each case, or less by 28 per cent. The Treasury are not in a position to give an approximate date at which any obligation of an onerous kind ceased to attach to the? offices of the Constable of the Fort of Hillsborough and the Keeper of the Hawks; nor probably could this information be given by the annuitants themselves, unless their family records happen to be unsuually complete.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Arising out of that answer will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say how it is that the Treasury have advised that the payment of £162 10s. should be continued yearly
  892
  during the lifetime, or until the resignation, of persons of whose identity they were unaware?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give notice of that question.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in regard to these payments, the Treasury have confined themselves to the legal aspects of the question, and not considered the equity of the case as regards the taxpayers of the present generation?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of the question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply as to the verdict or opinion given by the Law Officers, that those payments are to be considered permanent in character in the sense that Parliament has no power to put an end to them; and, if so, what becomes of the supposed omnipotence of the British Parliament?
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question down on the Paper.

  COMPOSITIONS FOR SHIPS' BOTTOMS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Commander Pitt, R. N., beyond his Naval experience and training, has had any technical training to qualify him to watch the results of compositions applied to the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships; apart from the Chairman (Admiral Colomb)were two out of the three members of the Admiralty Committee on Compositions experts, and was the third member (Commander Pitt) simply nominated as a Naval Officer; why was this Committee dissolved; are the two experts who were members of the Committee still in the Service, and is the necessary precaution taken to consult them before Commander Pitt's Reports and recommendations are approved; is Commander Pitt on full pay of his rank, what do his travelling and other allowances amount to per annum, and in what Votes in the Navy Estimates do these items respectively appear; is Commander Pitt now employed in a civilian capacity; and, if so, is not Treasury sanction indispensable; does he take the place of

  893
  the expert officers at the dockyards in reporting upon compositions; and how long will he be retained in his present special employment?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Commander Pitt, from constant study of compositions used afloat, has as wide a knowledge of the results of all known compositions as any man in the country, A chemist and a Naval constructor were on the Admiralty Committee on Compositions, and it was dissolved because it was no longer necessary to continue it. The members of the late Committee are still in the Service, and, if necessary, can be consulted. Commander Pitt is on half-pay, but he receives the difference between his full and half-pay—10s. a day—for the days actually employed, with subsistence allowance to cover the expense of living away from home. The payments, including travelling expenses, average £25 a month, or £300 per annum in all. He is not employed as a civilian. Provision is made under Vote 11 of the Navy Estimates for the expense of Committees and for the employment of officers on special Service connected with the Navy at large. For charges to these heads, so long as the provision is not exhausted, the sanction of the Treasury is not required. Commander Pitt, by his services and labours, has largely increased the efficiency of compositions in use in the Navy by reporting against the more costly and less durable compositions, and has thus incurred the hostility of the agents of the disused compositions.

  MAGISTRATES FOR TYRONE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Memorial, extensively signed by the clergy of all denominations, a number of County Magistrates, and the principal merchants and farmers, without distinction, of Dromore and district, County Tyrone, was recently presented to Colonel Lowry, Vice Lieutenant of the County Tyrone, pointing out the necessity for the appointment of a Catholic Magistrate for the district, the overwhelming majority of the population of which are Catholics, while the proportion of Catholic Justices are two to nine non-Catholics, and praying that Mr. John M'Loughlan, a Catholic gentle-
  894
  man and independent farmer of the locality, and a member of the Local Board of Guardians, should be appointed to the Commission of the Peace; whether he can say if the prayer of the Memorial was refused, and, if so, on what grounds; whether this is the second Memorial in favour of two Catholics refused within a few months; whether the Lord Chancellor will take any steps to appoint eligible Catholics to the Commission of the Peace; whether any complaints have reached the Lord Lieutenant respecting the conduct of Mr. Alexander, a Justice of the Peace of the Dromore district, and allegations that Mr. Alexander attended meetings of the Orange Society, at which, in Mr. Alexander's presence, and without any expression of dissent or disapprobation from him, violent speeches, inciting to breaches of the peace, were delivered; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be called to these complaints against Mr. Alexander?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the inquiries in the first two paragraphs, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question put on this subject by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone on 24th June. I am not aware whether a second Memorial was refused; but I am informed the Vice Lieutenant has recently recommended to the Lord Chancellor a Roman Catholic for the Dromore District, and the Lord Chancellor has signed the warrant for his appointment to the Magistracy. No complaints have reached the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in regard to the gentleman mentioned in the fifth paragraph.

  SHADOWING.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has yet received the depositions in the case of Mr. David Kent, who was charged with "shadowing" District Inspector Ball at Fermoy Fair; whether he has received any further information to show that Mr. M'Causland, concerning whom it is alleged that Mr. Kent went towards him "for the purpose of preventing the sale of his lambs," had no lambs nor anything else for sale at the fair that day; and if further inquiry will be made into the case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I hope I shall be able to answer the hon. Member's question on Monday.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of David Kent on a charge of obstructing District Inspector Ball of Fermoy, from which it appears that the Magistrates said that there was
  "No evidence to convict, we therefore dismiss the case, but defendant is to give an undertaking not to interfere with Inspector Ball any more;"
  and that defendant thereupon, addressing the Bench, said—
  "The only undertaking I would give would he that if I am not shadowed myself, and my business injuriously interfered with at the fair, that I would not shadow Mr. Ball;
  and if he can state under what statute or authority had the Magistrates power to ask Mr. Kent to give the undertaking above referred to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statements contained in the first paragraph of the question are inaccurate and misleading. The Magistrates did not discharge, but convicted, and the defendant did not give a qualified undertaking, but a distinct and absolute one, not to interfere with District Inspector Ball or the police, and, in consequence of that undertaking, the Bench ordered him to be discharged at the rising of the Court.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state why was Mr. James O'Brien, at Killeagh Fair, arrested summarily on a charge of shadowing a policeman in plain clothes, instead of being summoned in the ordinary way?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. O'Brien was arrested on a charge of persistently obstructing the police. To have proceeded by summons would not have had the effect of stopping the obstruction by which the police were prevented doing their duty.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Royal Irish Constabulary are in the habit of following Mr. Thomas B. Kelly,
  896
  of Church Street, Claremorris, County Mayo, from house to house in every town he visits in pursuit of his business as a commercial traveller; that in several cases they have followed him into the houses where he has had to call, and have stood by his side while he was transacting his business, even warning shopkeepers against doing business with Mr. Kelly; and whether the police, in pursuing this course, are acting under instructions; and, if so, what are the reasons for placing Mr. Kelly under this police surveillance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that, so far as can be ascertained, the police in no instance acted in the manner alleged in the question.

  POTATO BLIGHT IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports appearing in the Irish papers of the extension of the potato blight, and the almost complete failure of that crop, in the seaboard and other districts of Cork, Kerry, Water-ford, Clare, Limerick, Galway, Donegal, and other counties; and if the Government have any information to lay before the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The attention of the Government has been drawn, through the Press and other sources, to the indications of potato disease which have appeared in Ireland. We are carefully watching the matter, both through the agency of the Local Government and the Land Commission. Anything that can be legitimately done to mitigate any suffering caused by the potato disease shall be done.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the Reports made by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board on this subject. It is there stated that the prospects are alarming in the extreme. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay on the Table copies of the Reports already made by the Inspectors; and whether he will give the House an assurance that the Board will take steps to anticipate the possible famine?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I cannot give an undertaking that the Local Government Board will anticipate any calamity that is likely to occur, but I will undertake to say that they will watch events, and anything which can be done to mitigate the suffering which may be caused shall be done. The Reports have been of an informal character, but if the hon. Gentleman wants a formal Report it shall be made.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Local Government Board to give authority to the Boards of Poor Law Guardians to deal with the question of outdoor relief in a more liberal manner than hitherto?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can give no undertaking of that kind. It would be a very grave step indeed, and I see no reason at this moment to anticipate that this will be necessary.

  RATING OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. SALT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider how far some general rule can be laid down for the rating of lunatic asylums, in order that an intelligible and uniform system of rating such institutions may be adopted, and the expense and inconvenience of appeals may be avoided.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have no authority to prescribe general rules for the rating of lunatic asylums. If the Board were to attempt to lay down general principles, the rules so laid down would in no way be binding either upon the assessment committee or on the asylums to be rated. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that in connection with the assessment of a lunatic asylum the particular circumstances of each case must be considered. Under these circumstances, I do not think that it is desirable that the Board should act upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the statement, that of five Professors appointed to the Royal College of Science, Dublin, within the last 20
  898
  years only one has been an Irishman is correct, or whether it refers only to the Professors still holding positions in the College; whether he is aware that as many as nine appointments to Professorships in the College have been made within a period of 18 years, and that only one of the nine gentlemen appointed has been an Irishman; and whether he can give any explanation of the parallel case that, of the recent appointments made by his Department to the Science and Art Museum in Dublin, none have been given to Irishmen?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): My answer referred to the Professors now holding appointments in the Royal College of Science, to whom I understand the hon. Member alluded in his question. In regard to the nationality of the Professors who have been appointed within the last 18 years, but are since resigned or dead, I am afraid I can speak with no certainty, but it is quite possible that the hon. Member is substantially correct. Of the present superior staff of the Science and Art Museum, including the Metropolitan School of Art and Botanic Gardens, three were appointed by competitive examination, and eight by various Lords President. Of the former —those appointed by competitive examination—I believe none are Irishmen; and of the latter, those appointed by nomination, all except one are, I believe, Irishmen.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Naval officers on the coast of Newfoundland were acting under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government; if he can yet say whether it is true that Captain Sir Baldwin Walker, R.N., has taken off the embargo on Mr.Baird's lobster factory, and is to pay damages; if it is true that the statute enabling the Crown to give effect to the Treaty of Versailles on the Newfoundland coast has been repealed; and, if so, when and under what circumstances it has been repealed; and if Her Majesty's Government find themselves unable to enforce the modus vivendi?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I have to state that the Naval officers on the coast of Newfoundland do act under instructions from Her Majesty's Government. In reply to the second part of the question, I have to say that no such information has been received. In answer to the third part of the question, my reply is if the hon. Member refers to Act 28 Geo. III., c. 35, that Act was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1871. It has long ceased to be operative, for it only purported to give effect to the Treaty of 1783, which was terminated by the subsequent war. French fishing rights are now derived from the Treaty of 1814, which replaced them on the same footing as they stood on in 1792. An Act of 5 Geo. IV., c. 51, was afterwards passed, giving effect to any Treaties respecting Newfoundland which were then in force. This was a temporary Act, but was continued by 2 and 3 William IV., c. 79, until December 3, 1834, when it lapsed. As regards the fourth question, Her Majesty's Government do not find themselves unable to enforce the modus vivendi.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman understands that the modus vivendi is being enforced at the present moment, and whether all the reports which have appeared in the public prints for some days past, and which are of so much importance that anything of the kind must have been reported to the Government, are unfounded?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Secretary of State has not received any information to that effect on the question.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe the modus vivendi is at this moment being enforced?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have every reason to believe that it is, and I believe it is the subject of judicial trial.
  MR. E.ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman declined the other day to answer a question as to the legal authority under which the officers were acting, on the ground that legal proceedings were pending against Sir Baldwin Walker. Has he now ascer-
  900
  tained whether these legal proceedings were concluded?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I believe not.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS—IMPORT DUTIES ON FOOD.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to Report 101 (Colonial), St. Kitts-Nevis, pages 9 and 10, recommending the abolition of the Import Duties on Food, and Export Duties on other articles; and whether the Secretary of State will give effect to the representations made therein by Mr. Eldridge in that respect?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has read the Report referred to, which was written in 1887. Successive Secretaries of State, before and since the date of that Report, have impressed on the Governors of the Leeward Islands the expediency of abolishing or reducing the Import Duties on Food, but it has not hitherto been found possible to provide from other sources the revenue derived from these duties. The Export Duties in St. Kitts have been almost entirely abolished since the date of the Report in question, and the remainder will expire before long.

  EVICTIONS IN THE WEST CALF ISLANDS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to supply Mr. Marmion with a gunboat or with the boats of the Coastguard to aid him in evicting tenants on the Middle Calf or West Calf Islands, off the west coast of Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I must ask the hon. Member for further notice of this question.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is extremely urgent, and that there is much complaint on the subject. However, I feel that I have given the right hon. Gentleman very short notice of this question, which I will repeat on Monday.

  LIGHT GOLD.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  901
  whether he will state what further measures he proposes to take for the purpose of calling in light gold coin?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I regret that the state of public business has not allowed me to bring in a Bill to establish a Coinage Fund and to provide for the further calling in of light gold, which I have prepared and which is in draft. The Bill is not controversial, but still I cannot deny that it is one on which it would be impossible to refuse some discussion, and therefore I have not pressed it. But I confidently hope it may be passed in the present financial year, and as its principal proposal would not have come into operation before the 1st of April, I do not think there will be any real loss of time.

  EUROPEAN COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction prevails in Lancashire regarding the constitution of the Committee on European Commercial Treaties, as there is no member of the Committee connected with the cotton industry except Sir Joseph Lee, who represents the merchants rather than the spinners and manufacturers.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I am not aware that much dissatisfaction prevails in Lancashire on this subject. Sir Joseph Lee is a spinner, weaver, and printer, as well as a merchant. I have, however, received representations from Oldham to the effect that that town desires special representation on the Committee, but it is impossible to comply with such requests from individual towns. The points which gave so much trouble in 1881 were not so much on the yarn duties as on the textiles, with the various surcharges for embroidery, printing, &c.

  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.
  MR. BRADLATUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a communication from Messrs. James, of Merthyr Tydvil, alleging certain hardships pressing upon executors under the working of the 125th section of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883;" and whether
  902
  he will, during the recess, consider the advisability of some amendment of the Act in this respect?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade received, on the 23rd instant, a communication from Messrs. James, alleging certain hardships said to have been sustained by themselves and clients in connection with the administration of an insolvent debtor's estate, under Section 125 of the Bankruptcy Act. I am not satisfied that these allegations are well founded; but as the matters in dispute have, at the instance of the Official Receivers, been set down for hearing by the Judge of the Merthyr Tydvil Court on the 7th August next, I must decline to express any opinion upon the question raised by the hon. Member until after such hearing has taken place.

  GRANTS TO COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what specific local rates County Councils may apply the additional grant in aid from the Excise Duty not allocated by Parliament; whether under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, rates payable by proprietors are consolidated on an average of 10 years; whether it will be in the power of County Councils to apply the whole of the grant in aid for the reduction of the local rate falling to be paid by the landlords; and whether it is or is not possible to give any relief to householders whose rents are under £4?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have been asked to reply to this question. The rates which are levied by the County Councils are County General Assessment, Police, Registration of Voters, Lunacy, Militia, Sheriff Court-houses, Road, and Public Health. With the exception of the last two, these rates were all, prior to the Local Government Act of last year, paid by owners only, and under the provisions of that Act they continued to be paid by owners only up to the average of the last 10 years. Above that average they are paid equally by owners and occupiers, and the Road and Public Health Rates have always been, and continue to be, paid by owners and occupiers equally. The determination of the specific local rates levied by County Councils to which the additional grant may be applied is

  903
  left entirely to the Councils themselves. It would be in the power of the County Councils to select for relief a rate which, up to the average of the last 10 years, will continue to be paid by owners only. It would, on the other hand, be equally open to a County Council to select for relief a rate payable half by owners and half by occupiers. With reference to the last paragraph, the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that, as regards county rates, there is no exemption of ratepayers under £4, except on the ground of individual poverty, and, accordingly, the relief from the rates will be equally beneficial to them, as to all others.

  SALE OF BILLS AND TELEGRAPH TRANSFERS IN INDIA.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL, on behalf of Mr. JARVIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what were the sales by the Indian Council of bills and telegraphic transfers during the months of March, April, and May, of this year, and also the sales during the corresponding months of last year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The sales of bills and transfers during March, April, and May this year were Rs.8,29,00,000, against Rs.6,55,48,015 in the corresponding months of 1889.

  INDIAN EXCHEQUER AND THE RATE OF EXCHANGE.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India by what amount in sterling does the Indian Exchequer benefit by an advance in exchange of one penny per rupee per annum; and if the Indian Council is not receiving for bills at the present time 3d. per rupee more than was obtained when silver was selling at 3s. 6d. per ounce or under; and, if not, 3d. per rupee, how much is the present rate higher than the lowest rate?
  SIR J. GORST: The gain produced by the rise of 1d. varies with the rate of exchange. The gain by a rise from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 7d. is Rx.1,100,000. Council bills are fetching 3d. per rupee more than when silver was at 3s. 6d. per ounce.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the second part of the question is, Yes.

  IRELAND—GOREY CONSPIRACY CASE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the charge of the Lord Chief Baron in the "Gorey Conspiracy Case" at the Wick-low Assizes, and, to his Lordship's declaration of law, namely, that no person in the absence of contract was bound to deal or trade with anyone against his own will; that any attempt to press the Criminal Law, so as to force people to deal with others against their will, was against the law, and must lead to nothing but confusion; and that this principle as to individual traders was applicable to traders acting in combination, provided that such combinations were voluntary and not inspired by a malicious desire to inflict unnecessary harm; whether, since the passing of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887, numbers of persons in Ireland have been convicted by Resident Magistrates, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for what the Lord Chief Baron has now declared to be lawful; whether the number of persons so convicted and imprisoned can be approximately stated; how many persons are now in prison in Ireland upon convictions contrary to the law as declared by the Lord Chief Baron; whether they will now be set at liberty; whether any compensation will be made to them; and whether the Irish Government will inform the Resident Magistrates of the state of the law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the information at present at my disposal upon this subject is derived from the newspapers; but I have no antecedent grounds for doubting the substantial accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's version of a portion of the Chief Baron's charge. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to say that no persons in Ireland have been convicted for any proceeding which the Lord Chief Baron now declares to be lawful; but that, on the contrary, it appears to me the Lord

  905
  Chief Baron has, in his charge, given emphatic sanction to the views as to the law of criminal conspiracy which have been hitherto taken by Resident Magistrates, County Court Judges, and (on case stated) by the Superior Courts.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether it is not the fact that in the Kanturk, Killeagh, and other cases, men have been sent to prison for boycotting, against whom there was no evidence of compulsion or malice; and whether Mr. J. Fitzgibbon, who has been three times sent to prison, has been imprisoned for refusing to sell a necessary of life— namely, an ostrich feather, to the wife of a land-grabber?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I emphatically dissent from every statement made by the hon. Member, but it is impossible to re-argue the question now, at question time.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the case of the two men acquitted by the jury in the Gorey case, after the charge of the Lord Chief Baron, the Government will consider the question of indemnifying the men for the great expenses to which they have been put by this groundless prosecution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, it would be contrary to all precedent.
  MR. SEXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no one is in prison now in Ireland for having refused to sell, no evidence of malice having been produced at the trial?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: My statement is that nobody is now in prison in Ireland who is not guilty of an offence described by the Lord Chief Baron as an offence against the law.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman promised to lay this very important charge upon the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in communication with the Lord Chief Baron now.

  POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH CYPRUS.
  ADMIEAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has considered the question of improved postal communication with Cyprus, in view of the earnest represen-
  906
  tations made from time to time by the merchants and residents of the island, by special petition to this Hous3 and otherwise; whether, since the subsidised mailservice has been discontinued, it takes 12 and often 13 or more days for letters to reach the island, instead of six and a half days whilst the mail contract was in force; whether complaints have reached him that the abolition of the regular mail service has had a serious effect upon the trade of the island, and with this country especially; whether he is aware that it has been proposed to remit the "light and port dues" in Larnaca and Limasol to any line of steamers running direct, and under postal contract, with a weekly mail from Egypt, in lieu of a regular subsidy; and whether he will confer with the Postmaster General on the subject, with a view to inviting tenders on this basis, and thus obtain a great service and benefit for the island at no cost to its exchequer?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The question of improved postal communication with Cyprus has, at various times, occupied the attention of Secretaries of State, but not lately, as the present arrangements are considered as satisfactory as the financial resources of the island will admit. It does take from 11 to 13 days for letters to reach the island. The time formerly occupied was usually about six and a half or seven days; but the connection with the Brindisi express sometimes failed. As regards the third paragraph of the question, no such complaints have reached the Colonial Office for a long time; and as trade and shipping Returns show an increase, it is not probable that such complaints will be made. With respect to the concluding paragraphs, we have not had any such proposals made to us by any shipowner to perform a weekly direct service on these terms. If such a proposal is made it will receive attentive consideration.

  ASSAULT ON A SUPERIOR OFFICER.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a soldier named Leo was last year a prisoner in Derry Gaol, undergoing a sentence of two years with hard labour, for having committed a violent assault upon his superior officer, by a

  907
  Judge in a Court of Justice; and whether he is confined in Derry Gaol, or whether he has been removed, and to what other prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will defer the question.

  GRENADIER GUARDS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay before Parliament the defaulter sheets of the men belonging to the 2nd battalion Grenadier Guards who have been sentenced by a Court Martial to prolonged terms of imprisonment with hard labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): No, Sir; I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by their production.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I did not ask whether any useful purpose would be served, but whether, for our information, the right hon. Gentleman would lay the defaulter sheets before us. I would ask him whether he is aware that the sentence of two years' imprisonment inflicted on one of the men is the same punishment as that which has been inflicted on a soldier named Lee for a violent assault on his superior officer?
  ME. E. STANHOPE: I have no information on the subject referred to. I am perfectly clear it would not be advisable to lay the defaulter sheets before the House.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask whether the character of the men punished has not been exceedingly good hitherto?
  MR E. STANHOPE: Any circumstances of that kind would, no doubt, be taken into consideration by the Court Martial.
  MR. CTTNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to ask the right hon Gentleman whether he, as Secretary for War, knows whether the characters of the men punished were good or bad up to this time?
  MR. DILLON: May I ask whether the fact of a soldier having a good character and long service is considered as a ground for increasing the severity of his sentence?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; certainly not.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask if we are to understand that conduct such as that which has been punished in this case is to be placed on a par with the much graver offence of violently assaulting a superior officer, which is visited with similar punishment?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.

  MINERS DISEASE IN CORNWALL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received from Mr. Pinching his written Report on the prevalence of Miners' Disease among the miners of Cornwall; whether he will lay it upon the Table when he has got it; whether he can state upon what evidence, taken since 1888, the Government have decided to introduce legislation to deal with the question; and whether such legislative proposals are to be based upon the opinion of Mr. Pinching that, except for omission on the part of the miners, there is no danger from this form of disease, the ventilation and general arrangements of the mines being, in his opinion, all that can be desired?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I have received the Report I asked for from the Inspector as to the alleged insanitary condition of the mines in Cornwall. I will send a copy to the hon. Member, but I do not propose to lay it on the Table of the House. The Government have not been moved by fresh evidence since 1888 to contemplate legislation with regard to metalliferous mines. Early in that year the Inspectors, at my request, furnished me with suggestions for improving the general efficiency of the existing Act, and, among other things, for securing better ventilation and lessening the dangers from ladder-climbing. With respect to these last two matters, I am glad to say that a greatly improved state of things now exists.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the propriety of granting me Return No. 6, for which I have a Motion on the Paper? I will not press for a reply now, but will repeat the question on a future occasion.

  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BISLEY RANGES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the national and educational work of the National Rifle Association, to the fact that the Bisley Ranges have been lent for several weeks to the Aldershot Division for volley firing, and also to the difficulty experienced in raising from the public funds, found in other countries for like purposes by the State, Her Majesty's Government will consider the recommendation of a grant to the Association sufficient to cover the unavoidable cost of its move from Wimbledon to Bisley from the extra money at its disposal from the increased taxation on alcohol?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The answers I have already given with regard to the allocation of this money will make it clear that I cannot undertake to submit to Parliament the proposal suggested by the hon. Member.

  SCOTLAND AND THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of residue to be given to the County and Town Councils in Scotland under his Amendments to Clause 2 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) Bill, and what sums will be given to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen under his proposal?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. The amount to be given to the County and Town Councils in Scotland under the Amendments referred to in the question will be about £49,000. The proportions payable to the four towns named will probably be respectively: Edinburgh about £4,600; Glasgow about £7,200; Dundee about £1,400; Aberdeen about £1,100.

  THE STRENGTH OF THE GUARDS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return as to the strength of the Guards, of which notice appears on to-day's Paper?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am unable to grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member; but I have no objection to tell him that the number of men in the different battalions of the Guards in London was by the last Return:—1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, 789 of all ranks; 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards, 809 of all ranks; 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, 693 of all ranks; 1st Battalion Scots Guards, 699 of all ranks; 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, 710 of all ranks. The establishment of the bands is, in the Grenadier Guards, 60; in the Coldstream Guards and Scots Guards, 40; but, in addition to these numbers, acting bandsmen are appointed, whose numbers vary from time to time.

  THE GWYLWYS SETT STONE QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have granted a lease of the Gwylwys Sett Stone Quarry, in the parish of Pistyll, Carnarvonshire; if so, to whom, for what term, and subject to what dead rent and royalties; whether such a lease contains any proviso for re-entry in the event of the quarry not being worked for a certain time; and if there be such a provision, whether it has been enforced?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): I am informed that negotiations are in progress for the grant of a lease of the quarry referred to, but no lease has been granted. The lease, if granted, will contain a provision for re-entry in the event of the quarry not being worked.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the tabulation of the statistics of the Census, he will direct that a compilation shall be made of the number of children of school age under the Elementary Education Acts?
  MR. RITCHIE: The question whether the ages of children between 10 and 15 years should be separately shown in the Census Returns, instead of the children being included in one group, was considered by the Census Committee; but they did not deem it necessary to recommend that this should be done, the views

  911
  of the Registrar General's Department being distinctly opposed to the proposal.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that School Boards are constantly put to large expense by the making of these local inquiries in conformity with the regulations of the Education Department, and, in view of this expenditure and in the interest of public education, will he re consider this matter, and have a separate heading for school children on the Census Paper?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not come to any decision on the matter. The question only appeared on the Paper to-day. We have given effect to the Report of the Census Committee, but it is quite open to us to re-consider the matter in regard to school children.

  RESIGNATION OF COLONEL MAITLAND.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has 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 a mere temporary removal, leaving the officer eligible for future employment?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Colonel Maitland, after writing to the papers saying that he had not resigned, re-considered the matter, and voluntarily tendered his unreserved resignation, which was accepted, and, accordingly, he has been placed on half-pay.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the inquiry showed that the mutiny of the Guards was due to the harsh conduct of Colonel Maitland?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already stated that I think it would be contrary to the interests of the Public Service to say what the inquiry showed.

  THE GUARDS AND FOREIGN SERVICE.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government that the Guards shall henceforward take their
  912
  turn of foreign service with the rest of the Army?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.

  APPOINTMENTS IN THE POST OFFICE
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of taking the right of nomination to certain appointments in the Postal Services out of the hands of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, and of placing all such appointments in the hands of the Department that is responsible for the efficient administration of the Service in question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The question is one that is receiving the consideration of the Government, with the view of securing efficient administration.

  NAVAL ADMINISTRATION.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take care that an opportunity shall be offered, before it is too late in the Session, for the discussion of that part of the Royal Commission on Naval and Military Administration which relates to the Navy, as to which, so far, no opportunity has occurred?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that such an opportunity may arise; but in the present condition of business, I am not able to name any day for the discussion of the subject.

  FEMALE TYPISTS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the permission given by the Treasury to Departments of the Civil Service to employ female typists is, or will be, conditional on the Department publicly announcing the intention to appoint such persons, and on its making the appointments after competitive examination of the candidates; or whether, in introducing female typists into the Service, the Government propose to recognise a return to the system of appointment by private patronage without examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, notwithstanding such a system has long since been practically

  913
  abolished as regards the appointment of men?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The employment of female typists has been as yet experimental, and Departments have made their own selection of typists. There is little doubt that this form of labour will be generally adopted in the Public Service, and the Treasury will have to consider the general conditions under which female typists will be employed.

  MALTESE MARRIAGE LAW.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury at what date it was first made known to the Authorities in this country that the marriages of Protestants with one another and of Protestants with Roman Catholics in Malta were contrary to law, unless celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In 1865 by the Crown Advocate of Malta, who is now Chief Justice; but (1), as regards marriages between non-Roman Catholics under licence from the Governor or Bishops, or otherwise, he advised that they had received a degree of recognition which constituted a consuetudo abrogatoria, and were, in his opinion, valid; and (2), as regards marriages between a Roman Catholic and a non-Roman Catholic, he advised that they could only toe legally celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest in accordance with the forms of the Council of Trent.
  MR. SUMMERS: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a letter,? dated 24th June, 1890, from a gentleman signing himself "Wesleyan Minister," addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government at Malta, complaining that he had recently been refused a licence to perform a "mixed marriage," on the ground that one of the parties was a Roman Catholic, although licence to perform such marriages had never hitherto been refused, and asking whether the Governor will continue to issue licences for the performance of mixed marriages; and what answer, if any, has been returned to this letter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been drawn to the letter in question, of which the Colonial Office have no knowledge.

  GUNPOWDER LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. T. M. HEALY): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why it is that Messrs. Felix Keirans & Co., a Catholic firm of ironmongers, have been refused a licence to sell gunpowder by the Clones Commissioners on the ground that the firm also held a spirit licence; whether the Commissioners granted a gunpowder licence to J. C. Deiring & Co., Clones, a Protestant firm, who also hold a spirit licence; and do the police object to Messrs. Keirans getting a gunpowder licence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ground of refusal appears to have been not that indicated in the question, but the want of proper accommodation for storing, the powder. The police have no personal objection in the matter.

  MR. JUSTICE HARRISON'S CHARGE AT GALWAY ASSIZES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now prepared to read the statement of Mr. Justice Harrison at the recent Galway Assizes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement is really a private letter addressed to myself, which perhaps the House will not object to my reading. It is in these terms—
  "July 23.
  "Sir,—I returned from the Galway Assizes last night. I observed in the Times' report of the proceedings in the House of Commons on Monday evening that you expressed the wish that I would send you an account of my charge at the recent Galway Assizes. I beg to state that my charge was not committed to writing, nor have I any note of it. The official documents before me showed that a great many outrages were reported from the East Riding of the County Galway, in none of which had any person been made amenable, including the following, namely:—Attempt to murder by explosives, firing at the police, firing into a dwelling-house, arson (three cases), intimidation, killing and maiming cattle, malicious injuries to property, threatening notices, &c, and I was also informed by the Police Authorities that intimidation and lawlessness prevailed to such an extent in certain districts that it was deemed expedient to resort to the course there hitherto unknown of having night patrols of police across country, in place of the ordinary patrols along the roads, with a view, if possible, to check the system of intimidation, &c, which prevailed. Under these circumstances, and feeling very strongly for the people who were the sufferers, I used at the

  915
  moment the words 'Lynch law' as reported, but I did not use them in the sense imputed, namely, that lives should he taken, or as an invitation to murder certain individuals in the county, and I am quite certain that my words were not so understood. I believe that my language, though not felicitously chosen, was understood in the meaning intended to be conveyed by me—that it was surprising that the people in the district referred to had not the moral courage openly to assert themselves against the system of intimidation and outrage by which it was Bought to terrorise them. This is the meaning in which my words were spoken, and in this sense I believe they were understood."
  MR. DILLON: The learned Judge has not in that statement repudiated the language which I find all the Irish newspapers agree in reporting. Under these circumstances I beg to give notice to the Government that I shall put a notice on the Paper to-night impugning the conduct and language of the learned Judge, and on Monday next I shall ask the Government for an opportunity of discussing that question.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask whether there was anything in the Assize Calendar or the Police Reports which justifies a departure from the ordinary course in the Judge's charge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I ought to have notice of that question. No doubt with regard to a relatively large area in County Galway intimidation and outrage do prevail.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House of Commons what course the Government intend to take in regard to Order No. 9—the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill?
  MR. DILLON: Before that is answered) I would ask if the Government can give an undertaking that Order No. 4—that is the Report of Supply of 16th July—will be taken to-night at 11 o'clock?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We take the Second Reading of the Anglo-German Agreement Bill first, and the rest of the Orders as they appear on the Paper. The Report of Supply referred to will be taken to-night if reached by 11 o'clock, which I hope will be the case, and if the
  916
  House is in Committee of Supply at that hour the Government will report Progress for that purpose. The Local Taxation Bill will not be taken to-night.
  MR. DILLON: I would venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the extreme inconvenience of the course he proposes to take. He hopes it may be possible to reach the 4th Order by 11 o'clock. Everyone knows the right hon. Gentleman can reach it if he chooses to do so. I have remained here four nights in the hope that the Order would be reached before 11 o'clock, but it never has been. I would ask for an undertaking that the Order will be taken to-night at 11 o'clock.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not sure that I am in a position to give that undertaking. It is desired that the Anglo-German Agreement Bill may be read a second time, and at what hour the discussion on that Bill will terminate of course I cannot say.
  MR. SEXTON: I desire to ask what course the Government propose to take with regard to the Juvenile Offenders Bill, which has come from the House of Lords? There are circumstances, I may say, which will render it necessary for the Irish Members to offer strenuous, opposition to the application of the measure to Ireland.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Irish Members desire it Ireland will be excluded from the operation of the Juvenile Offenders Bill.
  MR. BRYCE: If the Second Reading of the Anglo-German Agreement Bill is taken to-night will the Committee stage be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That will be so.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 324.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 398.]

  COAL MINES (EXPLOSIONS).
  Address for—
  "Return showing, with regard to Coal Mines in the United Kingdom, the number, for the last 10 years, of fatal explosions of which notice was required to be given under Section 39 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1872, or under Section 35 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, the number of lives lost, and, where such information was included in the notice, or otherwise conveyed to the Inspectors, and is still preserved, the approximate hour of the shift when the explosion occurred, in the following form:—

  Name of colliery.

  Date of Explosion.

  Number of lives lost.

  Approximate hour of shift when Explosion occurred.

  —(Mr. Fenwick.)

  CYPRUS (ENFORCED SALES).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the number of Enforced Sales of Property in the island of Cyprus for the years 1887, 1888, and 1889 (a) at the instance of the Island Government, and (b) at the instance of private parties."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 393.)

    SECOND BEADING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [24th July],"That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months,"—(Mr. Philipps,) —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The greater portion of the Debate last night was occupied by the discussion of a very intricate and important question relating to a constitutional innovation which the Government have brought about by the way they decided to present this measure to the House. Into the merits or demerits of that course it is not my intention to enter tonight, but this I would point out, that if the Government were right—and I do not say they were—in presenting a Bill
    918
    to this House, it was their bounden duty to take what opportunity they could to enable the fullest possible discussion to be had on the measure. As there was an important constitutional question to be discussed, it was only at a comparatively late hour of the evening that it was possible for the House to address itself to the merits of the proposed arrangement with Germany. Under the circumstances, it appears to me that the course adopted by the First Lord of the Treasury last night in attempting to close the Debate on an arrangement which involves the destinies of half a continent, was very much mistaken, and one to be strongly deprecated. I trust that no such attempt will be made tonight, looking at the large number of Members who are interested in the matter. The immediate interest is, no doubt, connected with the cession of Heligoland, and on that question there are, no doubt, two questions that force themselves upon our attention. The first is, whether the consent of the inhabitants of the island has been obtained to the proposed cession. We are told the Government have made informal and confidential inquiries, but no attempt, apparently, has been made to take, directly or indirectly, the sense of the inhabitants upon the question. The opinion of observers and visitors to the island differ very greatly. One gentleman who called on the Under Secretary yesterday gave him one version, but other gentlemen have given totally different versions as to the opinions of the inhabitants. It seems to me that to hand over territory to a foreign Power without first obtaining a clear expression of opinion from the inhabitants is to

    919
    establish a very bad precedent. But there is a second point connected with the cession of Heligoland as to which we are entitled to ask for some explanation. There is reason to believe, from the German military newspapers, that the first act of the German Government will be to construct upon the ceded island extensive and very strong fortifications. A very important article appeared yesterday morning in the Kreuz Zeitung. The article opened by saying that the appearance of the article had been delayed until yesterday, because they wished the Second Reading of this Bill to have been passed in the House of Commons before the publication. The information possessed by the publishers of the newspaper as to the doings of the House of Commons appeared to be very faulty. The article went on to attach the greatest importance to the proposed cession of Heligoland, and to admit that the German Press had minimised the importance of the proposed cession of Heligoland in order that the German Government might make a better bargain in South Africa. I hold that the quid pro quo obtained for our concessions is inadequate. In the event of war between Germany and some other Power Heligoland would be of vast importance to the former. Therefore, in return for the island we ought to obtain more than we shall under the Agreement. In Africa we are to have the Protectorate of Zanzibar, but that does not amount to very much. The Protectorate will only be over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Formerly this country enjoyed far greater influence on the East Coast of Africa than it will have under this Agreement, for, before the Treaty of 1886, when Sir John Kirk was the keeper of the conscience of Sultan Seyyid Bargash, the influence of this country in East Africa was paramount. The events of the last few years show, what the Government no doubt will admit, that the influence of England on the East Coast of Africa is not what it was five, six, or seven years ago. It seems to me that we are getting back very much less than we actually possessed before. Before we acquire the Protectorate of Zanzibar we have to consult Prance. We are glad to hear that Prance is entering into the negotiations in a thoroughly friendly spirit, but surely it would have
    920
    been more advantageous to this country if we had consulted Prance at the time of the negotiations with Germany than to arrange with her subsequently. Then, again, there is another point of importance connected with East and Central Africa, and that is that one result of the Agreement will be the perpetuation in Africa of the separation between the British sphere of influence in the north and the British sphere of influence in the south. It will be impossible to get from Lake Tanganyika to the Victoria Nyanza without passing through German territory. A concession from Germany which would have had the effect of preventing this undesirable state of things ought, if possible, to have been obtained. The Agreement should also be considered in its relation to the future development of Southern Africa. There will inevitably, at a no very distant date, be a large influx of British people into Cape Colony, and then it will be necessary to make a new Agreement with Germany with respect to the territories near Walfisch Bay, and we shall be unable to obtain as favourable terms as we might have obtained now. The relations of Germany with South Africa may very likely, in the course of not many years, undergo a great change in consequence of the increase of the area of the German Empire in Europe. The English framers of the Agreement do not appear to have considered what will be the effect upon the course of events in South Africa of the incorporation of the Kingdom of Holland with Germany. In that event, Germany will obtain Amsterdam and Rotterdam, 40,000 able seamen, and all the Dutch colonies, and her interest in the affairs of South Africa will be enormously increased. One would suppose that the commercial interest in Germany connected with the colonies is of so strong and potent a character as to be able to dictate to the Government what course to adopt. As a matter of fact, the German commercial interest in South Africa has been dwindling for some years past. The Report of the German Colonial Society was published a day or two ago, and I noticed from it that, during the last year, no fewer than 1,700 gentlemen have ceased to be members, owing to default in the payment of subscriptions. Her Majesty's Government should have looked ahead

    921
    when making to Germany a very considerable concession in the shape of Heligoland. They ought to have obtained a more fortunate arrangement in Africa, from our own point of view. The Government have not obtained the best bargain they could have obtained. No doubt the Agreement is an honest attempt to arrive at a good understanding with Germany, but when any impartial observer looks at the details, he cannot but be struck with the fact that England has not obtained the treatment she might have been able to obtain, and which, undoubtedly, she would have obtained if she had pressed with greater emphasis the claims of the British colonists in South Africa, and if also she had laid greater stress on the importance of Heligoland to Germany, and the regret this country felt at parting with the possession. On these grounds I intend to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Philipps). There was no immediate necessity for an Agreement of this kind. If more favourable terms could have been obtained next year, next year would have done equally well for the making of the Agreement. Surely the people of England and the colonial subjects of the Queen have a right to expect that greater attention would have been paid to their interests in this matter, and that, in view of the influx of a British population into Africa in times to come, greater care would have been taken to maintain unimpaired the interest we have in that country, and to render possible the free development of their energy in that continent. On these grounds I find it necessary to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If the Agreement be regarded by the present Government as a final settlement, I think the condemnation it deserves is certainly more severe than any I have endeavoured to pass upon it. But I cannot believe that the Agreement is intended by the Government to be a final settlement of the difficulty. There is no pressing necessity for arriving at an understanding of this kind. The question can wait for a more adequate and a more favourable solution, and I think that, in view of the attitude the German Press is adopting now, it sees that the House of Commons has practically passed the Agreement, the
    922
    Government may be fairly called upon to consider whether it is not possible to amend the Treaty by subsequent Agreements, dealing with particular parts.
    ADMIRAL MAYNE: The question has been divided into two parts, the cession of Heligoland and the advantage we have gained, or otherwise, in Africa. I have been greatly surprised at the views expressed in the House as to the little island of Heligoland. It has been said that the Germans would probably make it a powerful fortification, while one hon. Member has applied to it the title of the Gibraltar of the Baltic. I believe that the gentleman who took the island, in the days before steam, did so describe it, but I also believe that not a single person who is capable of judging would now consider such a title as anything but ludicrous. How can this little island at the entrance to a German river be compared to the gate of the Mediterranean, through which all the traffic to the East must pass? Is England prepared to fortify this island? We have it on the authority of Sir John Coode that it would cost at least £1,000,000 to make a harbour there, and at least £2,000,000 would be required to fortify it. Is any hon. Gentleman prepared seriously to propose to the House that England should fortify the place—an island at the entrance to a German river—considering the present relations between the two countries? If not a casus belli, it would at least be the nearest thing to it. The Germans may possibly fortify it to satisfy their feelings of pride and vanity, but they will never do so with the view of holding it in war against us. The possession of the island would have no bearing on a war between this country and Germany. The loss or gain of Heligoland would bring neither country to its knees. A passing ship might amuse itself with a little target practice. It would probably throw half a dozen shells into the place for a morning's entertainment, and, if the Teuton showed his usual sense, he would as promptly as possible get into his steam launch and make for the nearest port on the mainland. It would be an utterly useless risk of life for any Government to attempt to

    923
    hold it in the face of a superior fleet. The island would be treated in the way that all such islands have invariably been treated in time of war. They are held by that country which has the biggest fleet in the adjacent waters. If we went to war with Germany we should hold the island if we wanted it, so long as we had a superior fleet in the vicinity, as we held Belle Isle, Houat and Hoedié off Quiberon Bay, Diamond Rock off Martinique, and other islands during the war with France. In that way we should hold it, and in that way will the Germans or any other people hold it if they have a superior naval force. I have never heard a single officer of any rank or position say that Heligoland is of any real value to us, or that we should attempt to hold it if we went to war. We could not attempt to hold the island without a powerful fleet, and nobody could possibly take it from us if we had a superior fleet. If a difficulty arose an enemy would be able to find refuge easily in neutral waters, and the necessity of keeping a constant watch would be a source of endless trouble to us. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the words of admiration used by Mr. H. M. Stanley for Lord Salisbury when the details of the Treaty were made known, and he said that Captain Cameron, another distinguished authority, claimed the arrangement to be a moral and territorial gain to the British Government, and expressed his opinion that the House and the British public would value the opinions of those gentlemen more than those who had given contrary opinions in the House. German influence has for some time existed in Africa, and it ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose policy in Africa has never been of the boldest, to upbraid the present Government for parting with what had really been parted with before they came into power. The whole Treaty is well summed up by the German opinion that the "Agreement is a Treaty of Peace of all the more gratifying kind because it has been preceded by no struggle, and because it secures the continuance of friendly relations between Great Britain and the German Empire for an incalculable length of time." I confidently believe that a very large majority of the House will vote for the Bill.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am prepared at once frankly to admit that I hail with great satisfaction the course which has been adopted by the Government in reducing to the form of a Bill a sanction which has hitherto been absolutely ineffective; and I am not to be deterred from giving my approval there to by the consideration that that power is to be exercised co-equally with the other House of Parliament. The right accorded to the House of Commons of exercising an effective control over Treaty-making is entirely in accordance with the principles which obtain in all democratic and all constitutionally-governed countries. It is a curious fact that in the United States whenever a cession of territory is made the assent not only of the Senate but of the House of Representatives also is required. I turn now to those questions which, after all, are of more practical importance. In the first place, there is the question of Heligoland; with regard to that question, I am bound to say that I think the Government would have done well if they had departed from an old-established precedent, and had established another by obtaining the sanction of the inhabitants to the cession. I will ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have taken the trouble to investigate the precedents in the case? According to all eminent jurists it is not only the universal practice, but a condition of absolute necessity, that in such a case the opinion of the inhabitants should be obtained. The gallant Admiral (Admiral Mayne) has spoken of the little importance of Heligoland, but he sedulously avoided committing himself to any opinion as to what it might become as a possession of Germany. According to German experts, there is good ground for believing that, by the expenditure of £1,000,000, or more, Germany may establish Naval Dockyards in the island, which would contribute very much to enhance her maritime power. However, I am bound to admit that it is of great importance that we should cultivate friendly relations with Germany. Germany is the natural ally of England, and as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), there has been no occasion on which this country has been brought into conflict with Germany. I

    925
    cannot forget that there are troubles with France looming in the not distant future in relation to a portion of the East over which we exercise Suzerain Powers. Previous to 1884 we were practically supreme in Africa, with the exception of the Portuguese possessions. Before that year Germany practically had not made any lodgment in Africa. In 1884, in the Secretary ship of Lord Derby, we made the first concession to Germany. It was contrary to the wish of the German Emperor and of Prince Bismarck that Germany embarked in the business of colonisation. In 1884 we deliberately abandoned the right of exercising a Protectorate over Damaraland, and let Germany in. In 1886, when Lord. Granville was at the Colonial Office, the German Colonisation Committee, under Dr. Peters, came and exploited the land lying to the West of Zanzibar. Representations of the strongest character were made to Lord Granville by Sir J. Kirk, and by the Sultan of Zanzibar, who complained that the action of those German exploiters was an infringement of his sovereignty. The reply of Lord Granville was that we could not interfere with a friendly Power in what we believed would be a useful work of colonisation, tending to the benefit of the African people, and to the spread of civilisation throughout Africa. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government found themselves in a position which, whether rightly or wrongly, was formed for them by their predecessors, and they were bound to make an arrangement which would be for the interest of all parties. With regard to Heligoland, I hope before the final settlement that Her Majesty's Government will take the wishes of the people into consideration, as was done in the case of the cession by England to France of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, on the coast of Newfoundland. Personally, I am prepared to support the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this question of the Agreement, which I am glad to find has obtained general approval.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I do not intend to touch upon the constitutional question. I think it is fortunate that the German Debate took place last night, because it afforded the Government an opportunity of stating their case. But the Government have avoided stating the
    926
    case with respect to the Cape Colony and South Africa altogether. Several Ministers have spoken, and the Representative of the Colonial Office occasionally entered the House and walked out again. The Government appear to consider that South Africa and our greatest colony there have nothing whatever to do with the matter. Will the Government continue to maintain to the end that secrecy with regard to the opinions of the people on the spot, and is the House of Commons to be asked to pass this Bill without knowing what their fellow-subjects in South Africa think on the question? I know what men of business think, and their opinion is universally adverse to this Anglo-German Treaty. [Cries of"No!"] I wish to know whether the Government can bring forward proofs of acquiescence on the part of our South African fellow-subjects in the Agreement? Under the Agreement, all that is given is to be supplied by South Africa, with the exception of Heligoland. Our colonists complain that the great territories of South Africa are now outflanked on the West and on the North; that they are blocked; that a trade route is handed over to Germany from the West Coast right across and touching the Zambesi. They also complain that traders who are British subjects in that country are not very well treated by the Germans. We give up Heligoland, and allow the Germans to stretch their frontier, but we do not insist that the question of the delimitation of Walfisch Bay shall be contained in the Agreement; on the contrary, we leave that question an open one. I ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies to lay before the House the information which he possesses from the Cape Government, or to tell the House the purport of the communications between the Colonial Office and the Cape Government on this subject. It appears to me that the colonists will say, "We have no recognition of our claims; we are not even allowed to make a statement of our claims; the statement of our case is suppressed by the official Department which is bound to protect and to, assert the claims and the rights of the colonists." I fear that if the colonists find that they cannot get a sufficient representation through the ordinary official sources they will demand some more reliable channel of communi-

    927
    cation with the Government and the House. We are in danger of giving up, for the friendship of Germany, the affection of our colonists. Unless the Government can give an assurance of a re-consideration of the Agreement as regards South Africa, or unless they can state, as I hope may be the case, with authority that the opinion of our fellow-subjects on the spot in South Africa cordially supports the Agreement, I fear that it will be impossible for me to vote for the Bill as it stands.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I think the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, after hearing speeches from his hon. Friends like the speech last delivered, must be inclined to exclaim with Sheridan, "Save me from my friends." I rejoice that the attempt to closure the Debate failed, because I maintain that two days are not too many for the consideration of such an important question. Now, I cannot help asking myself what would have been said of this Treaty had it been brought forward by a Liberal Government, and concluded and signed by a Liberal Ministry. There would have been an outcry raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who would have said that the Liberal Government were bartering away British interests, and selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. On the other hand, I cannot help thinking that there is something high-handed in the way in which two great Powers have proceeded to divide territory as large as three first-class European States, and to which they have no more right than I have to any umbrella or any coat to which I may take a fancy in the cloak-room. The whole effect of the Agreement really resolves itself into the question whether Heligoland is worth exchanging against Zanzibar. Military opinions are divided as to the value of Heligol and to Great Britain in time of war; but if the island is of small strategic value to this country, it is admitted to be of great strategic value to Germany, and that fact ought to weigh in a consideration of the Agreement. As to Zanzibar, the concessions to Great Britain in that direction are dependent on the consent of France, and that being so, this is really a tripartite Treaty, while there are only two signatories to the actual Treaty. I should be
    928
    only too glad to hear that the remaining causes of friction and difficulty with France are to be finally settled, for there is no nation with which it is more important that Great Britain should be on friendly terms. But until I can learn more certainly that this will be the effect of the Treaty under discussion, I cannot vote with the Government, though, on the other hand, I do not feel justified in voting against the Bill, for to do this would be to assume a responsibility which rests, and ought to rest, with the Executive which is in power.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: After the wholesale, but somewhat diffuse, criticisms which have been indulged in by the Opposition, it seems to me to be high time that a Member on the Ministerial side of the House should rise to offer some defence of the African part of the Anglo-German Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seemed never to strike home, but yet tried to wound the Government in every way, and last evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, and other Members on that side of the House, who seem to think and act with him, criticised the foreign arrangements of Her Majesty's Government in a style which to us on this side of the House was truly refreshing. That right hon. Gentleman seemed, during the greater part of his speech yesterday, to imply that a more spirited foreign policy should have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and that they had yielded too much to Germany and to France. According to him we have given in too much to Germany in Zanzibar; to France in the Australasian Archipelago; to Germany, again, at Samoa and other places in the Southern Seas. Yet no sooner is a policy adopted, which virtually means a standing up to perhaps the most formidable of all our rivals in Eastern and Central Africa, than the right hon. Gentleman begins to carp, cavil, and criticise, to disparage, belittle, and minimise all the advantages of the Anglo-German Agreement in Africa. That being the case, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I strive to give a practical summary of the benefits which that Agreement seems to confer on the British Empire in

    929
    Africa. The right hon. Gentleman observes that the territories in question are recognised as within the British sphere by Germany alone. Now, I feel sure that these territories are now actually taken over by England, and that she will keep her hold upon them as against any Power in the world. Again, he seems to consider that the territories within the red line are not annexed, and that we have only got freedom or immunity from German interference. But protection and annexation in a country like East Africa virtually mean the same thing. I venture to say that in all these regions there will be one manifest consequence of protection or annexation, namely, the conservation of all the rights of the natives in the land and in the produce thereof. Let me consider for a moment, in the briefest manner, some of the advantages of this Anglo - German Treaty. First as to Zanzibar. I quite admit that up to a very recent date England was supreme in Zanzibar, and in the neighbouring Island of Pemba. I know that for the reason that when I governed Bombay the trade in Zanzibar was financed from that great centre, and that my predecessors in the Government considered themselves as virtually the masters of the island. That may be all very true—it is, indeed, to the natives of India that the prosperity of Zanzibar is attributed, and is attributable. Why, the partition between the kinsmen, the Sultans of Muscat and Zanzibar, took place under British supervision. But if we have drifted into a very uncomfortable position there I rather think it began to happen during the time that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last was in office; at all events, without saying whose fault it was, we must admit that we have allowed Germany to slide into a very dangerous position of competition and rivalry or participation with us in the supremacy at Zanzibar. All this will be terminated, England will be the sole protector, and her former supremacy is formally restored. Then the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke of our relations with France in reference to Zanzibar. Well, as regards the relations it is obvious that all the Agreement we have entered
    930
    into with France is to respect the independence of the Sultan; and that we do respect in the Agreement; but nothing has been said to France about a Joint Protectorate. The result of the Agreement with Germany will be that we shall have a true supremacy, and will never permit France nor any other Power to dispute it with us. Now, what is the position of Zanzibar? It has been described by our rivals as being the key, commercially and politically, of the whole eastern coast of Africa. Outside the British Dominions it is to us the sixth most important stategic point in the world, the other five being Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hongkong, and Singapore.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I pointed out the great importance of Zanzibar.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, but I say that on that point the right hon. Gentleman's observations were below par in that part of his description, however just it may have been in other respects. When it is said that we have-not obtained a quid pro quo for the cession of Heligoland, I contend that we have got an island worth to us ten thousand Heligolands.
    An hon. MEMBER: We have not got it.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: We have got it, and in the event of any general disturbance we can make it a strategic point of vantage for England. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, also asked whether there was any point on the coast opposite to Zanzibar under British control. He contended that the coast opposite was under German control. That is indeed true, for the coast there is the German "Hinterland." But I ask the House to recollect that besides Zanzibar there is the Sister Island of Pemba which does come within the red line, as also does the coast line nearly opposite the north point of that island. From that coast we have a stretch of country extending 500 miles inland to the lake region at the head of the waters of the Nile; and, geographically, this is one of the most important positions in all Africa. In that region we have got a range of snow-clad mountains and a country fit for habitation by Europeans. No doubt we shall make settlements there, as we have done in the Himalayas. Besides all this, we have kept Germany

    931
    out of two places within that region, where German influence would have been very inconvenient to us—namely, Uganda and Vitu. This alone is worth the cession of many islands like Heligoland. From this region northwards we take over the whole country right up the coast opposite Aden. Turning, again, far southward, I observe that the Stevenson Road comes well within the red line, and, although the width of the strip outside of it may appear to be very narrow on a small map, on the spot it will be a very appreciable belt of British territory, which can, if need be, be made a defensible frontier for us. This is certainly one of the most important lines of communication in Southern Africa, for it connects the Lake Nyassa with the Lake Tanganyika. It is around the shores of these lakes that our missionary posts and our commercial stations are situated. In addition to this, we have got Germany out of the whole region of the Shire and that portion of the lower valley and basin of the Zambesi. Lastly, I would refer to Damaraland, in the South-West corner of the area under this Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to criticise our conduct in regard to that territory; but we should remember that in 1884, whether rightly or wrongly, we allowed Germany to assume the protectorate of all that land. When the history of that matter is looked into, it will not be found that our Party on this side of the House is at all responsible for it. But, still, the thing has happened, and what are we doing by this Agreement? My right hon. Friend below me (the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) will correct me if I am wrong, but my belief is that Germany wanted to reach eastward as far as the 23rd deg, of east longitude, and we have kept her to the 20th deg., thereby saving three degrees of longitude for British interests, and surely that is something. Then, on the whole, I would ask the House to consider what is the sum of this Agreement. According to my reckoning, on the map this Anglo - German Agreement adds one million of square miles to the British Empire. This is a sensible addition to the eight or nine millions of square miles which that Empire has in
    932
    all parts of the world. This new territory is fertile and capable, under British administration, of maintaining a vast population, of which every man, woman, and child will be consumers of British manufactures. That is something as a prospect for trade. Again, the Agreement secures all the rights and privileges of those enterprising corporations and companies, who by private resources are trying to found a new dominion for us in Africa. Further, and not the least important, it secures protection for our Missionary Societies. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway choose to sneer at missionary work. ["No, no!"]
    MR. STOREY: Perhaps as I was one of those who interrupted the hon. Baronet, and should not have done so, he will allow me to explain that I meant no sneer at missionary work; my ejaculation was occasioned by the enunciation of a piece of sham, sentiment in support of this proposal.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Accepting the explanation of the hon. Member, I must yet notice that the description of one of the objects of the Agreement, as being the protection of missionaries in Africa, appears to him to be as "sham sentiment." Well, that opinion of his, against which I protest, may be shared by those who sit with him below the Gangway opposite. But it will not be shared by many hon. Members who sit above the Gangway opposite, and who sympathise with the missionary cause. I repeat that one of the objects sought and attained is the protection of the pioneers of Christian civilisation. And, Sir, I need not dwell upon one great principle which has been in the minds of those who framed this Agreement; one object it will secure; it will strike at the root of the Slave Trade. This is so obvious, after the Debate we had on the subject last year, that I refrain from going into this part of the subject. Despite the interruptions of hon. Members opposite, I say it will afford a means of uprooting the Slave Trade system and stopping the traffic in human beings. I maintain, too, that it is a most important step in the furtherance of Imperial British interests in Africa. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr, Bryce) was

    933
    kind enough to tell us that the Conservative Party will get no credit for this in the coming General Election; but this I know, that the present Government will get credit for this action in my own constituency, and there, and before any of the electors in this country whom my voice can reach, I shall, with confidence, describe this Anglo-German Agreement as one of the most triumphant achievements of the present Government.
    MR. LABOUCHBRE: I hope the hon. Baronet, to whom we entertain the most friendly feelings, may gain the approbation of his constituents. He no doubt will gain the approbation of Government supporters, and therefore he may be perfectly happy without having gained, politically, our approbation by his speech. It was a surprising addition to their long series of blunders that the Government moved the Closure last night. To your restraining hand, Sir, we owe the fact of our being able to discuss this important matter to-night. It does seem to me a most extraordinary blunder, and a most untenable position for the Government to take up. They negotiate a Treaty with a Foreign Government; they insert in that Treaty a condition that it shall receive Parliamentary approval; they start a great constitutional question by their action, and then they move the Closure after two or three hours' Debate. But it would seem the Government would go infinitely beyond this; they consider Lord Salisbury so eminent a Minister that no matter what he does, whatever Bill he puts before us, we ought not to venture to discuss it; we should simply throw up our hands and thank Heaven for sending us such a wonderful Minister as Lord Salisbury. I am led to make this remark after seeing in a newspaper a report of some observations made last night by the Secretary to the Local Government Board to the electors of Warwickshire. He, speaking I presume with the full concurrence of his colleagues, said—
    "The fight now going on in the House of Commons as to the Agreement with Germany-was a disgrace to the British Parliament."
    So it appears it has really come to this: that we are to be called disgraceful if we venture to discuss even for a few moments a great and important Treaty like this, involving the cession and annex-
    934
    ation of territory and great constitutional points! It is always an interesting matter to consider whether the messes Ministers get into are brought about by blundering simply or by design. Certainly, after what has occurred during the Session, we may suppose that much of it has been due to ignorance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, who always takes a kindly view of Ministers, suggested last night that they had fallen into this particular blunder on a great constitutional question through ignorance. But I think my right hon. Friend was too kind. I see in this a sinister design. Yes, I do. What happened on the Procedure Committee? In that Committee there was an attempt made on the part of Her Majesty's Government by a side wind to deprive the House of Commons of power over its own Bills, and an attempt to give the House of Lords a greater power over those measures. That attempt, however, was foiled by the watchful patriotism of the right hon. Member for Derby. By means of the present Bill Her Majesty's Ministers hope to be able, again by a side wind, to give the House of Lords greater power over Foreign Treaties; but again there is the right hon. Member for Derby standing in the breach and defending the Constitution from the reckless attacks of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Bradlaugh) generally takes a sound view in political matters; but as I listened to his speech last night, it struck me that his view was not so sound as it ordinarily is. My hon. Friend and Colleague said he should vote with the Government in this matter because in the Bill the Government have attacked one of the prerogatives of the Crown; well, but what is the Crown? The Crown is merely a figure of speech. The Crown means the centre and source of power, and what is the centre and source of power in this country? The House of Commons. The prerogative of the Crown, then, means the prerogative of the House of Commons. [Laughter.] If hon. Members who laugh will take the trouble to read constitutional writers, they will find that authorities lay this principle down: that in the nature of things the action of the Crown is taken on the advice of the Executive Ministers, who are responsible to the House of Commons; we have the

    935
    power, we have the Crown, and any attack on the prerogative of the Crown is an attack on the prerogative of the House of Commons. Let us look practically at the matter. Hon. Members seem surprised; but if they sit here long enough, I really think they will begin to know something about the Constitution. Let us look at the effect of the change suggested—this bringing in a Bill to give effect to a Treaty. At this moment the Treaty-making power is in the hands of the Executive. What is the Executive? It consists of the representatives of the great Party majority in this House. Consequently, when the Executive makes a Treaty, it has—it must have, in the nature of things—this House at the back of it. But what is the change proposed by this Bill? That you take out of the hands of the Executive the power of contracting a Treaty, and you give the House of Lords the power of vetoing that Treaty. Now, we all know perfectly well that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said, the House of Lords is a permanently Conservative Assembly. It is not in any sense of the word a Popular Assembly; it is, in the Party sense of the word, simply a Conservative Assembly. Now, supposing a Liberal Ministry wanted to make a Treaty with a Foreign Power, what would that Foreign Power say? It would say, "No, we will not treat with you, because you will have to submit the Treaty to the House of Lords, and you have not a majority in the House of Lords. The only result will be a waste of time, because you will have to submit the Treaty to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords will not agree to it." Take as an illustration the case of the retrocession of the Transvaal. We know that in the minds of hon. Gentlemen of the Party opposite that appears one of the most monstrous acts ever committed. Well, they had a majority in the House of Lords, and may we not suppose that if it had been necessary to pass a Bill for the retrocession of the Transvaal the House of Lords would have thrown out that Bill? There is not the slightest doubt but they would, just as they would reject this Bill if it had emanated from the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman
    936
    for Mid Lothian had proposed to cede Heligoland, Gentlemen opposite would have been up in arms to denounce it as a horrible thing, and the country would have rung with Jingo oratory in defence of the integrity of the Empire. No doubt, the House of Lords, in such circumstances, would reject this Bill for the cession of Heligoland. But I want hon. Gentlemen to see the effect of this attempt to bolster up the view that the prerogative of the Crown is something in opposition to the sense of this House. I will take, for instance, two Bills. Suppose a Bill is introduced to provide that no new Peers should be created without the consent of Parliament. What would be the effect of the passing of such a Bill? The House of Lords would never consent to a Bill creating Liberal Peers, and so only Conservative gentlemen would be sent up to the other House. "So much the better," says an hon. Friend of mine, and perhaps the objection is not so strong as in the other instance I will give. Suppose, again, an attack made on the prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, and a Bill passed providing that dissolution shall require the assent of Parliament. Again, that would be giving the House of Lords power to prevent a dissolution if they chose, no matter what the will of the House of Commons. So, I say you are taking away power from the popular element in Parliament, while theoretically attacking the prerogative. When we talk of giving power to Parliament we must remember that Parliament consists not only of a Popularly-Elected Assembly, but partly of a permanent, hereditary, Conservative Assembly, and it is very dangerous to take away the prerogatives of the Crown, as you call them, but, as I call them, the prerogatives of the House of Commons, and give them to a Parliament of both Houses. What we say, and what we Radicals have always urged, is that this House ought to be consulted in regard to Treaties—that Treaties ought not to become valid without the consent of the House. Treaties should not be made by Ministers in the dark. The majority here should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to them. What I think we ought to do in such cases is this. A Treaty is signed by those who have full powers to sign it,

    937
    and it then has to be ratified. Before it is ratified it ought to be submitted to this House, laid on the Table for a certain number of days, and if during that period no action is taken against it, it would be rendered effective. But, in the meantime, the House would have the opportunity of challenging the wisdom of the Treaty. If it were challenged and rejected it would disappear, and the Government would disappear with it. That, I think, would be far better than the scheme the Government has put forward in the present case, namely, that the two Houses should have a veto only under the circumstances which the Government have submitted. I think that the action taken by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Mid Lothian and for Derby will make it clear that this is not to be a precedent, and that the Liberal Government will revert to the old constitutional system. With respect to the merits of this particular Treaty, I disagree with a good deal that has been said on this side of the House. I have no sort of objection to the cession of Heligoland. I consider that that island is not of the slightest use for defensive purposes, because we have not even fortified it, and I am afraid that in these days, if a fit of Jingoism happened to be going over the country, we might be called upon at some particular moment to spend a million or two for the fortifications of that place. I am glad we have got rid of Heligoland. We are told it may be of use defensively to Germany. I am glad if that is the case, because I think that the best security for peace is that every country should be strong defensively, and not strong offensively. Hitherto we have wanted Heligoland to be strong offensively against Germany, but Germany wants it to be strong defensively against any Power that may attack her. That is the reason why she has done so much to acquire the island; but it is somewhat absurd that this proposal should be made by Her Majesty's Government, considering that only about three weeks ago, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy and myself took the liberty to suggest that Heligoland was a worthless possession, we were denounced sky-high by Her Majesty's Ministers. "What," said the Under Secretary for the Colonies, "This is rank
    938
    treason ! Give up Heligoland, that glorious possession of the British Crown; you will next give up the Isle of Jersey or the Isle of Wight." I cannot understand how it is that after this act of the cession of Heligoland has been done by the Government the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies is still found sitting on the Ministerial Bench. I should have thought he would have resigned on the instant rather than have become a partner in their guilt. But no—Ministers do not resign, bye-elections may go against them, public opinion may condemn them, but they have one policy to which they have been true up to the present moment—that of sticking to their places. I must, however, endeavour to relieve the minds of some Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House with regard to the feeling of the Heligolanders. There are some gentlemen on these Benches who have been greatly moved by the thought that the Heligolanders do not wish to have anything to do with Germany, and that they are in a state of utter despair at the cession of their island to that country, whereby they cease to live under the British flag. I would remind those hon. Members that in 1871, while the Franco-German War was going on, a request was made by the French people to the Heligolanders to give them pilots. Well this is what the Heligolanders, whose dream is said to be ever to remain British subjects, replied to that invitation—
    "We, the inhabitants of Heligoland, feel compelled to remind you that we still continue to have German blood in our veins. German is at present, as it ever will be, the language of our schools and our Church. We have no sympathies other than what may be called German sympathies, and we think it but right to remind Germany that here, in the middle of the North Sea, there are Germans who are still awaiting their liberty."
    Therefore, I say, we have at least the satisfaction of knowing that we have done a grateful act towards those Heligolanders who informed Germany that they were awaiting their liberation from us. Now, as far as Heligoland is concerned, I should be entirely in favour of the present Treaty, but when I look at the quid pro quo which is to be given for the cession of Heligoland I can hardly regard it as sufficient, although I

    939
    do not say this for the reasons urged by hon. Members on this side of the House. I am not going to haggle and naggle about the interior of a country of which very few persons know the exact geographical position. I am not going into questions relating to the rivers, of which we know nothing, or to extensive forests and pigmy races which Mr. Stanley and other travellers have seen, but of which we have little or no knowledge whatever. I think, however, we are giving too much of Africa, and that the public are getting too little. We are told that we get a Protectorate over Zanzibar. An hon. Member was very indignant because I said we had not yet got Zanzibar. I repeat that we have not yet got it, because we have entered into a Treaty with France. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I have it here in French. [Cries of "Read."] No, I will give it in English. It runs thus—"They, the two Governments, have reciprocally engaged to respect the independence of Zanzibar. "And in a letter from Mons. Freycinet, four years afterwards, that Minister pointed out that on the 20th of March, 1862, England recognised the independence of Zanzibar, so that we have absolutely guaranteed the independence of that State. I am not complaining of this for a moment, because I should be very glad if France were to interfere and say we are not to have a Protectorate over Zanzibar, because that Protectorate means that we are to guarantee the territories attaching to Zanzibar against all other countries. That is a most responsible engagement. We have a wide field, it is true, and the Government are always increasing that field; but, still, we are always told that the great object is to secure the safety of the possessions we have already acquired. Therefore, I say it is a very strong measure for the English Government to guarantee the island of Zanzibar against Russia, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe. This, however, is what the Government are pleased to call the quid pro quo for Heligoland. What else do we do? We not only hold an enormous amount of territory, but we are desirous of augmenting that territory. Many hon. Members will remember the horror which some years ago was excited in the breasts of most
    940
    Englishmen when Sir Bartle Frere announced that he was going to found a great empire in Africa. Sir B. Frere at that moment never dreamed of the great empire we are attempting to found at the present time. At that time the suggestion was that we should go as far as the Orange River, but we have gone far beyond that, because we have gone-to the Zambezi, and created what is, in reality, an enormous empire; and we are-not content with that, we have laid hold of Egypt and are remaining there, and have practically come to consider that Egypt is a part of our Empire, and because we have Egypt we must have something else. We must have the Equatorial Provinces, containing some 12,000,000 inhabitants. Then, having got the Equatorial Provinces in the north, and the huge empire I have spoken of in the south, the Government is denounced because it does not lay hold of the strip of territory which connects the two. It is said we ought to have that territory, and this seems to me very much like stealing a man's hat and boots, and then saying because you have got his hat and boots-you ought also to have his trousers. We are incurring enormous responsibilities in regard to this matter, and, so far as I can understand it, the Jingo-dream at the present moment is to have a great empire stretching from Alexandria in the north down to Simon's Bay in the south. For my part, I am glad that Germany has interposed to prevent the connecting links being made between our northern and southern territory in Africa, or rather between our equatorial territory and our great southern empire. I am only sorry Germany has not got more. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, I am very sorry, and I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who interrupt me that that would be a judicious step to take, because it would tend to the security of peace. The more Germany has to look after the less likely is she to go to war. She seems to want colonies. We have enough. Let Germany have what she wants of these territories and undertake the work of civilisation which that possession will necessitate, and we shall have a guarantee that Germany will not attack us, because if she does we shall then be enabled to lay hold of the whole of the continent which the Germans may have assisted in civilising at

    941
    enormous cost. We laid hold of India and took it from the French. We did the same thing with regard to America, and we have done something like it in most places throughout the world. In fact, we are the most thoroughgoing buccaneers and land grabbers that ever existed. Some of us have cultivated land grabbing in Ireland, and we want to apply the same system to the entire globe. The earth hunger of this country is one of the strangest things I know of. We do not want these countries, but yet no sooner is a new province explored in any part of the world than we try to get hold of it, not because we really want it ourselves, but in order to prevent anybody else obtaining possession of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has pointed out that there was a time when we could have got the whole of Africa by merely taking it. Why did we not take it? Simply because nobody else wanted it at that time. But no sooner does Germany and Prance go there, than we lay down a sort of manifesto that the whole of Africa belongs to us, and that we are at any rate to have the best portions of it. I say that we have no right to be there at all. Some hon. Gentlemen argue as if we had a right to the whole of Africa. But, in the first place, I assert that Africa belongs to the Africans; and, in the second place, if it is admitted that we ought to have colonies there, we have no more right to the interior of Africa than has any other country on the globe. It is precisely this notion, that we have a sort of primitive right to every part of the globe, that gets us into trouble. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that no secret Treaty had been entered into with Germany. What I ask is, what secret Treaty has been entered into before with Germany; what obligations have we taken with regard to the Triple Alliance? The Under Secretary said there had been an exchange of Notes. Are these negotiations not going on now? Those communications ought to be submitted to the House. All I can say is, that certain communications having been made by Lord Salisbury in reference to the Triple Alliance, Italy was induced to join it. Why have those communications not been laid on the Table of the House? If they are not, all we can say is that Italy
    942
    and Germany must thoroughly understand that these are mere expressions of opinion on the part of Lord Salisbury, and that this country is in no way responsible for the engagements that Lord Salisbury negotiated. I recall with surprise the expressions of approval of Lord Salisbury as Foreign Minister which have come from this side of the House. I regard him as one of the most dangerous Foreign Ministers that ever has been in the Foreign Office. His policy is simply that of interfering in Europe by truckling to Germany, and whenever he gets the opportunity of turning the cold shoulder to France. I hope that we will soon have a General Election, and so avoid the danger which I am perfectly certain we incur of being dragged into some European War. With regard to this Treaty, I am not opposed to getting rid of Heligoland and the Governor's salary. But I am opposed to the Treaty, because in South Africa we incur great responsibilities and liabilities which will eventually increase the taxation of this country. On the Colonial Votes I shall have something to say about the Chartered Companies. I can only say that in the territories which we do obtain from other Powers, we realise the very worst fears of the people by putting them into the hands of Conservative Dukes and others under the guise of Chartered Companies. Lastly, I object to the Treaty because it is an attempt to establish an exceedingly bad precedent, and I can only console myself with the thought that no Liberal Government ever can or will accept the precedent.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: The Government need not despair of carrying their Bill after the speech we have just heard. At first the hon. Member said we had got too little for Heligoland, and then that we had really got too much. Which argument does he prefer to stand by?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not say we had not received adequate value. I said we had received too great value, improper value, which really would cost us a great deal of money without any countervailing advantage.
    MR. W. P. LAWRENCE: I am prepared to accept the hon. Member's correction, though I have no doubt the reporters to-morrow will refresh his

    943
    memory as to what he did say. Anyhow, whatever the hon. Member did say, his speech was not one about which we need take any particular care. After two days' debating, there is very little that is new to be said on this subject. For my own part, I am perfectly prepared to support the Agreement, not because it is perfect, but because it is as good as can be expected under the circumstances. Considering those circumstances, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, like the right hon. Member for Denbighshire, who lost us the Cameroons, half of New Guinea, and Damaraland, ought to be a little silent or criticise more fairly the present Agreement. I admit, however, that there are questions left unsettled in Africa which will be of great importance to us at a later stage of our national existence. South African colonists, for example, have a good right to complain that they should have their northern line cut off by a strip 20 miles broad, enhancing the value of Damaraland and shutting off their trade to the North, and arresting the natural expansion of South Africa. I believe even more important still is the question with regard to Walfisch Bay; and that that matter is left unsettled, while Heligoland is surrendered, is a serious blot in the Agreement. An hon. Member has urged the Government to put friendly pressure on Germany. The remark shows how little he understands the signs of the present day. I ask the hon. Member whether Germany has ever yielded to friendly pressure, and whether her pressure has ever been friendly. Passing from those points, however, considering that the circumstances of this case are totally different from the circumstances of past years, and considering also how much has been gained, the House ought, I think, to be thankful. Germany entered upon the negotiations knowing full well that the Government would not be supported by the British electorate in moving a ship or landing a battalion in order to obtain an acre of land in Africa. How different is the position of the German Emperor. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to go to the country and toll their constituents to support a spirited foreign policy. I do not agree that we do not want these countries for ourselves. I have heard that all the great wars of the last century
    944
    were undertaken for the purposes of trade. I am prepared to further forward a policy for the purposes of trade; for, although we have' great colonies, and surrounded by friendly nations, all our markets are shut up; we are hemmed in by protective duties, and unless we can find new countries we may as well shut ourselves up at home. I think that, on the whole, Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the great field which they have opened up to British trade, for which there is a great future in that district. I am prepared to forward a policy which will develope our trade by firmness, and by force, if necessary. This Treaty is not only to be looked on as beneficial to the East African Company, but to the whole country, as it opens up a route for trade to the Nile. I am not inclined to underestimate the interests of our South African colonists. There are, undoubtedly, some points in which their feelings and wishes ought to have been met, but I hold that by this Agreement they have a great area for extension opened up. They have an enormous tract of territory that it will take at least a century to open up and adequately develope, and though I am sorry that the Damaraland boundary has been altered, I am sure that if the colonists will stand shoulder to shoulder and drop their racial differences, they have a future before them almost as great as that of Australia, and perhaps even greater. Though I have been bound to offer these criticisms to some parts of the Agreement, I am bound to give support to it on the whole. (8.5.)
    MR. A. PEASE: I rise to add my protest against the very humiliating Agreement, which depends on the passing of this Bill. No great amount of eulogy or praise has been bestowed on the Government measure even by the supporters of the Government. Even the speeches of the Prime Minister in another place, and of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House, were made in an apologetic tone. The hon. Member who last addressed the House said he was in favour of a spirited foreign policy, and a policy of resorting to force, if necessary, to back up the commercial enterprise of this country. I do not pretend to be

    945
    governed by the motives actuating the hon. Gentleman when I say it is a disastrous thing for this country if legitimate commercial enterprise is hindered by any action of the Government, and I think that legitimate commercial enterprise is restricted and endangered in many quarters of Africa. One hon. Member has said that we have bartered away our birthright in Africa for a mess of pottage. We have bartered away our birthright, but I cannot see where the mess of pottage comes in. I cannot see what we have gained in any direction by the Anglo-Gorman Agreement. If we compare our position in Africa in 1886 with our position there to-day the change is distinctly for the worse. We were told that the proposed concessions and surrenders, and the evacuation of Heligoland are necessary in order to secure the friendship of Germany. I feel pretty confident that even after we have done all that is proposed, Germany's policy will still be mainly dictated by her own interest. In my opinion, the first step towards obtaining the friendship of Germany would be to obtain her respect, and I cannot see how Germany can have any respect for a Government or a Power which so willingly and, I believe, so unnecessarily surrenders her hold upon great areas in Africa. I willingly admit that there is ample room for dissatisfaction with regard to the policy pursued by the Liberal Administration with regard to Damaraland and Namaqualand, but I maintain that things have been made infinitely worse by the concessions just made. It is contended that we still retain our influence at Zanzibar; but let me point out that our influence is now restricted to the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Before, however, I deal with the question of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, I desire to refer to the Heligoland part of the Treaty. An hon. and gallant Member has deprecated the position of Heligoland as a point of strategic value. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is a more competent authority than some of those authorities who appeared before the Commission on the Colonial Defences, or whether he is a more competent authority than some of the great men who preceded those authorities. But whilst the
    946
    hon. and gallant Member was speaking I turned to a Despatch written by Admiral Russell in 1807, in which the gallant. Admiral said of Heligoland that at a small expense the island could be made a small Gibraltar. I do not profess to know anything at all about the question of the strategic value of Heligoland, but I remember that even Lord Salisbury in another place dwelt on the great use that Heligoland had been when Napoleon promulgated his decrees against the commerce of Great Britain, and endeavoured to suppress British commerce on the Continent of Europe. He pointed out how, Heligoland being a smuggling emporium, it was Heligoland smugglers who arrested and defeated the policy of Napoleon. I suppose if Heligoland was of use at the beginning of the century, events may arise that may make Heligoland again useful in that or in other respects impossible now to anticipate. But the Prime Minister has also stated that it is better to cede Heligoland when we can get a quid pro quo than to undergo the humiliation of surrendering it in time of war; and he has pointed out that we should be obliged to do that, because within a few hours of a declaration of war Germany would send a fleet, an armed force, and artillery to occupy the island, and we should be ousted from our possession. But I presume that, in the event or probability of war with Germany, some steps would be taken to protect the island from the fate foreshadowed by the Prime Minister. For my own part, I do not anticipate any trouble with Germany in Europe. I cannot imagine any event in Europe that would bring the two countries into conflict or unfriendly contact. Our interests are in common, and there is no reason to suppose we shall have any but friendly relations with the German Empire; and even if it were not so, Germany has little power to damage us in Europe, whilst I should have supposed that those in favour of a spirited foreign policy, such as indicated by the hon. Member who spoke last, would have hesitated before handing over our outpost in the North Sea. The reason why I regret the cession is because the inhabitants have shown plainly, absolutely, and resolutely a preference to remain subjects of the British Crown,

    947
    while we abuse their loyalty by transferring them, as if they were cattle, to the dominion of another State. Germany, at any rate, has no old claim to Heligoland. This is not a recession of territory as has been stated by one hon. Member. Heligoland, I believe, has never at any time belonged to Germany. Lord Salisbury deprecated a plebiscite being taken; but I think, at any rate, he might have taken the opinion of the Nominee Council. We have no evidence that he did seek any information in that direction. But I regard the cession of Heligoland as the smallest part of the Agreement, and I should be willing to support it provided we get a proper equivalent. I ask the House for a moment to follow me whilst I endeavour to show what is the position of this country and Germany in Africa, where we are supposed to have obtained an equivalent as compared with that of four or five years ago. In a Despatch to Sir Edward Malet in 1885, Lord Granville pointed out that
    "Apprehensions with regard to the policy of Germany towards the Sultan of Zanzibar are not shared by Her Majesty's Government, who continue to respect the assurances given to Sir Edward Malet by Prince Bismarck on May 28, 1884, that Germany will not endeavour to obtain a protectorate over Zanzibar."
    And then he goes on to state that for a century the Sultans of Zanzibar and Muscat had been under the administrative influence of this country and the Government of India, and that in 1861, by the decision of the Viceroy of India, the two countries, Muscat and Zanzibar, were divided by an arrangement which has continued since. The Despatch went on to point out that Her Majesty's ships had kept the peace in Zanzibar waters; that British trade was closely connected with the country, that the British Government had subsidised steamers from this country to Zanzibar, and that British-Indian subjects had settled there in considerable numbers, and that British influence was used for the advantage of the trade of all nations under liberal Commercial Treaties existing with the Sultan. Well, what was the condition of things that followed upon this? Germany assumed certain rights by force over certain territories behind the coast line of the Sultanate on the mainland. The Sultan protested, and the British Government preceding the
    948
    present, if anything supported the Sultan in his protest; but, later on, in September, 1885, we find Lord Salisbury had changed the tone towards Germany, and received compliments and thanks from the German Government for good offices in bringing pressure to bear on the Sultan of Zanzibar. I could quote from the Blue Books several instances of pressure brought to bear upon the Sultan, and there is one instance that shows indisputably how this pressure was brought to bear on the Sultan in favour of Germany, and which I intended to quote, but I find I have not the book with me. It is an instance in which, in a Despatch, Lord Salisbury declares that such pressure was employed. I might refer also to the quotation that was used in another place from a Despatch by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) showing what the position was in 1886. The noble Lord said—
    "Our position at the moment is one of immense value and strength; the whole of the tribes in that territory are under our influence, look up to, and are determined to be guided by us;"
    and he went on to point out how preponderating was the influence of this country in Zanzibar. Germany, step by step, sometimes by violence and sometimes by pressure exercised on the Sultan, though the English Foreign Office obtained a footing on the Zanzibar coast of Africa. And now, to sum up, look at the position of this country in Africa and in Europe in relation to Germany, as compared to what it was in 1886. In 1886 we possessed Heligoland; we had a preponderating influence and power throughout the Sultanate of Zanzibar, the Island of Zanzibar, the Island of Pemba, and 500 or 600 miles of coast line; the question of Damaraland was not settled; Germany claimed certain concessions in the district which we had not consented to acknowledge. To-day what is the position in which this country finds itself? Germany has got Heligoland, Damaraland, Namaqua-land, and the mainland territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar; concessions in other districts, for instance, in the Gulf of Guinea; and I presume, after 1910, according to this Treaty, she will have power to exclude our trade from the Sultanate of Zanzibar or the mainland

    949
    coast of Africa. What is our position? We have lost Heligoland; we have lost the enjoyment of some of the fruits of British discovery and enterprise in North East Africa; we have a lessened authority in Zanzibar, a Protectorate dependent on concessions from France and the Sultan; and our fellow-countrymen who are engaged in the enterprise of the British East Africa Company are cut off from communication between Tanganyika and Central Africa, debarred from the route extending from Central Africa to our possessions in the South; we have a discontented colony at the Cape in consequence of concessions made to Germany without consulting the colonists; and the probability of friction with France. And the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated that even such authority as we have in Zanzibar is to be exercised in no exclusive manner; he seemed to deprecate even the little influence left to us in that island. I cannot understand why there is this sacrifice of British interests in Africa and Germany. I much prefer English methods of colonisation to German and French methods. We have had most lamentable occurrences by the Germans on the mainland of the Sultanate of Zanzibar. There have been methods adopted which have been condemned by our Naval Commanders on the African Coast. As the noble Lord the Member for Paddington has pointed out, one concession after another has been made in order to secure our position in Egypt, and he has pointed out the fruits and consequences of the policy we have pursued. There are other advantages almost as undesirable we have given the Germans. We have allowed Captain Weissman to go to Egypt and recruit a force there for his expedition into Central Africa. You would never have allowed a French officer—I doubt if you would have allowed an officer of any other country—to recruit forces in Cairo and other parts of Egypt for warfare, or any other enterprise in the interior of Africa. That I may be under no accusation of misrepresentation in this matter, let me call attention to the answer given by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. My hon. Friend asked if the attention of the Government had been directed to a telegram, dated Alexandria, February 25, to
    950
    the effect that Captain Weissman had arrived on his way to Zanzibar; that he would proceed to Cairo, and would recruit his force with some 100 blacks, and whether the consent of the Egyptian Government had been obtained to the enlistment of Egyptian subjects. The answer was that Sir Evelyn Baring had reported the arrival of Captain Weissman at Cairo; had stated that his proceedings had received no official sanction, but that the Egyptian Government did not propose to offer any objection to the voluntary enlistment of a few blacks for certain police purposes. Well, we know how the police force is used by the Germans in their work of colonisation. Much has been said about the "Hinterland" doctrine; and though it has in some degree been denied, it is practically a doctrine admitted in this Anglo-German Agreement. The Hinterland doctrine, it would seem, is to be allowed to be applied by Germany, but it is not to apply to any other country. We know the position taken up by this country in regard to Portugal. If any country has a right to claim territory on the Hinterland principle that country is Portugal. She has territory on the coast line on West and East Africa, not a bare coast line, but territory reaching a considerable distance into the interior. But Portugal is a very weak State, and Germany a very strong one. We have, I say, in this Agreement practically admitted the Hinterland doctrine, and I think that is pretty clear from the Despatch of Lord Salisbury to Sir Edward Malet on June 14th last. The second paragraph of that Despatch reads—
    "The claims of the German Government are based chiefly on the contention that where one Power occupies the coast another Power may not, without consent, occupy unclaimed regions in its rear. It would be too much to affirm that this contention is entirely destitute of support from international usage,"
    That, I say, is conceding the doctrine in some degree—
    "But its operation cannot be unlimited, while the boundaries within which it should be restricted are very hard to draw."
    Later on, Lord Salisbury fully admits the doctrine. He goes on to say—
    "Her Majesty's Government had, therefore, no title to advance which could countervail the claim which the German Government based on the fact that this region"—

    951
    that is, territory to the north of Tanganyika,—
    "Was in the immediate rear of their own; and their pretension derived additional support from the circumstance that it would practically have the effect of dividing the shares of Lake Victoria Nyanza into two portions approximately equal between the two Governments, &c."
    Well, I say, the Hinterland doctrine is conceded wherever the Germans have set it in operation; while the Foreign Office have, so far as I can gather from the correspondence, never once insisted absolutely on any point they have urged. So much has been said about concessions in the South-West of Africa and the lamentable extension of German territory along the banks of the Chobe River to the Zambesi, that I need not dwell on that. I admit that the first concessions in that direction were begun under a Liberal Government; but I consider that the present Government, knowing what were the concessions to British subjects in Damaraland; what was the feeling at the Cape; what was the feeling of the King of the Damaras, are very much to blame in not taking care that the interests of British colonists at the Cape, and the interests of the natives were protected by restricting the concessions in Damaraland to a much narrower district. I know it is too late now to do anything towards upsetting, altering, or amending the Agreement; nevertheless, I do believe it is the duty of Parliament to reject this Agreement, and, although few may vote against it, I certainly shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark against what I consider this most humiliating Agreement. While I give every credit to the desire of the Government to maintain friendly relations with Germany, so far as I can see they do nothing towards obtaining or securing the gratitude of Germany, while I can see that they may land us in material difficulties with our colonists before very long.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman is going to vote against the Bill for the reason he has given, namely, that the Hinterland doctrine has been applied solely for the benefit of Germany. He and other speakers on this side have overlooked one part of the arrangement. While it is true we have
    952
    given up considerable territory on the Hinterland principle to Germany on the-East, it is also true that south of Lake Nyassa there is a territory of 60,000square miles secured on the Hinterland principle to this country. So it is unjust to say that the Hinterland doctrine has been applied solely for the benefit of Germany. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) gave us a long controversial argument, in which he attributed sinister designs to the Government and the House of Lords. I do not know whether we are to consider the hon. Gentleman as a Constitutional Authority, but I do not think he convinced the House that the constitutional question involved is a very serious one. His hon. Colleague the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) hailed the introduction of the Bill with satisfaction as a precedent by which a prerogative of the Crown is limited or forfeited. He argued that when once the Crown had abandoned a prerogative it had never been asserted again. Now, I think, to-such a statement there are very considerable limitations. It is true that prerogatives of the Crown being abandoned after conflict between Crown and Parliament have never been revived, but I do-not think it can be asserted that a prerogative abandoned by the will or the wish of the Crown, waived, so to speak, is absolutely abandoned.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: What I stated, and what I believe to be the case, was that there is no case in which, the Crown having lost its prerogative by enactment to which, of course, the Crown had to be a consenting party, that prerogative was ever reasserted or re-taken.
    CAPIAIN BETHELL: That is very likely, by express enactment, but as we have been assured, and by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, most emphatically, this at any rate is not to form a precedent. But the hon. Gentleman considers it is to form a precedent for a prerogative abandoned by the Crown. Now, in regard to the cession of Heligoland, I fear there is a prospect that the running sore between this country and America may find its counterpart in the complications which will arise under a sub-section of the 12th Article having reference to rights of fishing. It is provided that our fishermen are

    953
    to have rights of taking in provisions and water, and other rights for all time. This is just one of the provisions that have given rise to so much difficulty and correspondence with America, and I think the sub-section is also likely to give rise to future trouble with the German Empire. I should have thought it would have been wiser to have limited the reservation of rights to some specific period of time. Upon the cession of the island I do not propose to say anything further, except to remark, upon the complaint that we have not an equivalent concession, that a few weeks ago in a discussion on the Estimates several hon. Gentlemen on the other side expressed a desire to cede Heligoland, not for any quid pro quo, but simply on sentimental grounds, and it was not until the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) suggested that it was a valuable property to Germany, and that if we gave it up we ought to get something substantial in return, that Members then considered it might be desirable, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), correcting what he had previously said, explained that he did not mean that the island should be given up for nothing, and out of friendship merely. It is a little surprising now to find hon. Gentlemen so shocked and horrified at finding we are to get so little in return. I should take out of the Agreement altogether, for the purpose of summing up our gains and losses, a large piece of Central Africa. Consider, then, what remains. We have given up Heligoland and a certain portion of South-West Africa. The cession of Heligoland has already been sufficiently discussed, and it is to the South-West African question that I wish to direct my criticism. Some weeks ago, before this arrangement was concluded, we had a discussion on this question in Committee, and on that occasion I took the opportunity of saying I was strongly opposed to ceding any more territory to Germany in that region. My reason differed from that given by the hon. Member who last spoke. Where he got his information about Namaqualand I cannot imagine. I never heard that that country had been explored.
    MR. CONYBEARE: There is plenty of gold there.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: That may be so. The hon. Gentleman seems to take a very rosy view of the country. My objection to this arrangement, however, is an almost sentimental one. I am looking to the future of the Anglo-Saxon Empire South of the Zambesi being prejudiced by the intrusion of another foreign element. I think the original admission of the Germans was a gross mistake, and I deprecate as strongly as I can the giving up of anything further in South Africa to the Germans, because it will tend to render more difficult our ultimate success there. I cannot understand why Germany is so very anxious to get this territory. I have heard that the German negotiators were very stiff-necked about it. I could understand our Foreign Minister making a concession if he were going to get a quid pro quo; but I do not think he has-got one in this instance. I may say, therefore, that so far as this portion of the Agreement is concerned I join with those who deprecate the concessions, which have been made. In estimating our gains and losses by the Treaty, I certainly think it should be noted that one great gain we have secured is such a re-arrangement of territory among the nations in Africa as will tend to obviate disputes and difficulties henceforward—difficulties that have led to trouble in, the past, and might easily do so again, unless the position and territory of each country is clearly defined. Whatever other value the Agreement may have I venture to say it is most valuable as constituting an important factor in the peace of the world, and no doubt that consideration was present to the mind of Lord Salisbury. As to Zanzibar, I hope, that, notwithstanding the action of France and Germany with regard to the island in the past, we shall in future exercise a substantial Protectorate over it. With regard to the remarks of the senior Member for Northampton, it will be remembered that the French and ourselves guaranteed the independence of the Sultan of Zanzibar. So also did the Germans, and now that they have withdrawn, surely we are not bound to insist on that independence. In fact, the word guarantee was not used in the Treaty: the engagement was to respect the Sultan's independence, and not to guarantee it—a very different

    955
    thing. The value of the island and the Protectorate will largely depend on the results of German colonisation in Africa. If that action is successful, and they are able to create and develop ports on the coast sufficient for the purposes of their trade, Zanzibar will not be so valuable as it would otherwise be. Still, there can be no doubt that it will always be a valuable British possession for warlike or maritime purposes, and especially as a coaling station. Although I am glad to see Great Britain getting her fair share of possessions in Africa, and other parts of the world, to which she is entitled, yet I do not see why this country should be regarded as the only colonising and civilising Power in Africa. Germany, or any other country that undertakes this work, should have its fair share of territory to carry out its purposes, and with regard to the contrast that has been drawn between Lord Salisbury's treatment of Portugal on the one hand and of Germany on the other, it should be remembered that though Portugal first discovered the territories in Africa which she claimed, she has never established herself in them, and in the circumstances it was impossible for Lord Salisbury to recognise all her claims. It must be admitted that we can no more rest our claim to the territories we have discovered in Africa on their original discovery by us, since we have not established ourselves in them, than Portugal can lay claim to the territories North of the Zambesi. Therefore, I do not think that Lord Salisbury has acted towards Portugal as a weak Power, while he has acted towards Germany as a strong Power. On the contrary, I believe he has acted towards that country with much dignity. I hope that in the negotiations with France and Portugal the same dignified efforts will be made to reconcile the rights of all.
    MR. STOREY: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in one of the observations he made. He said that Lord Salisbury had treated Portugal in exactly the same spirit as he treated Germany, but I am afraid that I must, even at the risk of condemnation, come to the conclusion that Lord Salisbury treated Portugal as a weak Power, and Germany as a strong Power. He negotiated with the one, and took a
    956
    strong handed course with the other, which he would not have dared to had she possessed the power of Germany. I differ, too, from many of my Liberal and Radical Friends in regard to this Agreement. I entirely concur in the wisdom of the cession of Heligoland to Germany, and I think Lord Salisbury is entitled to much credit for having done a very sensible and statesmanlike thing. The importance of Heligoland to this country has been greatly over-estimated, and I have come to the conclusion, after listening to the Debates, and reading what has been said in some of the newspapers, that a great many Gentlemen who have discussed the matter have never seen the island, and have never taken the trouble to understand what it is. One hon. Gentleman described it as the key to the North Sea. What magnificent folly to describe it in that fashion. Another, out-Heroding Herod, has spoken of it as the key of the Baltic, which is about as sensible as if I were to say that the Isle of Man is the key of the English Channel. Heligoland is a beggarly little rock, with a little bit of sand tacked on to it, as a sort of fringe to its garment; it has got a population limited in number, but German in sympathy and in many other ways. Therefore, as far as the rock is concerned, I am glad it is going to Germany. I wish hon. Gentlemen who oppose this cession would realise what we should feel if the Goodwin Sands were once more to stand perpetually out of the sea, and if every ship in and out of the Port of London were to see the German flag flying there. It would do us no damage, but it would offend our sentimental feeling. The Germans must have the same feeling at seeing the English flag flying on this little island close to the mouth of the Elbe. It is only natural that they should, and I commend Lord Salisbury for the taking note of that sentiment, and frankly handing Heligoland over to Germany. But I have to make one remark on the point, not of a complimentary character. I would make it a rule to have a very generous feeling towards the sentiments of foreign nations. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that we ought to have got something in return for Heligoland. I think that great nations in treating with one another ought not to

    957
    seek a quid pro quo, but ought to act with the generosity of gentlemen, and not seek for a quid pro quo in the spirit of a pedlar. The complaint that I have to make against Lord Salisbury is that he has sought for concessions in other parts of the world. And what sort of a bargain has he made? Germany has to give us a lot of territory which is not hers to give, and we have to give Germany a lot of territory which is not ours to give. Since the day Dick Turpin and Tom King met to divide the plunder of Hagley Hall I do not know of any more atrocious thing than has been done by those two great civilising Powers in Africa. The Under Secretary has talked in magniloquent terms about partitioning Africa. The right hon. Gentleman partitioned to Germany what was not his, and accepted from Germany what was not hers, and this without considering the views of the people who inhabit the land. I am utterly against England having possessions or points of land scattered up and down the world, except for one reason. I admit it is absolutely essential that England should have coaling stations throughout the world. I shall never be opposed to obtaining fairly, and keeping with a strong hand, such coaling stations as are necessary for our Fleet and our Mercantile Marine. Heligoland never could have been a coaling station. Coaling stations must be defensible, and to fortify and defend that island would have involved enormous expenditure, the benefits derived from which would never be commensurate with the outlay. I have no objection to our having Gibraltar, Malta, and other places of the kind, and, therefore, I have not the smallest objection to make to Lord Salisbury's acquiring the Island of Zanzibar. But, having surrendered Heligoland to Germany because it is close to that Empire, the very same condition of things will exist 50 years hence with respect to Zanzibar. Zanzibar will be an English island placed just off the coast of an enormous German Empire, and the same sentimental feeling which makes us surrender Heligoland to Germany now will compel us then to surrender Zanzibar to the holders of the German Empire in Africa. Just now I unwittingly incurred the censure of the hon. and gallant Member for Evesham by sneering at an observation he made. He thought that I sneered at
    958
    the missionaries, but I sneered at the sentiment he was enunciating. So long as he talked about the relations between the two Powers, and about the advantages of trade, I thought he was on common-sense ground, but when he suggested the utter cant—and I can call it by no other words—that we were going to Africa to support the missionaries, I could not help sneering, and I shall sneer every time such observations are made by any Member of this House. What is the use of humbugging, or attempting to humbug, the world? We do not go to Africa to support the missionaries, or to civilise the natives; as everybody knows in his secret heart, we go for the purpose of obtaining land and making money; and what becomes of those poor wretches the Africans we care not one button. Did we go to North America, to civilise the Indians; to Australia, to civilise the natives; or to New Zealand, to civilise the Maories? No, we went to make money, to carry on trade, to acquire land, and to make an opening for our sons. That was our purpose, and we ought to say so honestly. We did not go to civilse. What do we carry to these natives? We carry to them the three R's; not those which we give to the children of this country, but the rifle, rum, and religion. The rifle and the rum are slowly destroying these populations. Heaven grant that the third of the three R's—religion—may give them entrance to a place where grasping Emperors do not govern, and where philanthropic and pious traders are unknown. I have learned one lesson from this action of ours in Africa. We are giving land to Germany which we have no right to give, and Germany is giving land to us to which she has no right. There is, however, no opinion taken of the populations of these territories. I do not admit that they are poor and scattered. I believe that they are not of the bloodthirsty and plundering types which have been found in other uncivilised portions of the world. Probably in that favoured region there are races capable of great development. I am sure of one thing, that the ordinary processes which have characterised the march of the Anglo-Saxon and every other European nation in their dealings with savage nations, will, if adopted in this case, civilise these peoples off the

    959
    face of the earth. Now, the lesson I have learnt is this: that all our outcries against Russia, on the ground that she has acquired enormous territories by nefarious means, are the merest sham. With what sense of moral worth can our Government hereafter complain—with what justice can the Tory Party hereafter complain—about Russia? I was in the House when the unfortunate butcheries in Afghanistan occurred during the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I can remember the outcry raised by Members of the Conservative Party as to the grasping tendencies of Russia, and the nefarious means by which she managed to get control of one Khanate after another, and one valley after another. I can remember the outcries from the same ranks when Russia re-acquired Bessarabia, which we took from her in 1856. How piously we then condemned Russia. But with what face can England hereafter condemn acquisitions by other Powers? If there is any Power which goes up and down the world, like a raging lion seeking what it may devour, it is this great Empire of Great Britain and Ireland. Look at the acquisitions we have made in recent days. Who took Cyprus? The Tory Government. Who took Burma? The Tory Government; and if the hon. and gallant Member for Evesham had his way we should absorb not only all this earth, but the moon too, in the name of Great Britain. You have acquired land in every part of the world without the least regard for the interests of the inhabitants, simply through a greed of lust, and power, and growth, which seems inherent in a certain class of the English people. Yet, when other nations commit this offence you hold up your hands and thank Heaven you are not as other men—not even as this publican Russia. I think it is very much to be deplored that any Party in this House should connect itself with such a wholesale proposal of partition as is contained in this Bill. I admit that the partition is nominal, and on paper; it is not a proposal that you should at once acquire land, because, if it meant that, it would involve an expenditure of money and men, which would speedily push the Government from Office. I can understand a Government taking possession of a
    960
    territory which it feels the circumstances of the time require it should, but for the first time in our history you have entered into a covenant for the possession of an enormous amount of plunder in land of which neither of the contracting parties can yet take possession. You are setting a bad example to other nations of the world, and you are doing more, for. you are shutting our mouths, if ever there should be cause for righteous complaint. When Russia comes down to the Bosphorus, as she will, or if she acquires Persia, she will reply to our complaints by pointing to this Treaty with Germany, and will say that we entered cold-blooded into a Treaty to partition half a continent. I have learned another lesson from this transaction. If I, as a humble Member of the Radical Party, try simply to change the form of Government in Ireland, and to give the Irish people the right to manage their internal affairs, I am told that I seek the disintegration of the Empire; but if the Tories sell, in the spirit of a pedlar, a portion of the Empire to another nation, then they are not disintegrating the Empire. I trust that the public of this country will learn that lesson. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General last night made some observations on the serious constitutional question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I do not propose to attempt to discuss that question, but one remark made by the hon. and learned Member particularly struck me. He said he had always understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby hated the power of the Crown, and that that night he had been amazed to see him defending the prerogative of the Crown as against the power of the House of Lords. He added that the right hon. Gentleman's hatred of the Crown had been obscured and swallowed up by his hate of the House of Lords. What right had the hon. and learned Member to assume that any person on these Benches, either a Constitutional Whig, as I should call my right hon. Friend, or an extreme Revolutionist, as I might call myself, ever hated or was opposed to the prerogative of the Crown. Everyone knows, I presume, that if at this time, I were called upon to mould a Constitution for this island, I would not make it monarchical. But, then, like

    961
    most other northern people, I have just got sufficient common sense to know that a change from the system which has grown up, and has, on the whole, worked so well, involving, as it would, an enormous expenditure of money, time, and perhaps blood—I say that a change of such a terrible nature would never be compensated for by any advantage that would accrue from our having merely the form we prefer. Like common sense people we accept the present position of things. Anyone who suggests that I am opposed to the prerogative of the Crown is manifestly mistaken. We, on these Benches. regard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his Colleagues as the guardians of the present English Constitution against the revolutionary persons who constitute the present Government. Everyone knows that the prerogative of the Crown is the prerogative of the House of Commons, and that the prerogative of the House of Commons is the prerogative of the majority of the people of this country. We do not hate the House of Lords. In the present circumstances, the House of Lords are, unfortunately, our masters, and therefore, we assert against hon. Gentlemen opposite the prerogative of the Crown. I believe that what the Government are aiming at is the exalting of the power of the House of Lords in this as in other matters, so that the House of Commons could not decide any foreign question unless the House of Lords liked. We are not prepared to put the House of Lords into such a position as that. Rather than give them more powers on foreign matters, we desire to reduce their powers on home matters. I venture to think that a great number of constitutional Radicals prefer the old method of the will of the Crown, which is the will of the people, being supremo in foreign affairs, and, therefore, we are unable to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend any more than for the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill,
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I will not abuse the right which the Amendment gives me to say a few words. The Attorney General has charged the Opposition with having taken the Government by surprise; but I am surprised that the Government
    962
    should have been taken by surprise. A Cabinet which consists of responsible Ministers of the Crown ought not to be taken by surprise when they are asked why they have abandoned what they admit to be an established head of a prerogative which has never been abandoned before. I venture to say that if the Bench of Bishops were to drop one of the 39 Articles, and then, when asked why they had done it, were to say, we would like to have time to consider before we give a reason, it would be rather an extraordinary situation. Primâ facie, Ministers of the Crown are the Trustees of the prerogative of the Crown, and when they come to the opinion that it is necessary to change a constitutional practice. one would suppose that they would first of all state to Parliament why they have done so; but when the Government are asked for their reasons they say they are taken by surprise. Having been asked, they have attempted various answers. I really have risen for the purpose of attempting to reconcile, as far as I can, the statements they have made in the interests of what I believe Theologians would call the harmony of the Gospels of the Treasury Bench. The view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the greatest authorities on the Treasury Bench, is that this is a thing which the Government are bound to do on this occasion, though they would not be bound to do it upon any occasion, nor even in a similar case. He says, "I rest upon the argument that we are not obliged to ask the assent of Parliament." I venture rather to demur to this, and to contend that there is some danger if this is done once that it may be done again, and that Parliament might claim that having been done once it should be done again. Then came into the field a very different knight from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a dashing authority, the Secretary for Ireland. He said that they found the Treaty-making power of the Crown in a nebulous condition.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Not the power of Treaty making, but the power of dealing with cessions of territory.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg pardon; that is what I meant. Philosophers distinguish between the effective and

    963
    subjective of the question. I admit the nebulosity, but I cannot state whether it was in the person contemplating or the thing contemplated. The matter is perfectly clear, and it is not a question of this lawyer or of that. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the lawyers, but I cannot help remembering the criticism of Mr. Burke, when the lawyers gave an opinion in the case of the impeachment of Warren Hastings. He dismissed the opinion of the lawyers with the remark—
    "That a rabbit could not be a judge of the gestation of the elephant, and, therefore, he could not conceive that the opinion of practising barristers in the fields of private business were conclusive upon great constitutional questions."
    Though not complimentary, I think that view of Mr. Burke was well founded. On the other hand, the Secretary for Ireland said this was one of the undecided cases of constitutional practice and law. How undecided? It has been decided by the practice of centuries. There has not been a single exception, and, in my opinion, that is a decision of Constitutional Law which stands farabove the opinion of any lawyer or individual. The Chief Secretary also said that the Government found the question in a nebulous condition, and determined—though they were taken by surprise—to establish a precedent which should dispose of this nebulous state of things, and settle Constitutional Law for the future. It will be observed that a very different view was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said it would decide nothing for the future. I said across the floor of the House: "Is it a binding precedent?" The Secretary for Ireland said: "Yes; it is a binding precedent." That is very important. The Government have decided an undecided question of Constitutional Law. The Secretary for Ireland says that what the Government have to do in this doubtful and undetermined condition of the Constitution, is to decide for the future on which side they should attempt, by establishing a precedent, to determine an undetermined question. We shall know what it is this reflecting and unanimous Cabinet have determined is to be the real Constitution for the future. Now, the object was a very good object; it was "to enable Parliament to prevent
    964
    the Ministry beforehand from falling into error." A very necessary object, especially in the present day. Parliament was to be invited to prevent Lord Salisbury from falling into error by the action of Parliament anticipatory of that of the Foreign Office. I commend this to the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I suppose this new principle is to be inscribed in letters of gold in the Foreign Office—the principle that Parliament is to be called upon to prevent the Government from falling into error. Well, let us examine the precedent which is thus laid down by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and see what it really amounts to. First of all we are told that is only to apply in time of profound peace; that Parliament is not to be consulted in case of war; that is not to be within the precedent. Very well, to this extent we have got at the mind of the Government. In time of profound peace, when no great emergencies threaten, Parliament may be consulted; but if great emergencies arise Parliament is not to be considered. Then there is the further condition that no ulterior considerations are involved, because if they are present Parliament must not be consulted; but where the surrender of territory involves no ulterior considerations Parliament may be consulted. We might suppose that the surrender of Malta and Gibraltar involved ulterior considerations, but in that case Parliament is not to be consulted. This is the settlement of the law which the present Cabinet announce. Then, if difficulties of negotiation are introduced Parliament is not to be consulted; but in that case I do not see how we are, beforehand, to prevent the Ministry from falling into error, which is the object at which this new principle is to be aimed. This is the new settlement of a nebulous question by which the Cabinet has decided to determine the undecided principles of the Constitution. The proposition, in fact, amounts to this: the Government may say, "Oh, yes; let us make such or such a cession of territory; but if it involves ulterior considerations Parliament is not to be consulted in the matter." The result must be that if all these conditions are to be fulfilled no transfer of territory could take place till the assent of both Houses

    965
    of Parliament is obtained. That is the constitutional view which is presented by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and then, having announced this clear and definite principle of constitutional usage, he says, "This is a question which we have settled, and this is a principle which I hope will always be adhered to." This being the view presented by the right hon. Gentleman, he was followed by the Attorney General; and I noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little more cautious, owing, no doubt, to his professional experience, than the Chief Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell the House his own opinion, and in that I think he was wise, because he would have found it very difficult to have reconciled any opinion he might have been able to give with the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Therefore, he did not give us his own views on this great constitutional question; nor did he tell us whether his opinion had been consulted. He gave us the opinions of other Law Officers; but what were the views of the present Law Officers he took good care not to state. The hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward a very curious statement about the Orange River case, and he rather reproached me with having been ignorant of what had happened in regard to the Orange River territory. I may, however, tell him that I was perfectly familiar with that case, and may also state that it has nothing to do with the case before the House. We are here talking of a Treaty cession by Parliament; in the Orange case there was simply an abandonment of sovereignty by the Sovereign Power. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted what he supposed to be the opinion of Lord Selborne, when he was Sir Roundell Palmer, in regard to this question of cession. I was a little amazed at what he told us, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was not very kind to Lord Selborne, because he suggested that that eminent lawyer had given an opinion that the Orange River territory could not be abandoned without an Act of Parliament. If the then Sir Roundell Palmer did give that opinion, everybody treated it as worthless, because the sovereignty of that territory was abandoned without an
    966
    Act of Parliament. As an old friend of Sir Roundell Palmer, I should like to defend him, and I should trust that no such opinion was ever given by him. I remember that Sir Charles Adderley, now Lord Norton, made a speech, in which he said he had not read the opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer; but he stated what he believed to be the views of that Law Officer, as he understood them from a conversation he had had with him on the subject the night before. Sir Roundell Palmer was a man of subtle mind, and the opinion the Attorney General cited as that of Sir Roundell Palmer was an opinion which he had obtained after it. had been filtered through the mind of Sir Charles Adderley, the object being to afford the Attorney General a Constitutional authority for overthrowing the Constitutional practice of generations. I do not know what Sir Roundell Palmer's opinion was in those days; but in 1875, when the question was argued before the Privy Council, I am sure that Sir Roundell Palmer held none of the opinions attributed to him by Sir Charles. Adderley. So much for the opinions of the Law Officers, to which the Attorney General referred. I now want to examine what is the opinion of the Attorney General himself on this question. The House will find that the hon. and learned Gentleman differs very widely from the doctrines laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and harks back on those of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said he contended that there was no change whatever involved in the procedure of the Government. Now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had laid down a new principle, which is to govern the future, in consequence of the undetermined condition of the law, and then he said that if that was so there was a binding precedent. But the Attorney General's doctrine was that the question was as to its being in the power of the Crown to act in one way or the other. It was an optional prerogative. And afterwards, speaking of the settlement in Africa, the hon. and learned Gentleman said the existing condition of things was that of a "go-as-you-please contest."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. The phrase "go-as-you-please contest" was not applied by me in con-

    967
    nection with the constitutional question. I applied the phrase, which was suggested by the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, to the idea of the European nations being allowed to do what they liked in Africa.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's correction, but I was only applying the phrase to the doctrine of the Attorney General, which struck me as pointing to a go-as-you-please prerogative—a prerogative which you may use or not, just as you like, which you may give up one day and take up the next. That is the doctrine of the Attorney General, who did not contest the right of the Crown to cede territory without the consent of Parliament, when the nature of the negotiations or the interests involved rendered it desirable to proceed in that way. He said—
    "The Crown had the right to cede territory without the consent of Parliament, but the fact that the prerogative of the Crown may sometimes he exercised that way did preclude the Crown from the possibility of adopting the other way when it appeared expedient to do so."
    That is the hon. and learned Gentleman's doctrine: you may act either one way or the other, as you deem it expedient. Well, this doctrine was so new to me that I shook my head, and the hon. and learned Gentleman rebuked me for shaking my head; but I venture to think that when the Crown invokes a partner in its acts in this way it cannot always very easily get that partner out of the concern. Now, I should like to put to the Attorney General the case suggested by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere.) I hope the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will forgive me for preferring the constitutional doctrine of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere.) Suppose, to take the case put by the senior Member for Northampton, the House were asked by Bill to assent to the creation of new Peers, would the prerogative be left where it was before? Suppose the Crown, by means of a Bill, asked the assent of Parliament to a dissolution, would the prerogative remain exactly where it was before? I should say, certainly not. I am told I stated too broadly that the prerogative would be gone at once if Parliament were ever associated with its exercise. I hope
    968
    not. So anxious am I that it should not go, that I will not assert that in a broad way. But I say that if a practice of this kind were acquiesced in and continued the prerogative would be impaired, and ultimately destroyed. That is the history of all the limitations of prerogative in this country. The Attorney General challenged me to give examples where the prerogative has been destroyed by associating Parliament with the exercise of that prerogative. It would take an hour to give all the examples. Hundreds of things are now done by Parliament which in old days were done by the prerogative. Orders in Council, proclamations, monopolies, patents, standards of weights and measures, coin—all these things were pure prerogative rights in former times, and now are all controlled by Parliament. I am stating no new doctrine when I say that if the action of Parliament upon a prerogative right be invited and acquiesced in, in time that prerogative right will be altered and impaired. That is the seriousness of the proceeding of the Government in the present case. If Treaties of Cession are to be dealt with by Parliament it is impossible to say that we can revert to the prerogative unchanged as it was before. The Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) taunted me with a new-born zeal for the prerogative. I do not know why he attributed to me such ignorance of our constitutional history. What Liberal does not know that the great reforms that have taken place in this country since Parliament was reformed have been effected by the prerogative? The old feeling about prerogative depended upon the existence of a corrupt Parliament, which was controlled by the King. The great struggle with the House of Lords in 1832 ended and the people prevailed by the courage with which Lord Grey and Lord Brougham used the prerogative of the Crown. It was the prerogative of dissolution which struck the first blow, and what struck the last blow and overcame the House of Lords was the insistence of Lord Grey and Lord Brougham that they should have unlimited power to create new Peers. Every man who understands how this contest has been fought before, and may have to be fought again, knows the value of the prerogative. Are we going to deprive ourselves of those

    969
    weapons which were used with so much effect, and place any prerogative of the Crown at the mercy of the House of Lords? It is surprising to some people that those on this side of the House should be the defenders of the Constitution. Why should we not be? Who made the Constitution?—the Liberals or the Tories? Who limited the Monarchy? Who restrained the power of the Church? Who has restrained the power of the House of Lords? Who has aggrandised the powers of the House of Commons, and made its Members the representatives of the people instead of the nominees of the owners of rotten boroughs and the aristocracy? Was it the Tory Party? I should like to know why we should not defend the Constitution. When you taunt us with defending the Constitution we say you are attacking the Constitution by the precedent you are establishing to-night. It is because we see the mischiefs and the dangers of this proceeding that we have protested against it, and I should be very happy if I could accept the doctrine, not of the Secretary for Ireland, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General, that the prerogative given away to-day may be resumed tomorrow.
    SIR H. JAMES: I am sorry to prolong this Debate, the inutility of which has been amply demonstrated. I think there were a good many persons in the country this morning who must have asked why my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) made his speech of last night; but still more persons to-morrow will inquire why the second edition of that speech has been delivered. Recollecting, as I do, the views which my right hon. Friend has before expressed, I cannot solve that question except by reference to a law of physical science. Electricians tell us that if you have a very high tension of electricity it ceases to be a useful agent and expends itself in wasteful and dangerous sparks. My right hon. Friend has been for some time in such a high state of opposition tension towards the Government, that he is constantly emit ting, if he will allow me to say so, wasteful and dangerous sparks. This is a very interesting occasion. Of course, we all pay deference to the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid
    970
    Lothian in this House, but it is quite clear that he only represented a secondary current, induced by the primary current of the Member for Derby. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has come forward in an entirely new capacity. He is a defender of the prerogative. Very eloquent on the subject he was in his peroration. He would not have it destroyed, or even impaired. But I recollect another night, and another scene. My right hon. Friend was then in a powerful state of Liberalism. His place was below the Gangway in those days, and, standing erect in the purity of his Liberalism, he said, "Mr. Speaker, we below the Gangway do not like prerogatives." My right hon. Friend is bold enough to say that those who made the Constitution of this country did so behind the shield of prerogative. To my mind, the reverse is the fact. Our Constitution, as it now exists, was made by the men who fought against, not for, prerogative. Well, Sir, we Liberal Unionists are sometimes charged with having mitigated our Liberalism in order to support the Government; but here is a change of Liberalism in order to attack it. My right hon. Friend says the Government have abandoned prerogative, for once having submitted to Parliament a subject which can be dealt with by prerogative you can never again deal with it by prerogative.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said the continued practice of submitting it to Parliament would in time destroy the prerogative.
    SIB H. JAMES: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I was speaking of what he stated last night, not of the revised edition. My right hon. Friend distinctly stated last night, "If once you submit a subject that can be dealt with by prerogative to Parliament to exercise its discretion upon it, the prerogative action is lost and cannot be exercised again." I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby can support his position by authorities? Let me remind him that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, in 1871, introduced into this House a Bill for the abolition of purchase in the Army—a matter that could have been dealt with directly by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. That Bill was rejected by Parliament, but within a

    971
    few hours of the rejection the prerogative of the Crown was exercised, and purchase in the Army was abolished. It is rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby under these circumstances should adopt the high tone he does when he suggests that, because the Government have submitted this question of the cession of Heligoland to Germany for the approval of Parliament in the form of a Bill, henceforth there is an end of the prerogative of the Crown to conclude Treaties with Foreign Powers. I am rather diffident after what he has said to enter into this question, which is not a very practical question, at any great length, because the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the old saying of Mr. Burke as to a comparison between a rabbit and an elephant, said it was unbecoming in a lawyer to deal with this subject. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to know what position he wishes to occupy—the position of the rabbit or the elephant. Perhaps he is something between the two. But a rabbit may be so inflated as to cause people, or to cause the rabbit at least to think that he is an elephant. I confess I think the right hon. Gentleman has to-night spoken rather as a lawyer, which he was and is—than as a constitutional statesman. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this measure involves a great constitutional question, but in that case I should like to know what effect the right hon. Gentleman's observations, made 19 years ago, will have upon the hon. Members below the Gangway to whom he to-night addresses himself. Will those hon. Members divide in favour of the exercise of the prerogative by what the right hon. Gentleman characterises as being the most incompetent Ministry that has ever conducted the business of the country, or will they divide in favour of that prerogative being exercised with the approval of Parliament? I must confess I welcome the step that has been taken. My right hon. Friend told us in his speech yesterday that the power of the Crown was diminishing, that the prerogative was not so powerful as before, and that the power of Parliament, which to him is the power of the House of Commons, is increasing. This is another offering to the increased power of the House of Commons. Will any of
    972
    the hon. Members below the Gangway object to the action of the Government in the exercise of its discretion submit-ting a question of this kind to the-decision of Parliament in a cas3 where-the Crown choses to do so? My proposition is that the prerogative of the Crown is in no way diminished or weakened by the fact that the Crown has chosen to ask the approval of Parliament to the terms of this Treaty. This is not an attack on the Crown but a concession by it. The Attorney General was quite right when he stated' that the prerogative of the Crown to make such Treaties remains undiminished although Her Majesty's Ministers have brought in this measure. I altogether repudiate the narrow view which the right hon. Member for Derby has taken, that the introduction of this measure abrogates the prerogative of the Crown to make Treaties without the assent of Parliament. The position that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up is that, notwithstanding the fact that the power of the prerogative is diminishing, while the power of the House of Commons is-increasing, he desires that all questions, relating to Treaties shall be decided by the Crown independently of the opinion of Parliament. For my own part, I heralded this concession to the power of Parliament as against the arbitrary action of Ministers as an acknowledgment that we are advancing towards a fuller exercise of Democratic power. I believe-the present system is an insufficient system. When you ask Parliament to-express its approbation or disapprobation of a Treaty what does the request amount to? The Treaty has, then, been made and carried into effect. You can do no more than pass censure on the Government, which may, in consequence, be thrown out of office. There is many a Treaty which a man will condemn but in regard to which he will say, "I must leave my opinion unexpressed, because, if I express it, the Government will go out of office." That is not a true expression upon a Treaty. The purest way of obtaining the opinion of Parliament by those who value it is to ask Parliament for an expression of opinion directly upon the Treaty itself. How is that to be done unless the Treaty is submitted to Parliament? If the circumstances attaching to the Treaty are such that the Government, acting on he advice of its Ministers, say, "We

    973
    will consult our Parliament and our people before we allow the Treaty to come into positive effect, "where is there any impairing of the proper position of the Crown? In showing greater confidence in the country where is the injury to the State? My right hon. Friend has not pointed out any substantial injury. Let me look to the future. Any cessions of territory we may hereafter make must be of territory in India, the colonies, or of a few valuable possessions, like Gibraltar and Malta, in Europe. India presents many peculiar considerations, and of it I will say nothing. Are are we to be told by one professing Liberal principles that before any cession of territory is to be made the sanction of Parliament should not be given? Ought any of our colonial possessions, to which we have given Legislative powers, to be ceded without the sanction of Parliament? And I ask if any of our few possessions in Europe, if Gibraltar and Malta had to be given up, is there any man, who values the proper condition of political life in this country, who would allow his hatred of a Ministry to influence him so much as to cause him to object to the fact that before those valued possessions are yielded up the policy of the Ministry in so doing should be discussed by Parliament? Avowedly, when we have legislated for our territories, they should not be ceded without the assent of Parliament, for if they were, the Crown might so repeal the legislative Acts of Parliament. I regret that I have occupied the attention of the House, even for a short period, but I was anxious that some old comrade of my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) in the happier days of his truer Liberalism should remind him of the time when his actions and opinions were not distorted, as I fear they now are, by the overpowering desire to defeat a Party and destroy a Government.
    SIR W. LAWSON: The Division that is shortly to take place looks as if it were going to be a go-as you-please Division, and before voting I should like to say a few words on the Bill before us. I think we have got into a rather extraordinary position. The position of Parties seems to a casual observer to be somewhat reversed. We have our Tory Friends opposite apparently giving up the prerogative which they are generally
    974
    supposed to support. We have some of our Radical friends going to vote for the Government. What is more remarkable, we have a difference of opinion between the two Members for Northampton, and, most remarkable thing of all, we have a declaration from the Members on the Front Opposition Bench that they are not going to vote at all. I daresay that is a patriotic, and I have no doubt it is a prudent, course. We have heard a great deal about the object of the Agreement—about opening out Africa. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said the object of the Agreement was to make the Sultan of Zanzibar more comfortable. We have been told a great deal about "spheres of influence." We have been told that it is for the good of the human race. Then we have had Christianity and civilisation brought in. I got a circular the other day from the Duke of Fife, asking me to take shares in a steamer for the African Lakes, which he said was going to promote Christianity. I do not believe in Dukes promoting Christianity among the Hottentots by steam. When Englishmen talk about Christianity and civilisation in those parts of the world they mean rum and gunpowder. We are told from the opposite side of the House that this is a great and statesman like policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) said the Agreement was to the effect that within certain limits Great Britain and Germany would not interfere with one another. But they agree that they will interfere with the natives to whom the country belongs, and with whom they ought to have nothing to do. It is a Treaty to divide the spoil. Of course, the principal thing mentioned in the Bill is the giving up of Heligoland. I take a great interest in Heligoland, because I have been told it is the cradle of my race. The Under Secretary of State told us that some man had been there and talked with a hundred people, and that he only found one who did not wish to be united with Germany. I should like to know who it was that got the information. I admit that there is some good in this Treaty—in some parts of it. It frees the Heligolanders and arranges for the preservation of their native customs. I do not altogether dislike this giving up of Heligoland. It

    975
    is a good precedent. The hon. Member for Whitby, in his able speech last night, alluded to Heligoland as the Northern Gibraltar. Well, when the Tories give up the Northern Gibraltar I hope to goodness when the Liberals come in they will give up the Southern Gibraltar. On these grounds I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, this Treaty will not do any more harm than most Treaties do. I was very strongly tempted to vote for it; in fact, it was a long time before I could make up my mind. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friends who so ably discussed the constitutional question. I daresay they are right, as they understand the matter so thoroughly, which I do not pretend to do. Ever since I have been in this House I have done all I can to procure for it a more complete control over all these Treaties. I agree very much with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary last night, or with a great portion of his speech. He said that to take these matters into consideration before the evil was done was better than inflicting a punishment after the event upon those responsible, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby seems to think would be sufficient. The Chief Secretary said, "Prevention is better than cure." He also said he wished to give the greatest authority to Parliament in this matter. These are very Radical doctrines, in my view. I agree with them, as I think that, though there may be objections to what is going on, it is a great thing to have it admitted by the Tory Party that these things ought to be under the full and complete control of Parliament. As the junior Member for Northampton said in his speech, "You cannot go behind it when you have done it." It was the same with the Compensation Bill. If you had bought out the publicans you could never have got behind it, and if you bring one Treaty before Parliament you can never make another without bringing it fully and completely before Parliament. That is my opinion, and, because I believe in representative Government, I believe the Representatives of the people ought to have full and complete control over all these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pointed out a danger when he said, "You should not give a veto on foreign policy to the House of
    976
    Lords." I quite agree with that. I should like to give them a veto on nothing, but we cannot help ourselves. The House of Lords is a danger to all our proceedings. They never do any good anywhere. If we ever do a good thing, they upset it—that is their business, and so long as the people of this country are willing to keep a House of Lords to overthrow whatever we do, we must make the best of it. Parliament is Parliament. I thank the Government very cordially for having taken this Radical step of introducing a Bill on real Radical lines, instead of keeping the thing out of the power of the House of Commons. But to come to the Bill itself, which has not been very much discussed, it is a measure intended to meddle and muddle and interfere with places and people whom we had much better let alone, and, therefore, on that ground, thinking the Bill is calculated to do more harm than good, I shall vote with my hon. Friend.
    MR. CHANNING(who spoke amid loud cries of "Divide!"): I intend to record my vote against this proposal, because I think it is an odious and a dangerous precedent to hand over British subjects and an English colony to a foreign country without formally and in a constitutional manner ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants. As a Radical, I have no sympathy with the Jingoism which has talked of nothing during the last two nights' discussion but the conquest and appropriation of different spheres in Africa. That, and the grave constitutional question raised by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, have taken up the whole of the Debate, and practically nothing has been said on the real point raised by this Bill. I wish here to enter my protest against handing over these people to a foreign Power without consulting their wishes.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should not have risen but for two reasons; one is the unseemly howls which have proceeded from the other side of the House——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is entitled to a hearing, which I hope he will receive, but he is out of order in making use of such an expression.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and will not use such an

    977
    expression again, and I hope I may be allowed to proceed. I was going to say another reason why I intervene in the discussion at this point is because certain words fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth to which, as a Radical, I must take exception. The hon. Baronet has fallen into the bad habit of congratulating and complimenting the Party opposite, a habit which I think ought to be repudiated on this side, particularly when the hon. Baronet says that a precedent is being set for the Radical Party. Rightly considered, it is a precedent of a most vicious character, against which Radicals should protest, because if you consider the true aspect of the question, from a constitutional point of view, it is perfectly clear that although the Tory Party are pretending to do something to transfer some of the Treaty-making power from the Crown to this House, in effect they are doing nothing of the kind. They are diminishing by one-half the power this House has hitherto possessed by allowing the other House to interfere in the control this House possesses over the Ministry in the exercise of the Treaty-making authority that lies with the Crown. For this reason, and on this constitutional ground, I strongly resent the suggestion that Radicals should support the Government proposal as a good precedent. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Lawson) has commented with approval upon what the Chief Secretary said last night, that "Prevention is better than cure," but it has not been shown how this copy-book aphorism bears on this case. The Government come down and throw this Bill at our heads, but the Treaty is signed already, and much mischief is done, even though we refuse to ratify it by rejecting the Bill. We should do something on the Radical lines if we could compel a Conservative Government, before the signing of a Treaty, to come to the House of Commons and say, It is for you to decide whether this should become a Treaty or not. It was for that reason that within a few months of my entering the House I voted against my own Government for a Resolution tending in the direction I have indicated, and I am not going back upon that vote now by my vote to-night, which I shall give heartily, and without the least conpunction, against the Government. I would make it necessary for
    978
    the Government to come to this House, and not to go to a hereditary House, who represent nobody but themselves, before signing a Treaty, and get the consent of this House. Such a proposal as that would proceed on Radical lines, but this Bill forms no precedent of the kind. If I may leave the constitutional question I will say a word or two upon the Agreement as it stands. I have followed the Debate throughout, but I have not heard the important question argued that we ought to have insisted at all hazards on the retention of the right of way—not an imaginary easement, but a solid right of way—provided in the Agreement between Lake Tanganyika and the Victoria Nyanza. I refer to that because, so far as I am able to judge, nobody, with all the talk of the necessity and duty of ourselves and Germany to carry civilisation through Africa, has pointed out that the most effective method of civilisation will be by opening railway communication. Those who look beyond the immediate present, and take a fair view of the future, know that one of these days a trunk line of railway must be constructed north and south, and by the limitations involved in the acceptance of the Hinterland doctrine laid down by the German Government, and allowing them to push their territory from the coast to the boundary of the Congo territory, our Government have cut off this country from all right to lay down such a means of communication to connect our territory on the Zambesi with that north of the German sphere of influence. This is a fatal blot in the Agreement, however beneficial it might be in other respects. There are some hon. Members on this side who have said we ought to have thrown Heligoland to Germany as a gift, without compensation or quid pro quo, but I disapprove of the cession, not as the giving up of a mere piece of land, but as disposing of the population without their consent, or any attempt to ascertain their wishes, for political purposes, as if they were mere pawns on a chess-board, or mere appurtenances of the island. I do not think it is incumbent upon us on any high moral doctrine to say to Germany you shall have it without anything in return. It is of value to us if it has a value to Germany, and we are justified in making the best arrangement we can. While I admit this, I must protest against the

    979
    Jingo doctrine of unlimited annexation. I do not desire that we should go about the world snapping up any "unconsidered trifles" of land, and warning the rest of mankind from poaching on our manor. But I do say this, that when by colonising actively we have secured anything like power and influence over territory, where we have shown ourselves able to introduce order and good government, and to confer benefits on the native population—I say when we have done that, in spite of all the evils of the three R's my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) described, then we have a right to take such steps as will protect our interests. But my contention is that we have yielded to Germany in every quarter of Africa, and the concessions in return are of little worth. It is not necessary for me to travel over the whole ground covered by the Agreement. I could point to Despatch after Despatch in which, although it may be true that we have not in so many words guaranteed the independence of Zanzibar, we have entered into solemn engagement to respect the independence of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and I want to know how we can face the world and claim respect for Treaties when we go behind the back of one contracting Power, France, and make an arrangement with Germany, deliberately violating that independence of Zanzibar which, with two other Powers, we entered into engagements to respect and protect. What is the meaning of respecting the independence if we are going to take over the Protectorate, that is to destroy the sovereignty of the Sultan on the island, as a quid pro quo for concessions given to Germany? One of two positions it is impossible to deny; either we are getting nothing at all, so far as Zanzibar is concerned, for Heligoland and all the rest of the sacrifices made to Germany, or else we are getting actual sovereignty over Zanzibar, going back upon our word, tearing up a Treaty, and flinging an insult in the face of France, a party to that Treaty, and with whom we must, I suppose, arrange to give up some little corner of the Empire as a solatium. All this is done by the Party who, a few years ago, were rampaging up and down the country declaring against separation and disruption of the Empire, because we proposed to give the power of dealing with their own affairs to one section of
    980
    our fellow-subjects. But the action of hon. Gentlemen on those Benches does not surprise me; it is only one more of their election pledges broken, for which their constituents will, ere long, call them to account.
    Mr. SYDNEY GEDGErose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: I ask the House to allow me a few words. Though a seaman by profession, I do not pretend to be a sea lawyer, and, passing by the constitutional question, I look at this from a plain business-like point of view. Here we have given up to Germany, Damaraland and Namaqualand, while we retain Walfisch Bay. I do not pretend to be envious of the possession of Damaraland and Namaqualand; no doubt, the territory has considerable mineral wealth, although there is a great lack of water. But I do protest against Walfisch Bay being held without any determination of boundary: it is extremely likely to lead to complications with the German Empire. This is a question of great importance to Cape colonists, to the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal Republic. Both of those great countries will, no doubt, in a short space of time find it to their great advantage to join the English colonies of the Gape of Good Hope and Natal in a confederation, such as that of the Australian colonies, or in some way to come under the British flag. These colonies are now rapidly developing their trade. I call them colonies, for although the Orange Free State and the Transvaal have separate flags, we have suzerainty over these States. They are most anxious to develop trade to the North-West. I have had personal practical experience, which I think no other Member of the House has had, as a resident in the country just south of Zanzibar, and I know that to the North-West of the Zambesi and the Victoria Falls there is a populated country, which is of the utmost importance to Cape Colony and the Orange Free State as a market for their produce and European imports. I would not propose taking possession of that, but it is important that the route should be kept open, and

    981
    the effect of the extension of the German boundary to Long. 21° E., and to a point north as far as Victoria Falls is that, to use a familiar expression, the South African colonies have "got their head into Chancery," with the German arm round their neck. We are left with but a narrow neck of territory of 300 miles between Victoria Falls and Zumbo Now, I contend Germany should not be allowed to make good this claim to put an arm round Cape Colony. Germany has, I believe, only some 200 German subjects in Damaraland and Namaqualand, and it is quite absurd for them to put forward the declaration that they wish to open trade to the North-West of the Zambesi. Then a part of the Treaty applies to the route between Nyassa and Tanganyika. There we have the Stevenson Road, and the Germans come within three or five miles of that road, with the consequence that there will be everlasting disputes, and that trade will be choked. It has been urged, and I do hope the Government will still urge, that the German Government should allow their boundary to be pushed to latitude 8°, including within British territory the highlands to the North-East of Lake Nyassa, a health plateau of enormous value as a sanatorium to our miners and traders. This is really one of the most important points in this Treaty, this highland at the North End of Nyassa, and we ought to secure a belt of British territory to the end of the Stevenson Road of 60 or 100 miles. We are to have the "Protectorate" of Zanzibar, but why modify terms? What is really meant is, we are to take possession. But we cannot do that without coming to terms with France, and what terms will France demand? She will demand possession, call it a Protectorate if you like, of the Island of Madagascar. Consider the effect of this. In ease of war the Suez Canal would be blocked in a fortnight, and all our communication with our Indian possessions would have to be round the Cape. From Madagascar there would be ready means to harass, if not to stop, our communication with India. These are matters that should be taken into consideration in a broad view of the situation and its probabilities. We have heard a great deal of the benefit of our rule to native races, but this has been by no means an unmixed blessing. Tribes have dis-
    982
    appeared in consequence of European vices and diseases introduced among them. What may we reasonably expect from the German rule? One of the first things they did when they got possession of the Zanzibar coast was to follow the bad old British custom of bombarding the natives. I had hoped this custom had been given up, but the Germans followed our bad example of the last century. Again, I would press on Her Majesty's Government to re-consider the boundary between British and German territory, and not to allow the German boundary to be pushed up to Victoria Falls, where they have no earthly claim, and within five miles of the Stevenson Road. We know from experience traders frequently make a dâtour of 200 or 300 miles through a sandy desert rather than go through the Transvaal Republic, where they would be harassed by the authothorities and subjected to duties, and I fear that equally deterrent difficulties will present themselves when the Germans have established themselves permanently in the North-West of Cape Colony. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to modify this part of the Agreement.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I only wish to indicate the magnificent nature of the gift Her Majesty's Government are making to the German Emperor. Heligoland is admirably adapted for fortification, and could be made most formidable in time of war. When German engineers and Krupp have had it in hand for two or three years it would be a very difficult thing, I think, for the whole British fleet to take possession of it after a three years' siege, even if not a single German ship were to sally out from ports in the rear. It is just the right size for fortification; the cliffs are admirably adapted for it, and the garrison need not be large. It is not adapted for a good Naval port, but the Germans do not want it for that, but as a fortress, under protection of the guns of which German vessels can run when attacked by superior force. Vessels can, I believe, run close in, for there is a depth of 26 feet at low spring tides. Its position is just what is required by Germany, and if the German Emperor had the power of moving the island I do not think he could find a better place. It is 25 miles

    983
    from the mouths of the Weser and the Elbe, and as there are guns that will carry 15 or 16 miles, the Germans will have a full command of the passage between the island and the main-laud, and it would be impossible for any large ship to intercept communication with the mainland in time of war. In future warlike operations all lines of blockade will have to be drawn outside Heligoland, and that means a line so long that it would be practically impossible to effectually blockade the Weser and the Elbe. Nothing is more likely to lead to complications with neutral Powers than an inefficient blockade of a belligerent port. If Heligoland is not in the hands of the German Emperor it is possible to blockade the Weser and Elbe, but if Heligoland is in the hands of Germany, it will be impossible, even for a great Naval Power, to keep up an efficient blockade. I do not blame you for giving this gift to the German Emperor, but why did you not at the outset say what you were giving? The Ministry and the Conservative Party, with one or two exceptions, have minimised the value of Heligoland because they do not wish the English people to think they are giving away too much. I acknowledge the island is far more valuable to Germany than to England, but still it would be valuable to England. I should like to know whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that Russia has addressed remonstrances to us against the cession. I can understand that Russia will not like Heligoland in the hands of the Germans, because it will be a sort of temptation to the German Government to one day annex Holland. In that case Germany would be a formidable rival of ours, both at sea and in respect to our Colonial Empire.
    (11.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 201).
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

SUPPLY [18th July]—REPORT.
Order read, for further consideration of postponed Resolution:—
"That a sum, not exceeding £97,499, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ire-
984
land, and of the Prisons under their control; and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
MR. J. G. FITZGERALD: I beg to move a reduction in the amount of this Vote, and I do so in reference to grave matters in connection with prison administration in Ireland which I have to lay before the House. This is necessary from the failure of the Chief Secretary to give any reply to these grave specific charges which were made, not for the first time, when we were considering this Vote in Committee, and this must be my apology for again troubling the House on this the final stage of the Vote. The prison to which I refer is Derry Gaol, and the officials-against whom charges are made are Dr. Plunket; Dr. O'Farrell, the Inspector of Prisons; and Sir William Miller, who is still medical officer to the prison in which those prisoners to whom I shall presently refer lost their lives, which loss of life I hold the prison administration responsible for. I do not desire to do the Chief Secretary an injustice, and, therefore, I will mention that on the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman said the accusations made were not those that were brought forward on a previous occasion last year; that Derry Gaol was undoubtedly old, and many cells therein were not equal in size to-those found in modern prisons, and that all that was required was to diminish the number of prisoners sent to Derry Gaol, so that there should be no necessity to use the smaller cells. I now propose to make my accusations exactly in the same form as they were made last year, so that the Chief Secretary may have no complaint to make on that score, and I think I can show that something more is needed than a reduction in the number of prisoners to avoid the introduction into the prison of that plague against which we warned the right hon. Gentleman 12 months ago, and which, if it once enters, is as likely to kill a small number as a large number of prisoners confined therein. To make myself clear, I shall be obliged to touch upon what the right hon. Gentleman calls ancient history, and to which he seems to have much aversion since public opinion compelled him to recede from the position he formerly took up and to have recourse-to the more modern methods of prison treatment. It will be within

985
the recollection of the House that lamentable occurrences followed the earlier methods, ending in the death of John Mandeville and others, and permanent injury to the health of many of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman, by declarations in and out of the House, threw the whole onus of the care of prisoners on the Prisons Board, against whom as a body I have not a word to say. But, unfortunately, these lamentable occurrences did not end with the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman. A disease, to which I shall presently refer, broke out in Derry Gaol, attacking four prisoners, three men and one woman, and it killed the woman and two of the men. Among the deceased was the youth M'Gee, who had been allowed to remain in prison during the whole time of his illness, and who was sent to his desolate home on the morning following a night passed in delirium. All these prisoners were allowed to be done to death in prison month after month under the ignorant eyes of the medical officer, Sir William Miller, whom I charge with incompetence, but whom the Chief Secretary describes as an able public servant. In consequence of these deaths, we called for an examination into the condition of the prison. This was made by Dr. O'Farrell, who made a Report, and to one or two paragraphs of this Report I shall have to refer. He says—
"A careful examination of the present sanitary arrangements of the prison has satisfied me that there is nothing in the condition of these that would be in any way injurious to health. The buildings are in good condition, and are kept scrupulously clean and orderly; the cells are well ventilated, and the closets of modern type."
In another portion of the Report the Inspector supports me in my charge of in competency against Sir William Miller, because he says—
"Looking back on the whole circumstances of the case, it is a pity that the disease of which the boy M'Gee died was not observed before."
That is to say, that the prisoner died of a disease contracted in prison; that he had it all the time he was in prison, and the doctor in charge knew nothing about the disease. I beg the House to remember what Dr. O'Farrell says about the sanitary condition of the prison. Now I come to brief references from a more recent Report made by Major Beamish,
986
an English Prisons Inspector. He says—
"At the south-west angle of the male prison there is a hole in the ground where ashes and other refuse accumulate for six months before being cleared,"
and, Major Beamish naively remarks,
"It is not a good sanitary arrangement to allow refuse to thus accumulate for such a length of time."
Major Beamish says the cells are half the size of those in English prisons; that there are 75 inches allowed for the inlet and outlet of fresh air, and no means whatever for the exit of foul air. English prison cells have 108 square inches for inlet and outlet, besides ventilating traps in the wards and air shafts in connection with the ventilators for the exhaustion of foul air. There is no-reception room in the prison, but there is a bath room used as a reception room,. where prisoners are huddled together higgledy-piggledy, and where, Major Beamish remarks, the air is very foul, and here the prisoners' clothes and changes of clothes for the prisoners are kept. But this is a trifling matter compared with the-Report as to the sanitary condition of the gaol. Here we are told there is no trap at the base of the soil pipe and no ventilation for air to enter the drain. It is a matter of opinion among sanitary scientists whether air can possibly escape through Buchan's trap; but here there is no trap whatever; the air consequently entered the prison through the closets, and no doubt was an important factor in producing the complaint for which these Derry prisoners died. At the time the Report was first brought under our notice I charged Sir William Miller, the medical officer, with in competency, and, as to Dr. Plunket, I said he was entirely ignorant of sanitary science. It was reported that these patients died of galloping consumption. I say that they died of diseases perfectly well known to medical men—i.e., typhoid-pneumonia, and suppurated typhoid-pneumonia. I want security for the future. I say that this prison must be levelled to the ground before it can be made fit for the reception of prisoners, and you have no right—legal or moral— to confine any class of prisoners, and much less prisoners for a crime created by yourselves, in a prison which your own Inspector has admitted should be pulled down. We hold the Chief Secre-

987
tary, who is the head of the Irish Government, responsible for these lives; we say that they were sacrificed to the avarice of his unworthy confederates, and that they would never have acquired the gaol plague had he not driven them from desolate homes in order to collect the rents of his friends. There is no other people on the face of the earth whose kith and kin would not exact vengeance from you in the form of the lynch law advocated by one of your Judges. Derry Prison is a pest hole and fever den, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that in the future he will not confine prisoners there. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—a reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
Amendment proposed, to leave out "£97,499," in order to insert "£95,499."—(Mr. Fitzgerald.)
Question proposed, "That '£97,499' stand part of the Resolution."
MR. CONTBEARE: I regret that my enforced absence on public duties elsewhere last week prevented me from taking part in the discussion on this Vote, because it is more convenient to bring forward facts and complaints at a time when it is possible to speak more than once, and to expose the fallacies in which the Chief Secretary indulges. I think I was entitled to address the House even at some length on my own treatment in Ireland by the Resident Magistrates at Falcarragh, but I refrained from doing that last night because I preferred to describe my treatment in Derry Gaol. I have listened with great interest to the clear and precise statement by my hon. Friend who moved the reduction of this Vote. I shall not attempt to follow him in dealing with the sanitary deficiencies of Derry Gaol from a scientific point of view. But I am, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tipperary—a co-criminal with myself—able to speak on the general character of the prison arrangements, and I think I am in a position to throw some light on matters mentioned in Major Beamish's Report and the observations thereon of the General Prisons Board. While I was incarcerated in this gaol I had the satisfaction of seeing this Inspector going his rounds. Now, I will first deal with his
988
statement as to the cells for first-class misdemeanants. He says there are two large cells in detached blocks for the use of first-class misdemeanants, each containing 675 feet cubic space. In the observations of the General Prisons Board I find that Colonel Burke states that, in addition to the ordinary cells, there are now provided two other first-class cells, one containing 1,000 cubic feet space, and the other 1,600 cubic feet, both boarded and well ventilated and artificially lighted. My complaint is that these statements are absolutely misleading, and I ask the leave of the House to explain exactly what those cells are and what they were intended for before Father M'Fadden and myself came to occupy them. The cell in which I was incarcerated for 13 weeks and 8 hours contained 1,600 cubic feet, but it will better explain if I state that it is a tunnel 15 feet long and 9 feet high. So far from it having been intended for first-class misdemeanants, I am positively assured by the Governor of the gaol and by the Visiting Magistrates, who on two occasions punished me for my rebellious conduct, that there was no provision for first-class misdemeanants. In fact, my cell and a lesser one near had been used as store rooms. The lower part of the other cell was cut off for the purpose of being used as a water closet. For the first 24 hours of my confinement there was no ventilation beyond the air let in at the top of the window through an aperture of not more than five or six inches. Almost all the windows of the prison are of roughened glass to prevent the prisoners looking out. That is a refinement of cruelty which is a shame and a scandal. When Dr. O'Farrell came his round I told him I should certainly prefer a complaint as to why the window of my cell could not be properly opened; and I told him that if it was not opened I would smash the whole thing to smithereens. My remonstrance had the desired effect; and I had the satisfaction of looking from my prison window to the green fields, which could be seen beyond the intervening roofs. But Father Stephen, Kelly, and others, who were imprisoned for exactly the same crime as that for which I was confined, had the plank bed and mean prison fare, and they were unable to see from their windows. It was an unnecessary refine-

989
ment of cruelty, because, with the warders constantly patrolling, there was no danger of escape had the windows been opened. It is said in the Report that there is plenty of ventilation in the corridors of Derry Gaol; but it should not be forgotten that the prisoners are shut up in their cells for the whole 24 hours, excepting two allowed for exercise. We are told that the gaol must be entirely levelled and rebuilt, but we have no assurance from the Chief Secretary that that radical reform will be instituted. There are eight or nine different yards of different sizes in which the prisoners are exercised, and I pointed out to the Magistrates that it was possible to place a shelter in more than one of those yards; but the only answer I got was that the prisoners had got on as well without it so far; that it would be an expensive job, and that they did not know that anything of the kind existed in any English prison. The result is that on wet days the prisoners either have to remain in their cells during the whole 24 hours, which happened more than once while I was there, or they had to walk round the yards in the pouring rain, and afterwards to go and sit in their damp cells in their dripping clothes. This being so, there can be no wonder that typhoid fever, consumption, pneumonia, and other fatal diseases have carried off some of the prisoners during the right hon. Gentleman's régime. Such a state of things is a scandal even to the civilised rule of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I say we have a right to insist that in the future this House shall have some assurance not only that these evils shall be remedied, but that there shall be adequate shelters for the prisoners on wet days, and that as far as may be no more lives shall be sacrificed to the ruthless vengeance of the present Government of Ireland. There is another point on which I addressed a remonstrance to the Visiting Justices, and that was a point on which I succeeded in carrying my suggestion. It will be remembered that questions were asked in this House last year, as to the effect of the constant glare of the whitewashed walls on the eyesight of the prisoners; but I had no fear that in the comparatively short time of three months or so I should myself naturally
990
suffer from this cause; but having to spend most of my time in reading in my cell, my eyes did suffer great inconvenience. I will give some proof of the effect of the glare of the whitewashed walls on the eyesight. I was exercising at half-past 9 o'clock one morning when the doctor came to see me. It was not Sir William Miller, but Sir William Miller's son. I may here say that although I do not think Sir William Miller is a competent authority on hygiene, I was always treated with the greatest kindness and consideration by that gentleman, and when he was absent by his son. Of course, I was a first-class misdemeanant, and perhaps Sir William Miller may have thought that he might allow more latitude in listening to my chaff about Home Rule, and so forth, than would be the case when he was talking to John Kelly. At any rate, I believe I may say without exaggeration that whatever may have been their motives these gentlemen did their best to make my lines in prison as comfortable as they reasonably could. But in speaking of my own personal treatment it must not be taken that I am excusing the treatment in the shape of harshness of other prisoners worse circumstanced than myself. Well, returning to Sir William Miller's son, we were standing close to a whitewashed wall, and the doctor turned away, saying, "How the glare of that whitewash does affect my eyes." Now if, when the glare of the sun was on that wall, the doctor found it too strong for his eyes during a few moments, surely we prisoners had a right to complain when we had to stand it day after day for months. The hon. Member for Clare, who was once incarcerated for nine months, found his eyesight naturally affected from the same cause. Well, before my time had expired the order had gone forth that the prisoners' cells should be block washed, that is to say, they were coloured with a sort of dusky-tint, which afforded relief to the eyes,' although it had the effect of somewhat darkening the cells. I now want to say a few words about the cells of the first-class misdemeanants. They are in the reception block, which is situate in that part of the buildings immediately at the back of the gaol office. There is one stair-casein the block, and on the left-hand side of the staircase is the bath-room. What I want to put before the House is the

991
fact that there is no proper distinction, in regard to this matter, between the prisoners of the worst and dirtiest class and the first-class misdemeanants, who are in other respects placed in a much more favourable position than the other prisoners. The new prisoners are brought into the waiting-room on the right-hand side, so that their descriptions may be taken down, and so forth; but at night that room was not in use, and the block in which I was imprisoned contained the casual ward, into which most of the drunken and noisy prisoners were introduced before examination, and locked up until they could be seen to in the morning. This is a matter on which, if I had been desirous of making a complaint, I should have been quite justified in so doing; because often, when I had retired to rest, these prisoners, many of whom were brought in for being drunk and disorderly or riotous, gave the warders a great deal of trouble, and there was so much noise on that staircase as to completely disturb everybody in that block. Naturally, a great many of these prisoners were of the lowest character, reeking with vermin of all descriptions. They were taken into a room called the bathing and dressing room, and in this same apartment—this very small apartment—was the weighing machine, in which all the prisoners were required to be weighed. Week after week, during the time that I was incarcerated, I was brought down to be weighed on this machine, so anxious was the Chief Secretary to show that I was improving in weight. I was brought into this disgusting hole perhaps a few moments after the dirtiest of the dirty had been in the scale, and I was compelled to stand there in my bare feet. After this had been going on for some weeks, as the House is aware, I was attacked by a loathsome and troublesome complaint, which I do not desire any further to refer to. It occasioned all these Reports on which we are basing this discussion to-night, and Dr. O'Farrell came down to discover, if he could, what was the origin of this particularly noxious complaint. I believe he tried his best to come to a conclusion, and all sorts of theories were suggested. It was said that even the unfortunate pigeons who used to feed in my cell were caught and examined to see if they could have communicated this pestilence to me. But after
992
I had seen one of these ordinary dirty prisoners stripped naked in this waiting room, I came to the conclusion that the fact of my being compelled to go into the scale barefooted after one of these fellows had been weighed was the cause of my misfortune, and therefore, when I came to this conclusion, I declared my refusal to go into the scale in that cell any more, whatever punishment they might choose to inflict upon me for such refusal. In this case, as, in fact, in every other, I got what I wanted. After a few days they took the scales out of this waiting room, and weighed me in the yard. To get to the storeroom, where the private clothes of the prisoners were kept, it was necessary to pass through this filthy waiting and bathing place. Some of my things were kept in this store-room with those of the ordinary prisoners. I hold that it was a most improper thing to put the clothes of the first-class misdemeanants in such a place, where they had to run the gauntlet of being infected with all sorts of filth and vermin. To say that in this gaol there was any accommodation for first-class misdemeanants is the most ridiculous statement ever ventured upon, and if it is not a mistake in these Reports it is put in for the purpose of deceiving the House. The Chief Secretary may reply that there were so few first-class misdemeanants that they were not worthy of consideration; but, I say, why not place such first-class misdemeanants as you do get, however few in number, in a proper place? Mr. T. D. Sullivan, when Lord Mayor of Dublin, was incarcerated in Kilmainham Gaol as a first-class misdemeanant, and he was supplied with two rooms—a sitting-room as well as a bed-room. The rooms were properly ventilated, and he had an open fire-place in his sitting-room. That was accommodation with which one could not have found any complaint, and I never heard that the hon. Member had to run the gauntlet of a cell through which the dirtiest and most pestilential prisoners had to pass. Mr. W. T. Stead and Mr. Gent-Davis were also first-class misdemeanants. The former, who was no more criminal than I was, was placed in a more or less comfortable apartment in Holloway Gaol. There was a good deal of difference between the criminality of the offences of Mr. Stead and myself as compared with that of

993
the offence of Mr. Gent-Davis. My only offence was giving a loaf of bread to a starving family, whereas that of Mr. Gent-Davis was one of having grossly defrauded parties to whom he was deeply indebted, and yet his accommodation, as hon. Members who remember what was said about it at the time will recollect, was palatial compared with either that of myself or the hon. Member for the College Green Division when we were first-class misdemeanants. We have a right to insist upon this point, because, if there is one argument, except the tu quoque argument, on which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary prides himself more than another, it is—"You have no right to complain, as first-class misdemeanants are treated in England in the same way as in Ireland." Anyone who knows the facts of the case knows that that is not so. Now, towards the end of my imprisonment I was anxious to consult a solicitor in regard to certain libels which had been published against me in certain newspapers. After some difficulty I succeeded in obtaining the assent of the Prisons Board to an interview with my solicitor, but when that interview took place a warder came and thrust himself into the little apartment in which I was to confer with my legal adviser. I refused to hold any conference with my solicitor under those conditions, and, by reference to the prison rules, I insisted on my right to have a private interview with my solicitor. I was not even then allowed to have a private interview in the proper sense of the term. I was compelled to take my seat on one side of a table, with my solicitor at the other; the blinds of the window were drawn up, and a warder was posted outside to spy out everything that took place, and, if possible, to listen to everything that was said. That is the way the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary treats his first-class misdemeanants. I do not wish unnecessarily to dwell upon the details of these particular inconveniences and annoyances to which I was subjected; but I may say, while it is in my mind, that the prison authorities did what they could in this mean and petty way, so characteristic of the present Tory administration, to heap what they thought was indignity and insult upon me. When I was leaving the gaol to return
994
to England on the termination of my sentence I asked for that which I believe I had a perfect right to, namely, first-class railway fare, but this was denied me, a second-class railway ticket being thrust into my hand by a warder. This is a petty matter, and I merely mention it to show the miserably mean and vindictive methods by which it was sought to humiliate me, my treatment in this respect being different to that of my Friend, Mr. Kelly, under the late Mr. Forster. And now, to show the idiotic fashion in which the Prisons Board of Ireland conduct their affairs, I will refer to the question of correspondence. I was allowed to correspond within certain limits, and naturally, not feeling in the least any lively sentiment of gratitude or affection towards the Chief Secretary, I was not very nice in my choice of the terms in which I spoke of him in some of my letters. I hold in my hand a postcard which I wrote to a friend of mine a few days after my imprisonment. It contains the words—
"Healy is going to try for a Habeas Corpus. I wish it was Balfour's carcass we could have in Court."
That was a ridiculous little joke. It was my carcass that was going to be dealt with by the Court, and I thought the meanest intelligence would have seen that it was not intended as abuse. However, the post-card was not allowed to pass. It has never received the sign manual of the Governor of the gaol, and I suppose, like a great deal more of my correspondence, it was sent up to the Prisons Board, to be examined by that learned body. Even if one is a first-class misdemeanant, one is expected to conform to certain rules, I was expected to do so, but I did not. I can understand that there must be a supervision over the correspondence of prisoners going out of prison; therefore, I took good care, when I wished to send anything to the newspapers which I did not desire the Chief Secretary to see, not to send it in a manner which was under the supervision of the Governor of the gaol.
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. CONYBEARE: This is the first time I have had an opportunity of deal-

995
ing with this matter, and I think I should be allowed to conclude my observations without interruption. The point I was endeavouring to make when I was interrupted was this: I do not complain so much of my own correspondence being intercepted, but when the correspondence of gentlemen outside, over whom I could have no control, was stopped, and letter after letter was refused me simply because they contained some miserable little expression, such as the name "Bomba," applied to the Chief Secretary, I do think the matter was carried to a ridiculous extreme. One letter I hold in my hand, sent to me by a little child six years old, was sent all the way to Dublin, and placed before the Prisons Board, because there was at the end of it, in the child's scrawl, "Three cheers for the Plan of Campaign." Another important question that has not yet been settled is that of the dismissal of Father Doherty, the Catholic Chaplain, from Derry Gaol in September last. When the Chief Secretary is again in the shades of the Opposition, but not till then, I shall be very glad to explain to him how I got my letters out of prison, and to initiate him into what I may call the freemasonry of criminals. Although it has generally been supposed that Father Doherty was the medium by which I succeeded in communicating my letters to the Press and to friends outside, and he was dismissed for that reason, it was not technically the case, and I had at least half-a-dozen methods by which I was able at all times to communicate with the outer world. So elaborate were the arrangements I was able to make that letters of mine passed through the hands of the Governor, and he was no more aware of their contents than the Chief Secretary himself. A fortnight or three weeks after the dismissal of Father Doherty I succeeded, in one day, in passing 12 letters out of the prison, and they all appeared in due course in different newspapers. This, I think, will convince the right hon. Gentleman that he hardly treated Father Doherty with justice in dismissing him on suspicion—for there was no proof—of carrying my letters. I may say also there is not a warder at this moment in Derry Gaol who has any idea how I succeeded in passing my correspondence out of prison. I was particularly careful not to ask the gaolers for a single favour
996
which could, by any possibility, bring them under the lash of the right hon. Gentleman's punishment. The only warder who, unfortunately, suffered anything in consequence of what I did, was a young fellow named Patrick Barry, who was fined 2s. 6d. by the Governor for replying to a few casual remarks I made about the weather, and so forth, whilst I was in the exercise ground, and he was waiting for another warder to bring him the key of a gate. Many unkind things have been said about my having sought the services of a Catholic Chaplain. When I was first taken into the prison and searched I was asked what religion I was. I replied, "That is not a question you have a right to ask, and which I shall, under no circumstances, reply to." I was then asked what service in the chapel I proposed to attend, and was informed that there was a Presbyterian service, a Disestablished Irish Church service, and a Roman Catholic service. I said, "I propose to attend the Roman Catholic service." I was perfectly justified in doing so. I never belonged to the Disestablished Church of Ireland, and if I had belonged to it I should have objected to the ministrations of a man who was, under the immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Derry, who at the time was the holder of 40 shares in the Smith-Barry Eviction Syndicate—a criminal conspiracy of a far worse character than any from which anyone has suffered in Ireland. Nor if I had been a Presbyterian would I have accepted the services of a minister who was the father of the blatant orator who was paid by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to abuse me and hunt me down before the County Court Judge of Derry. I cannot speak in too high praise of the devotion of the Catholic clergymen to every class of prisoners in Derry Gaoly and of the incessant kindness to the poor people committed to their care. When several of my letters written in prison had been published, the authorities decided to hold a Star Chamber inquiry into the methods by which I passed my correspondence out of gaol, and they sent down a gentleman named Joyce. I was summoned before him and questioned about a letter that had appeared in the Star. I declined to say anything, and was sent back to my cell. Father Doherty was also summoned, and was put on his oath. He was then insulted

997
by being asked a question which he very properly refused to reply to, and it was because he refused to hold any communication with this official, and not because he had been proved to have done anything wrong, that he was discharged from his chaplaincy. That was a monstrous injustice. Father Doherty refused to hold any communication with this man for one special reason, namely, that on a previous occasion Joyce had been sent down to the gaol and had ordered the warders to act as spies upon the chaplains in their communications with the prisoners. Father Doherty very properly refused to have anything to say to a man who had acted in this way. Father Doherty might have gone further and said: "I am placed here in confidential communication with the prisoners, and it would be almost a crime on my part if I were to reveal what has passed in confidence between me and these poor criminals whom it is my duty to solace with the ministrations of their religion." I hold that you have no right to deprive prisoners not only of the ministrations of their priest, but of the power of worshipping God one day in the week. There were, I think, 150 of these prisoners in the gaol at the time of Father Doherty's dismissal, and, to my knowledge, they have had no power since of conferring with a minister of religion, or of worshipping in their own religion on Sundays. I want to know from the Chief Secretary whether he has taken any steps whatever to replace Father Doherty by some other chaplain. Every man who calls himself a Roman Catholic has a right to the ministrations of a Roman Catholic clergyman. Just at the time Bather Doherty was dismissed, the Bishop of the Diocese died. It is well understood that the Bishop of the Diocese has the right to nominate a person to fill the office of chaplain. A deadlock arises. The Chief Secretary or the Prisons Board would not reinstate Father Doherty, and they had no power to appoint anybody else, because, as far as the new Bishop was concerned, they were not able to bring sufficient influence from Rome to bear upon him to induce him to nominate one who would have been acceptable to the Prisons Board. On this point I may be permitted to quote one or two sentences from a letter I addressed to the Chairman of the
998
Prisons Board on the 1st of October, 1889. I wrote—
"Sir,—Now that I am on the point of being released, I beg to offer for your consideration the following information, which may interest you, even if it fails to convince you that your arbitrary dismissal of the Catholic Chaplain was, to say the least, over-hasty; and is in any case grossly unjust to the Catholic prisoners, who, for no offence of their own, have been deprived now for more than three weeks both of the visits of their chaplain and of the consolations of their religion in Divine Service on Sundays—
1. The real ground of Father Doherty's dismissal (whatever the nominal reason) was no doubt that you believed him to have co-operated with me in the publication in the Star newspaper of a certain letter alleged to have been written by me. That letter was written by me; but I can assure you that Father Doherty knew no more about it until it was published than you did. How I procured its publication is my affair, not yours."
This letter must have come under the Chief Secretary's cognisance, and yet, after my distinct assurance that Father Doherty had nothing to do with the letter, he has thought fit to continue the punishment in the shape of the dismissal of Father Doherty.
"2. During the last three weeks since Father Doherty's dismissal I have continued to publish in the Press and otherwise whatever letters I desired. I have written and despatched, through the Governor's office, and subject to-official censorship, more than one letter to the editors of different newspapers, and scarcely a day has passed during the last week that the newspapers have not published some communication written by me, and bearing my signature, which undoubtedly had never received the imprimatur either of Dublin Castle or of the Authorities here, so absolutely impotent are you to stop my writing and publishing what I please. I laugh to scorn all your attempts to muzzle me, and treat with contempt your decrees which assume to punish me for breach of prison discipline. For instance—I asked you the other day, when I was deprived of writing materials, to forward for me a prepaid telegraphic message, which a friend in London was waiting for. But courtesy is not cultivated in Dublin Castle; and you returned my telegram to me. I at once dispatched it myself, without further troubling myself about you.
3. Let me at once say that with all the increased rigor of the vigilance exercised over me since Father Doherty's dismissal, there is no single official here who knows anything of the means by which I am able to evade their watchfulness. I have all along made it a point of honour never to ask them to do for me anything which could bring their conduct into question, and I cannot too highly commend the fidelity with which my gaolers have fulfilled their duty to your Board in exercising the strictest watch over all my actions.

999
4. Considering the impunity with which I have continued to defy your authority and evade your prison regulations—all the more since your dismissal of the chaplain by which you thought you had seized my 'secret despatch boat'—I would venture to suggest that at is about time for you to send Inspector Joyce to hold another Star-Chamber Inquisition. But I can promise you that the results will not be such as to justify his travelling expenses.
5. Under all the circumstances, would it not be more dignified on your part to frankly acknowledge your error and at once reinstate Father Doherty as chaplain, instead of sulking like an ill-conditioned school boy, who 'won't play any more 'because he has received a backhander? You have chosen to try a fall with the Catholic Priesthood on an issue in which you cannot possibly win. No clergyman will sacrifice the principle of the sacred secrecy which should veil the confidential relations between himself as a priest and the prisoners who look to him for spiritual guidance and consolation. Your claim that the chaplain should submit to the examination of your Inspector means simply this, that that relationship shall be laid bare to the cold-blooded dissection of the sneering and cynical 'philosopher,' who at present controls the destinies of this unfortunate country.
By the information I have now given you, I. offer you a last chance of escape from the false position you have assumed. If you accept it, you may escape further contempt, though you cannot avoid the ridicule you have already incurred."
That was the letter I wrote to the Prisons Board, and the right hon. Gentleman will probably not be surprised to hear that a peremptory order was sent down that no more of my letters were to be forwarded to the Prisons Board. One, however, did pass to the Prisons Board after that. I wrote that letter simply in order to clinch what I had already said to prove that the pretexts on which Father Doherty was dismissed, and the supposition that he had infringed the Prison Rules, were wholly without foundation, and that a gross act of injustice had been done the rev. gentleman and the prisoners who were entitled to a continuance of his religious ministrations. I will not add anything else. I will be content on this occasion with having done something I hope to throw a little light upon a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's administration in Ireland, which, but for the happy incident of my imprisonment, it might have been exceedingly difficult to drag into the light of day. There are plenty of other matters connected with my imprisonment, and what was called my trial, which call for remark, but I will take my own time in referring to them. I will spare the right
1000
hon. Gentleman any further humiliation by dwelling more at length upon the absurdities of his administration, and shall conclude by expressing my obligation to the House for having listened to me.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the hon. Gentleman has amply indemnified himself to-night for the enforced silence he was put to during the rest of the Irish Estimates. He has given us a long and elaborate account of his imprisonment in Derry Gaol, but he must choose between the characters in which he evidently wishes to appear before the House—a martyr or a rebel. He has spoken of his sufferings in gaol, and has exulted at his evasion of the Prison Rules. I think he has exaggerated the interest taken in the affair. The hon. Gentleman has complained bitterly of the action the Government have taken in regard to the Catholic chaplain of Derry Gaol. That action was very simple, and was in accordance with every rule of prison discipline. Father Doherty was asked to state, amongst other things, whether he was responsible for breaches of discipline. He refused to give the information, and if the result has been that prisoners of the Roman Catholic faith have been deprived of the ministrations of a Roman Catholic chaplain, the fault lies with the Roman Catholic Bishop in declining to appoint a successor to Father Doherty. The hon. Gentleman then complained that he did not receive the treatment of a first-class misdemeanant——
MR. CONYBEARE: I did not complain. I merely mentioned it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He complained that he suffered from mildew in the prison. I assure the hon. Gentleman I have carefully examined into the matter, and my investigations do not bear out his statement as to the state of the prison in this respect. The hon. Gentleman told us that his eyes suffered from the whitewash on the walls, and that his health may have suffered from the fact that there were no sheds provided in the prison yard under which prisoners might exercise.
MR. CONYBEARE: I did not complain in regard to myself, but complained that ordinary prisoners had to exercise in torrents of rain, and then had to sit in

1001
their cells, their clothes having to dry on them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the universal rule to whitewash the walls of English prisons, and that opthalmia does not result. With regard to sheds, I have only to say that sheds do not exist, as far as I know, in English or Irish prisons; it would be extremely inconvenient and unhealthy to construct them in most prisons.
MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for a moment? Some time ago I asked him a question with reference to the sheds in Derry Prison. That question was suggested to me by the hon. Member for Camborne, who wrote me a letter on the subject. He complained that the prisoners were exposed not only to rain, but in the summer time to the heat of the sun. Is it not the fact that within five days of my question being put a prisoner in Derry Gaol was struck dead while at exercise?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know anything about the particular case the hon. Gentleman alludes to, but I have no doubt I gave him an answer at the time. On the general question of sheds for exercise in Irish prisons, I may say that such structures would be in many cases exceedingly inconvenient, and I do not know why they should be provided for one special class of prisoners who make themselves amenable to the laws of their country. I do not quite know what is the hon. Gentleman's complaint of the room in which he was confined—he did not like the proportions, I think—but, by his own account, the room was a large one, about twice as large as in first-class prisons. As to the general condition of Derry Gaol, it is one of those which, when they came under the management of the Prisons Board in 1878, were by no means up to modern requirements. But an immense deal has been done since that time. Derry Gaol is not of a modern type, and is now used for prisoners sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. It would be a great mistake to suppose it is unhealthy. The statistics of health are good; the drainage is reported good; the water supply is good; and as to the apprehensions of zymotic disease, I am assured they are altogether delusions. The Prisons Board are hastening on the work of re-modelling prisons
1002
in Ireland to meet modern requirements, and there is no reason to complain of their action in this or any other respect.
MR. HARRISON: It has been found necessary once more to direct the attention of the House to the condition of Derry Gaol, and I cannot, I confess, accept the remarks with which the Chief Secretary has favoured us as at all satisfactory. I wish to press upon his attention again the points I ventured to raise in Committee. I referred then to ventilation, the size of the cells, the arrangements which, I still maintain, are not such as to ensure cleanliness, and the defective sewerage. The right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion referred to one point only upon which his assurance was not unsatisfactory, and if he had referred to other matters his assurances might have been such that it would not have been necessary for me to press these points upon him again. Perhaps it was due to inadvertence; perhaps I did not make myself clear, and I will endeavour to make those points clear now. I referred to the size of the cells and the insufficiency of ventilation, and the assurance the right hon. Gentleman gave was that the cells, being unhealthy, should no longer be used for the confinement of prisoners whose sentences exceeded three months. I asked the right hon. Gentleman on what ground he thought it right that prisoners whose offences were presumably small should be subject to unhealthy conditions from which greater criminals, sentenced to longer terms of imprisonment, were exempt, and it seemed to me that it could only be on the principle of taking as much out of the health of a prisoner as was consistent with turning him out alive at the end of his term of imprisonment. What I wish to press on the right hon. Gentleman now is that he will give an undertaking beyond that he has given, that, pending reconstruction, Derry Gaol shall be closed. I touched upon Major Beamish's Report, and I made reference to the statement we had 12 months ago, on his personal experience, from the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane), and which was never answered, and I can now refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), to which I am bound to say we have had no satis-

1003
factory answer. In addition there is a serious question of discipline, arising in this way. A warder in the prison, suspected of sympathy with the popular cause, went into the prison store, and the head warder, with whom he was in ill favour, happened to be there, together with other warders and prisoners. It appears a few stores were missing, and the head warder, turning to the Nationalist warder, as he was supposed to be, said, "Wait here while I go and see if I can find the missing stores in your quarters." The warder, who bears a high character, refused to patiently bear this imputation, and said he would accompany the chief warder if he wished to make a search; and for this breach of discipline, pardonable under the circumstances, he was dismissed. It was a frivolous pretext; the real cause was he was suspected of having espoused the National cause, and so was considered objectionable. The question of the sanitary condition of the prison has, I think, been sufficiently dealt with. The Chief Secretary says that the health statistics are good; but I need scarcely say we have a deeply-rooted distrust of these official Reports. By keeping prisoners out of the hospital the health record may be kept up, and my hon. Friend has given sufficient proof of the culpable negligence of the medical officer. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has read the Report of Major Beamish, and that he has some knowledge, however superficial, of sanitary science. Anybody who reads between the lines of that Report must see that the sanitary conditions of Derry Gaol are in a distinctly dangerous state.
(2.14) Mr. BROOKE ROBINSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. HARRISON: I quite agree with the hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me that this is not a fitting time of night to be dealing with an important question of this kind, and to mark my sense of this, and my sympathy with hon. Members, I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned.
Mr. SPEAKER being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the
1004
House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
Various exclamations, among which Dr. TANNER was heard to say "Scandalous."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member for Mid Cork has made use of an expression which he is not entitled to use.
DR. TANNER: I did make use of an expression, Sir, in immediate reference to the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it was addressed to an hon. Friend near me, and not to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: I did not suppose the hon. Member addressed the remark to the Chair, or I should have ordered him out of the House immediately. The expression is one that ought not to have been used. I take no further note of it now.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
(2.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
Question put accordingly, "That '£97,499' stand part of the Resolution."
(2.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 203.)
Main Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR claimed "That the Main Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
(2.35.) The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 204.)

CITY OF PARIS.
Message to the Lords requesting a Report of the inquiry into the causes of the accident which recently happened to the passenger ship City of Paris.
It being after One o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

Open Spaces.

Working Classes Dwellings.

Trustees Appointments.

Orchards Rating Exemption.

Superannuation (War Department).

Education Code (1890).

Deeds of Arrangement.

Inland Revenue Regulation.

Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment.

Court of Chancery of Lancaster.

Barracks.

Western Australia Constitution.

Colonial Courts of Admiralty.

Intestates Estates.

Registration of Voters (Borough of Belfast).

And a number of Private Bills.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 168.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Aylesford be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Abercorn (D. Abercorn); read, and agreed to.
ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
The order made yesterday for the commitment of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, discharged.
CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL. (No. 97.)
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee, and Appendices) made, and to be printed. (No. 225.) Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 226.)
CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 227.)
REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
Reported a from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments; the Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
MERCHANT SHIPPING—SUNDAY LABOUR AT HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the following remarks made by Admiral His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, at the annual meeting of "Missions to Seamen" Society, held at the Mansion House, on 28th April:—
  "The Report also complains that in some ports abroad, and in Crown Colonies, especially Hong Kong and Singapore, the crews are compelled to do unnecessary work in transhipping cargoes on Sundays, which causes much discontent and discomfort to the men, and puts a stop to all religious observances, whereas in the Australian and self-governing Colonies such unnecessary working of cargoes is rigidly forbidden.
  "I understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has called the attention of some Colonial Governors to this grievance of seamen."
  And whether the practice complained of has been prohibited, so that seamen may enjoy their Sunday rest in port in common with other of Her Majesty's subjects, Slid: My Lords, I hold in my hand a paper which contains the names of certain steamers, together with the names of the owners, which were wharfed at a single wharf at Hong Kong on the Sundays between March the 17th, 1889, and March the 25th, 1890, and all those steamers, I am informed, worked cargo without exception on those Sundays. The firms to which the vessels belonged were Macgregor, Gaw, and Co., of the Glen Line, who worked 13 ships on 13 Sundays; D. Jenkins and Co., eight ships on eight Sundays; The Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, 13 ships on 13 Sundays; The China Mutual Shippers' Steam Navigation Company, five ships on five Sundays; The Union Line, Sandi-lands, four ships on four Sundays; Gellatley, Sewell, and Co., four ships on four Sundays; the British India Steam

  843
  Navigation Company, six ships on six Sundays: the Ben Line, four ships on four Sundays; miscellaneous, five ships on five Sundays; making a total altogether of 62 ships on which cargo was worked at one wharf in the Crown colony of Hong Kong during that period. Of course, there were other wharves occupied, and, no doubt, a similar number of vessels were engaged there in transhipping to those which I have mentioned as being employed at this particular wharf. I understand that the same thing is going on in other Crown colonies. I am informed that there are 120,000 seamen in the year who pass through the port of Hong Kong; consequently, it would appear as if a large proportion of those 120,000 seamen were not permitted to have the Sunday's rest which most working men in this country claim a right to. Now, I am not going to argue this question upon moral and religious grounds, although a great deal might be said upon those grounds, but I am going to argue this question upon the right of every working man to have one day in seven of rest, the right which he has asserted in this country for a long time, and which is almost universally accorded to him. I cannot see why, because a man is a seaman, and because he goes to a foreign port, or a port in one of our Crown colonies, that he should be deprived of the rest which he would have if he went to Australia. For instance, in Australia Sunday labour is forbidden, and why is it forbidden? It is because there the working men themselves have a vote, and they accordingly make their influence felt. But in a Crown colony that is not the case. The Governor, of course, if he desires to obtain support from anybody, goes naturally to the Chamber of Commerce; but the Chamber of Commerce is composed of employers, and employers are not so anxious as they ought to be in many cases that workmen should have a day's rest. I hold that Her Majesty's Government cannot say that they are not responsible for this state of things. If this were a self-governing colony, they might say that in a self-governing colony, of course, the vote of the working people—of the mass of the population—has to be considered there is no working population in this Crown colony which has a vote;
  844
  and, therefore, I hold it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that no injustice is put upon the working classes in these colonies, which are under their care. I am not one of those Sabbatarians who think that under no-circumstances should work be performed upon a Sunday; but I do say this, that there should be shown some great necessity before work is carried out on a Sunday, and I cannot understand why this should be done by these steamship companies, some of whom send their vessels to Australia, because when their vessels get to Australia they manage to carry on their work during the working days of the week, and yet when they go to a Crown colony like Hong Kong they profess to be unable to do that, and allege that they are obliged to work their men on Sundays. The actual state of the case is this: that in the Treaty Ports of China work is forbidden on Sundays, but in our own ports it is permitted. Now, I consider that is a scandal; and the result is that if a shipowner desires to give his seamen rest upon a Sunday at Hong Kong he finds himself at a great disadvantage. But there are some shipowners who are courageous enough to do it. Mr. Laing, of Sunderland, a steam ship owner, when one of his vessels was at Hong Kong last refused to allow his men to work on Sunday, and he thus put himself to-great disadvantage. I do not think it is fair that those shipowners who do their duty towards their men should be put at a disadvantage because other shipowners work their men upon every day in the week. My Lords, I do not intend to ask now for Papers, but unless some satisfactory reply is given me, I intend next Session to move again in this matter, and to ask for a Return of Papers, giving the names of the companies and employers who work their men on Sundays, the names of the ships, and the number of Sundays upon which the men are employed in Sunday labour.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, my attention has been called to the remarks of his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to which the noble Earl has referred, but the question was brought under my notice last year when I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Bowyer, who has taken great interest

  845
  in this subject, and I at once communicated the contents of that letter to the Governors of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements at Singapore, and asked them to report upon the matter. The Governor of Hong Kong expressed his desire to see Sunday labour diminished at the docks and wharves of that port, but, after full inquiry into the subject and consideration of the difficulties of compulsory legislation, he came to the conclusion that such compulsory legislation on the Sunday labour question was not desirable, and, although I am not prepared to assent to all the Governor's reasons which he advanced in support of that decision, I regret to say that I am obliged to concur in the decision myself. The same decision was arrived at by the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who expressed himself very warmly in sympathy with the desire of those who wished to see Sunday labour diminished. He has himself taken steps towards diminishing Sunday labour, because in all Government contracts a provision is now inserted that work under those contracts shall not be carried on on Sunday, except in very urgent cases and under special authority. But after communicating with the Chambers of Commerce, the leading merchants, and the unofficial members of the Council, who represent the communities in these Crown colonies, the Governor of the Straits Settlements came to the same conclusion as that arrived at by the Governor of Hong Kong, that compulsory legislation was not desirable. The answers that were received by him from the Chambers of Commerce and the leading merchants were certainly not of an encouraging nature. I took the opportunity of consulting both these Governors when they were in England on leave, in order to ascertain whether any compromise could be effected, whether there was any kind of legislation which could be introduced which would diminish this Sunday labour, but I regret to say that I found no compromise was possible. I am distinctly opposed to compulsory legislation on this point, that is to say, forcing against the views of the unofficial members legislation by an official vote. The case of Australia, which has been referred to, is very different. In the first place, as in other colonies where there is a Custom-
  846
  house, Sunday labour can be prevented indirectly by closing the Custom-house, but in Hong Kong and Singapore Customhouses do not exist. I am not aware—though I may be wrong in this—that in Australia any Act prohibiting Sunday labour is in force. The working men themselves have declined to work on Sunday, and have thereby indirectly secured for themselves freedom from work on that day, but I am not aware that there is any compulsory or direct legislation on the point. The Colonial Governors will do all they can to discourage Sunday labour, but I do not think anything can be done in this particular branch of labour unless it can be obtained by the voluntary unanimity upon the subject of the members of the Chambers of Commerce and the leading merchants in the colonies, and also of the leading merchants here who have partners or agents in the colonies. In that way pressure may be put upon the Local Legislatures, and ultimately some measure may be introduced which will put an end to Sunday labour at the docks and wharves in these colonies. But at present I am bound to say I do not think there is that feeling in the colonies which would justify compulsory legislation.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I think we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl for calling attention to this matter, which I think your Lordships will agree is one of no slight importance. I think we all agree that in cases of emergency we should not stand in the way of Sunday labour, but this is a matter which we are told affects 120,000 seamen at Hong Kong, and a very large number also at Singapore. I must confess I do not think the answer of the noble Lord is quite conclusive as to why a thing should be impossible in Hong Kong which is possible in Australia. As a matter of fact, work in connection with shipping is carried on upon Sundays in the Crown colonies alone. I cannot help thinking that we require more information upon this subject in order to get at the actual facts, and I would suggest to the noble Earl whether during the next few months he could not address questions to the Governors of all the colonies inquiring of them what are the regulations and practice upon this matter

  847
  in those colonies. We shall then be better able to talk about this matter. It cannot be left in its present position. The feeling of seamen is rising very strongly upon this question of Sunday labour, and the question will have to be pursued further, but before anything more is said, I think it is very desirable that we should get accurate information from each of the colonies, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will see no objection to sending out Circulars for the purpose I have mentioned, so that we may be in possession of the actual facts in regard to both Crown and self-governing colonies.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I need only add that it will afford me very great pleasure to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and that I will direct a Circular to be sent out as he suggests.

COMPANIES (WINDINGUP) BILL. (No. 217.)
House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order).
Clause 1.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The Amendment in the 2nd subsection of Clause 1 is one which it was indicated to the Standing Committee would be necessary. The Amendment has now been agreed upon, and the words proposed to be inserted in my name are the words which have been agreed. They are words which bring the phraseology of this Bill into harmony with the County Palatine of Lancaster Act which was passed during this Session.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "unless the registered office of the," and insert the words, "or in the case of a."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Agreed to.
Clause 3.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment here is also one which was indicated as being desirable in the Standing Committee, and is really for the purpose of improving the phraseology. It is suggested that this will remove objections which were then taken to the large powers of transfer from one Court to another, which might be exercised by an individual Court. I call the attention of the noble and learned Lord
848
opposite to the phraseology of this Amendment, and I hope it will meet all the objections which were taken in Standing Committee. I move, in the first place, in this Clause, at page 2, line 33, leave out ("any proceedings in") and after ("company") insert ("or any proceedings therein"); also leave out from ("by any Judge") in line 35, to ("conditions") in line 38, both inclusive; lines 38 and 39, leave out ("by the like authority.")
Amendments agreed to.
Another Amendment moved, after line 41, to insert—
"The powers of transfer given by the foregoing provisions of this section may subject to, and in accordance with, general rules, be exercised in accordance by the Lord Chancellor or by any Judge of the High Conrt having jurisdiction under this Act, or as regards any case within the jurisdiction of any other Court by the Judge of that Court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord puts that, I would call his attention to the fact that he has hardly carried out what I have no doubt he intended. The effect of that is that if a County Court Judge does not like to carry on a proceeding he may order it to be transferred to the next County Court. I am quite sure the noble Lord does not mean that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is to be "in accordance with general rules." It is subject to that. The intention is to bring them all within the rules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it does not do so. It is not only—
"By the Lord Chancellor, or any Judge having jurisdiction under this Act;"
but
"As regards any case within the jurisdiction of any other Court, by the Judge of that Court."
That may be the County Court. I only call attention to it that at the next stage of the Bill we may frame words that will do.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I will withdraw that Amendment at the present time.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 7.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment on this clause is at

849
page 4, line 37, after "company" to leave out "by the Court." This is the first of a series of Amendments to leave out the words in various clauses, "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court." These Amendments are rendered necessary if the decision which was come to in the Standing Committee be adhered to, to strike out Sub-section 2 of what was then Section 29. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite raises a question whether that sub-section should not be put in in a different form. In fact, it proposes to put it in in a form in which it was introduced into the other House of Parliament. If the House accept that Amendment then all the series of Amendments standing in my name to leave out the words "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court," in the various clauses of the Bill, will become unnecessary. But the position of matters, as noble Lords who were on the Committee are aware, is that in the House of Commons it was altered very materially by inserting a negative which governed the whole sub-section. Those words "by the Court" and "by the order of the Court" were devised to cover both the case of companies which are wound up under the supervision of the Court and those definitely wound up by order of the Court. The Bill, as brought into the other House of Parliament, proposed to make the procedure subject to those provisions, both in cases under the actual order of the Court and under supervision. The effect of the decision of the Standing Committee the other day was to leave it doubtful whether companies which were being wound up only under the supervision of the Court were intended to be included in certain provisions of this Bill. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite would put that beyond all doubt, and would include for this purpose companies being wound up under the supervision of the Court as well as those being wound up directly by order of the Court. If his Amendment is not accepted then there would be an ambiguity by leaving in, in other clauses of the Bill, those words. Under these circumstances, I think it would be desirable that my noble and learned friend should state the reasons which had induced him to put down the Amendment which stands in his name, and then, from
850
the feeling of the House, we shall be able to judge whether it is advisable or not that I should press these Amendments.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 37, after the word "company," to leave out the words "by the Court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am ready to take that course; and I will state my reasons very briefly for moving the Amendment of which I have given notice. But before doing so, I may, perhaps, mention that if the House should look favourably upon the Amendment, I should be quite disposed to make a little alteration in the phraseology of it. Perhaps it may be thought the words here are a little too wide, because I find in the Act some provisions which are not applicable where there are liquidators of a Company; and if it should come to my moving the Amendment, therefore, I would propose to move it in this form—
"For the purpose of such provisions of this Act as are applicable to a Company of which liquidators have been duly appointed and subject to general rules."
My reason for moving the Amendment is this: I think there are valuable provisions in this Bill which would be as applicable when the Company is being wound up under the supervision of the Court as to any other case. Perhaps I ought to explain to those who may not know exactly what is meant by the company being wound up under the supervision of the Court. There are three modes in which a company may be wound up. One is a purely voluntary liquidation which, upon proper application to the Court, may be superseded or controlled by the Court, but while it is going on the Court does not interfere at all. The other ordinary form is to wind up compulsorily, in which case the Court regulates the whole operation. But between those two comes the particular case which this Amendment is intended to meet. An application may be made to the Court that a liquidation which is voluntary may be changed into one under the authority of the Court. If the Court thinks fit upon that application, it may make an order in either of two forms, either to take over the

851
matter itself (a case with which we are not at present concerned), or that the voluntary winding-up shall continue under the supervision of the Court. Now, it is necessary to understand the effect of that as defined by the 151st section of the Companies' Act of 1862. That section is to this effect: That the liquidator of such a company, when that order is made, may subject to any restrictions which may be imposed by the Court exercise the same powers as if it were altogether voluntary. But the section goes on thus—
"But save, as aforesaid, the order shall for all purposes be deemed to be an order of the Court for winding up the company by the Court and shall confer full authority on the Court to exercise all power which it might have exercised if an order had been made for winding up the company altogether by the Court."
In substance, therefore, the Court has full control over that class of cases, but except as far as the Court may think fit to intervene, they may be conducted in the same manner as if they were voluntary. Now, bearing in mind that scheme of the Act of 1862, I cannot help thinking that the clauses of this Bill which are applicable to that state of things may with great advantage be applied to it. To give reasons at length is not necessary, but I will only mention shortly three clauses which I think the House will at once perceive may be quite as usefully applied in these cases of supervision as in cases of winding up under the Act. The 8th clause of this Bill requires as soon as may be a Report to be made to the Court of the Capital, assets and liabilities of the company being wound up, and if it has failed, the cause of its failure; and it contains consequential provisions as to proceedings which may be taken against promoters, directors, or others, if it appears to the Court that there has been misconduct. Then to take another clause of this Bill, the 11th clause, that requires that subject to certain authority balances in the hands of liquidators shall be paid into the Bank of England. I cannot help thinking that such a provision is equally applicable to companies under supervision. Then to take one more; the 15th Clause requires that when the winding-up has not been completed within one year, yearly Reports of the proceedings and position of the winding-up shall be made to the
852
Court. If possible, that seems to me to be a provision which is even more necessary in the case of supervision than in the case of winding-up by the Court itself; because in the latter case the authority of the Court would have been invoked from time to time in the ordinary course of things, and the Court may be taken to have a knowledge of the state of the proceedings; whereas in these cases of supervision, except so far as the Court does exercise its power and authority, the thing goes on out of Court, and that is a case in which I think it is eminently important there should be forthcoming periodical reports. I cannot help thinking it is possible that one reason why in the other House this change was made in the Bill, which I wish should be re-considered, may have been that on the face of the Bill there are some few provisions which would not be applicable to the case; and, in order to meet that, I propose to alter the words of the Amendment in the manner which I mentioned at the beginning. I do not know what course my noble Friend thinks it best should be taken, but I cannot, in point of form, move my Amendment on Clause 30 until all his which come before it has been disposed of. If my noble Friend thinks the House will approve of the principle of my Amendment, perhaps he will propose not to move his now, reserving to himself, of course, power to do so if he should think it necessary at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I shall be glad to accept the principle of the Amendment indicated by the noble Earl. In fact, it was in the Bill, as originally introduced in another place. It was, however, there altered contrary to the wish of the Government, and the clause, struck out in Standing Committee of this House, inserted. But, as I pointed out before, that has caused an ambiguity, which must be met in some way or other. If the legal Members of the House approve of the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, especially as now altered by him, I, on behalf of the Government, should be glad to accept it, and to see that it is replaced in the Bill, subject, of course, to any objections which may be brought forward hereafter. Under those circumstances, I propose not to move

853
these Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This sub-section I propose not to put in as Sob-section 9, but as Sub-section 10, after the present Sub-section 9. The object of it is that it shall take the place of a sub-section which has been struck out in Standing Committee, it having been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord opposite that that subsection gave too general powers of delegation which were generally objected to in Standing Committee. It was agreed, therefore, that that sub-section should be struck out and a sub section inserted specifying to whom the powers to be delegated should be granted. This, I hope, will be the view of the noble and learned Lord, but if not, I should be glad to accept any amendment of it on the same lines that he can suggest. I propose to move it, putting the Judges of County Courts before the Official References and other officers of the Supreme Court.
Amendment moved in page 7, at the end, to insert—
"(9.) The powers of the court under this section may, subject to and in accordance with general rules, be exercised by any officer of the Supreme Court being an official referee, master, registrar, or chief clerk, or by any judge of county courts, or by any district registrar of the High Court named for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, or by any registrar of a palatine court."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
LORD HERSCHELL: This is undoubtedly a great improvement from my point of view in comparison with previous proposals, but there are one or two points here which I do not feel quite sure about. I do not know why the noble Lord has not inserted the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court, who are in the habit of taking examinations in strictly analogous cases. If it is because they are too busy, my noble Friend has, it seems to me, inserted a class of officials who are far more busy still, that is the chief clerks. I have great doubts about the expediency of inserting the chief clerks, having regard to the ordinary character of their duties, and in addition to that, I think it is likely to cause serious delays in the Court of
854
Chancery, because they are the officers belonging to the different Chancery Courts who have to deal with the details of matters pending in those Courts. If you occupy them in duties of this description, their time may be so much occupied that it would be difficult for them to perform their ordinary duties. There is no class of officers, interference with whose ordinary duties may delay or put a stop to so many proceedings as the chief clerks, because they have before them a number of suits at different stages, and if you take them away from their ordinary duties you may interfere to a greater extent with business than by taking other officers. I should have preferred very much that the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court should have been inserted rather than the chief clerks.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned Friend is in error in supposing that the Registrars in Bankruptcy are not included. The Officers of the Supreme Court named are "an Official Referee, Master, Registrar, or Chief Clerk," and the word "registrar" would, therefore, include those in Bankruptcy.
LORD HERSCHELL: But there are Registrars in Chancery also, and having regard to the fact that they perform very different duties, I doubt whether they would be proper persons. I thought they might be the Registrars intended.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I meant to point out was that Registrars in Bankruptcy would be included, because they are not only "officers of the Court," but actually "Registrars."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it had better be made clear that Registrars in Bankruptcy are intended. I certainly do not think that Registrars in Chancery would be suitable for this purpose. Then with regard to District Registrars. Many of the District Registrars are solicitors practising in their Districts, and I think they would in general, certainly, be very unsuitable persons for this work. I see it is to be confined to such District Registrars only as are designated by the Lord Chancellor; and probably if that limitation were always to be borne in mind, that objection might be obviated.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I certainly believe that the Registrars in Bankruptcy would be included under this definition; but if not, we are willing to make it clear. And if, as the noble and learned Lord thinks the Chief Clerks are too much occupied, I shall be willing to accept an Amendment deleting that class of officials.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot help thinking that of the London Registrars the only Registrars who ought to be placed in this position are the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court. To use those words would be a very simple way of amending that. Then with regard to the Chief Clerks. I hesitate to agree with my noble and learned Friend for this reason; that the Bill provides that the Judges in the Chancery Division may have a portion of this jurisdiction assigned to them; and if they have they will naturally discharge it with that assistance from their Chief Clerks which they now have. I cannot help thinking that the Chief Clerks would be perfectly competent persons to do this duty; and that in some circumstances, in regard to proceedings in the Chancery Division it might be inconvenient not to be able to do the work with their assistance. The whole matter will be subject to general rules, and I should myself incline to the opinion that you had better leave the Chief Clerks in.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would move after the word "Registrar" to insert the words "in Bankruptcy."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I think the grammar of this Amendment will require a little alteration, otherwise it would primarily mean that the District Registrars are to be named by the Lord Chancellor or by any Registrar of the County Palatine Court. I think that will have to be looked into.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That will be put right at a later stage.
LORD HERSCHELL: If you put in the words "Registrar of a Palatine Court" before "District Registrar of the High Court" that would do, and they would naturally come there, as he is a higher functionary.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment after the word "Registrar,"
856
in line 4, to insert the words "in Bankruptcy."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Agreed to.
Amended, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The purport of this Amendment was indicated to the Standing Committee, and it was approved of. The words have been subsequently agreed upon by the Lord Chancellor and by the authorities of the County Palatine Court of Lancaster; and I move accordingly, at page 15, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"(5.) All rules made and directions given by the Lord Chancellor under the foregoing provisions of this section shall he adopted by the authority for the time being empowered to make rules for regulating the practice or procedure in the chancery court of the County Palatine of Lancaster, but as so adopted shall have effect with the substitution of the words. 'vice-chancellor' for the word 'judge,' and the word 'registrar' for the words' chief clerk."
Agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: After Clause 29 there is a new clause in, my name, which tells its own tale. It is necessary to have a new clause of this kind, because there is no clause which covers the ground, and it is necessary to have a ready means of dealing with certificates or documents issued by the Board of Trade.
Moved to insert after Clause 29—

"(1.) All documents purporting to be orders or certificates made or issued by the Board of Trade, and to be sealed with the seal of the Board, or to be signed by a secretary or assistant secretary of the board, or any person authorised in that behalf by the president of the board, shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such orders or certificates without further proof unless the contrary is shown.

(2.) A certificate signed by the President of the Board of Trade that any order made, certificate issued, or act done, is the order, certificate, or act of the Board of Trade, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

Agreed to.
Clause 30.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will now move the clause of which I have already spoken, as altered in the way proposed.
Moved, after Sub-section 1, to add as a new sub-section—
"(2.) For the purposes of such provisions of this Act as are applicable to a company of which

857
liquidators have been duly appointed and subject to general rules, a company shall be deemed to be wound up by order of the Court, if the order is to continue a winding up under the supervision of the court."
Agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 229.)

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 220.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, it is not my intention to take up very much of their Lordships' time in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because the subject must be quite familiar to all your Lordships. In order to show what the necessity for this Bill is it may be useful, perhaps, just shortly to touch upon the history of the legislation upon this subject. Many years ago the late Lord Shaftesbury, who was the pioneer in this branch of legislation, succeeded in passing the Labouring Classes Dwellings Act, under which not much was done for a long period. More recently, in 1868, the late Mr. Torrens brought forward a measure to enable Vestries and District Boards to deal with healthy houses in their different localities, the provisions of which have been recently very strongly put in force, to the great advantage of the country and of the Metropolis itself. It was my duty in 1875 to re-consider this question. The former Acts, both Mr. Torrens's and Lord Shaftesbury's, only applied to small localities and to individual houses. Shortly before 1875 I had had an opportunity of seeing what had been done in the City of Glasgow, and I was very much struck with the Act which they had there, and which enabled them to deal not simply with individual houses, but with large unhealthy areas; and coming back to London, and finding that such areas existing very extensively in this country I introduced the Act of 1875, which eventually became law, and which enabled the Metropolitan Board of Works to take possession of large areas, if they were found to be in a certain condition, for the purpose of pulling
  858
  down houses which were unfit for human habitation, and of building suitable working class dwellings upon their sites. At the time that measure was, I remember, described in two words by a noble friend of mine as "communism and confiscation." I certainly am not in the least ashamed of that Act, nor do I think it deserved the character which those two words attributed to it, because its object was to get rid of those unhealthy areas covered with insanitary houses, incourts, and alleys, which by reason of the want of light, air, ventilation, proper conveniences, or from other causes were unfit for human habitation, and where fevers and diseases were constantly generated, causing loss of health not only to the inhabitants of the courts and alleys themselves, but also to the other parts of the cities or boroughs in which they were found. There was another fact which pressed very strongly upon me and the Government of the day at the time; and that was, that it was not in the power of owners or of occupiers who lived in those courts and alleys to remedy the defects existing, because there were so many owners and so many people concerned that it was absolutely not in the power of any them acting individually to put matters straight. The result was, that that Act was passed, and all those Acts have been considerably amended from time to time. It was found necessary to pass another Act in 1879 in order to defeat the mischievous practice which had grown up among the owners of those unhealthy, insanitary houses. The moment they found they were scheduled, and that the matter was coming before Parliament, they immediately put them in the best repair they could, not for the purpose of making them more healthy, but for the purpose of extracting larger compensation from the public than they would otherwise have been able to get. A Committee of the House of Commons sat in 1881–2, of which I happened to be Chairman, which re-considered those Acts, and further Amendments were made; and the House will remember that later on, in 1885, a Royal Commission sat to consider the whole subject, upon which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sat as a member and took the greatest interest in its proceedings. That was done at the instance of my noble Friend the present Prime

  859
  Minister. The result has been that there have been a great number of Acts passed; and we think the time has come when those Acts ought to be consolidated, so that they may be made intelligible to the ordinary reader, who will not be obliged to hunt up a dozen Acts of Parliament in order to find out what the law is upon the subject, but that the law shall be placed in one single plain Act of Parliament. Perhaps, before I point out a few Amendments which have been made in the law and allude to the Bill at present lying on your Lordships' Table, I might be allowed, as a matter of interest, to state a few figures to show what has been done under the Act at present existing, because they have been by no means allowed to lie dormant. A great deal has been done under a great many of them. I will take Mr. Torrens's Act first. There was a Return moved for last year, 1889, to show how much had been done under this Act; and be it remembered that this Act of Mr. Torrens related to such houses as were dangerous to health so as to be unfit for human habitation. That was a very good description of them; and when we look at the number of houses which have been put in order, we find they amount to no less than 1,633. So that, as far as one can see, these Acts of Mr. Torrens's have done very good work, when we find there were 1,633 houses dealt with under them which were absolutely unfit for human habitation at the time they were taken in hand by the Local Authorities. Under the Act which I had the honour of passing afterwards a good deal has been done also. This measure, as I have stated, embraced large areas, and no less than 23 areas in London have been dealt with under these Acts. The persons displaced numbered 28,850, and the persons who can be rehoused on the ground which has been re-built upon number 30,715. The areas dealt with by the Metropolitan Board—there have been one or two schemes since, but during the period that the Metropolitan Board was in existence the areas dealt with included over 4,000 houses, and, besides that, there were 16 acres of land also dealt with, but the uumber of houses on those 16 acres I am not acquainted with. Those figures show that those Acts have done a considerable amount of good.
  860
  There is no doubt whatever that the proceedings under these Acts have been taken at a considerable cost to the ratepayers. The net cost, I believe, of the 22 schemes which were passed by the Metropolitan Board of Works after the sale of the land which they were obliged to take has amounted to very nearly £1,500,000. But you have had 30,000 people properly housed for that money, and you have done a great deal more than that—you have stamped out the sources of fever and disease which were polluting many parts of this Metropolis, both in Westminster and in East London, in almost every one of the large districts which were the sources of disease, and from which disease spread into other parts of the City to the enormous disadvantage and danger of the inhabitants. I should not like to weary your Lordships with any lengthened extracts to show the effect of what has been done by taking these large areas; but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a few short sentences from one of the Reports which have been made to me by several Medical Officers of Health. I do not propose to refer to them all, though I have them all here. I am now going to read from the Report made to me the other day by the Medical Officer of Health for the St. Giles's district. Tour Lordships probably know well that St. Giles's district was one of the most unhealthy places in the whole of London. I will take one block which was dealt with, called Great Wild Street, and the adjoining streets and courts in the neighbourhood of Drury Lane. The condition of that area when taken in hand by the authorities is thus described by the Medical Officer—
  "When I inspected the houses in this area in 1875 the squalor of the neighbourhood was plainly visible. The courts and passages were very narrow and close together; the houses built back to back with very small yards, and in many no yards at all; consequently, the sanitary arrangements were in the basement or under the stairs; the ventilation was most defective, and rendered the air impure and noxious."
  The Report states that the death rate, which, of course, is one of the greatest tests of the health of a district, was between 50 and 60 per 1,000, being double the rate for the whole of the St. Giles's district. That is an enormous death rate to exist in any portion of any City.—

  861
  "The infantile mortality was very great. It was a veritable fever den, for typhus, the most malignant and fatal form of fever, was scarcely ever absent from the locality. As a proof of the improved condition of the health of the people in the buildings now erected on the same area, the death rate for 1889, instead of being between 50 and 60 per 1,000, fell to 17·7 per 1,000, and no case of typhus fever has been reported since the old houses were demolished."
  That is a result, at all events, worth attaining, and shows that yon must not measure the matter simply by the cost to the ratepayers of the removal of the old houses on such an area, and the building of new dwellings. The only other scheme to which I will call the attention of your Lordships is also in St. Giles's district, close to Drury Lane, the Shelton Street area. The Report states that—
  "If anything, the houses in this neighbourhood were more faulty and worn out than those described in the two other areas; the rooms, passages, staircases, were small and dark, and the impure air which did reach them came from well-like back yards, where the water-closets and other arrangements were situated. The fatality in this area was alarming, the death-rate of one street (Shelton Street) being more than 60·0 per 1,000 and a birth-rate of 29 per 1,000. The infantile mortality was 30·4 per 1,000, and the zymotic death-rate equalled 12·9 per 1,000, against 4·3 per 1,000 for the whole of St. Giles's district."
  That has also been reduced to about 17 per 1,000. Then be goes on to say—
  "I have no hesitation in stating that, in my opinion, the clearing away of these insanitary houses and the re-housing of the people in improved model dwellings have been of the greatest possible benefit not only to this district but to London generally. In conclusion, I will refer you to the Lancet of March 26, 1887, which states, in reference to the clearing away of fever dens under the operations of the Artisans' Dwellings Act, 1875—'To the steps already taken by the Medical Officer of Health and the St. Giles Board of Works is greatly due the freedom from typhus fever which London now enjoys. In past years St. Giles was again and again the centre from which this disease spread to other parts of the Metropolis, and the money spent in improvements of the districts has already made ample return in leading to the disappearance of this serious cause of mortality.'"
  That means, of course, the disappearance of a serious cause of mortality for the whole of London. Now, that is only a sample of what has occurred in other districts as well; but I think I have said enough to show that it is worth while for Parliament to see how they can improve these Acts which have already done so much
  862
  good, and how, by consolidating them, we can simplify proceedings under them so as to make everything more plain and open than before. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board has given great and unceasing attention to this subject, and I think the course he has pursued in the other House of Parliament was a very wise one. He brought forward an Amending Bill to amend all the defects which the Government thought existed in the Acts as he found them, and then he brought forward also a Consolidation Bill. Those two Bills were referred to the Standing Committee; and after they had approved of the Amendments, or had altered them as they thought best, they were then incorporated in the Consolidation Bill, which is the only one that comes up before your Lordships' House. If I persuade your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, as I hope I shall do, I shall then propose to refer the Consolidation Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, and I will present to them the Amending Bill. It was presented to the House of Commons in the first instance so that they might see what Amendments were proposed in the Consolidation Bill instead of having to wade through a mass of pages to hunt them up for themselves. The Amendments proposed are not very numerous; and the first Amendment to which I would allude is the Amendment in those Acts which bear my own name. There has always been great difficulty in persuading the arbitrators not to give too much compensation, and I will only take one instance. If you find a place which is absolutely unfit for human habitation, and which cannot be made fit for human habitation, what is the value of the houses for that purpose to the owner, and what compensation ought to be given to him for it? Of course, it cannot be allowed to stay as it is. The houses would be immediately shut up under the existing law. They could not be used by the owner for the purpose of habitation, and the value of that property, therefore, seems to be the value of the land—very valuable, no doubt, because of its situation, and the owners seem to me entitled to get that—and the value of the materials which are upon the place at

  863
  what they would realise to sell. That, I think, is about the only Amendment of the Acts of 1875. As to Torrens's Acts, they are several. In the first place, it is made distinctly the duty of the Local Authority and officials to at once close all dwellings which are found unfit for human habitation. That seems to me to be a step quite in the right direction. An order may also be made for the demolition of houses if they are found to be absolutely dangerous and unfit for human habitation, or if they are found to be so obstructive to the light and air that the neighbouring courts and alleys cannot possibly get that light and air and ventilation which they ought to have, without the removal of the obstructive building, on payment of due compensation, but not otherwise. Then I think it is quite right that such buildings should be removed, for the public safety, upon full compensation, of course, being paid to the owners of the houses. It was found there was considerable difficulty, as there were two sets of Acts, in saying under which set of Acts a particular area ought to be dealt with. The Metropolitan Board of Works was always saying that areas in question were too small to be dealt with under the Acts bearing my name, and the Local Bodies were always saying that the areas were too large to be dealt with under Mr. Torrens's Acts—and, therefore, between the two stools a suggested improvement fell to the ground, and was not carried out. I think in the last amendment of the law, made in 1885, a clause was introduced giving power to the Home Secretary to receive evidence upon the point, and to decide which Authority should proceed in order to make the improvement required. But it has appeared to my right hon. Friend, and, as I think, wisely, that there ought to be an intermediate proceeding as regards those places which are too large to be dealt with as individual houses, and too small to be dealt with as an unhealthy area; and, therefore, he has proposed a scheme by which, under a more economical system, larger areas can be dealt with, and the health of the district preserved as it ought to be. I do not think I ought to take up more of your Lordships' time in asking you to give a second reading to this Bill. I am quite certain your Lordships will agree with me that you cannot have a more impor-
  864
  tant subject to deal with than that, seeing that you ensure the means of housing properly the working classes of this country. If you were to propose that the State should provide dwellings for them, that, I agree, would be subject to the charge of Communism; but there is no Communism in the State, saying that places shall not continue to exist which are let for human habitation, and which are unfit for human habitation; there is no Communism in saying that these unhealthy areas which produce disease, not only in the districts where they exist, but elsewhere, shall not be allowed to continue; there is no Communism in saying that the working man has yet to be, not provided with a wholesome dwelling for himself and his family, but placed in a position in which he can provide himself and family with decent and wholesome accommodation. It is simply then for the purpose of enabling such dwellings with proper sanitary arrangements to be obtained, not only in London, but throughout the country, that I am so anxious this Bill should go forward. When I had the honour of introducing my former Bill in 1875, I ventured to call the attention of the House of Commons to one of the earliest of God's laws—"Let there be light." Light has been let in upon many of these places; light has been let in for thousands of people who could not get it before, and I have to appeal now to your Lordships' House, as I appealed then to the House of Commons—let there be more light. I hope your Lordships will read this Bill a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT).
  "Return showing the number of women in Ireland who are qualified to vote for Councillors in Municipal Boroughs; indicating what is the qualification which entitles a Woman to be placed on the register: Ordered to be laid before the House."—(The Viscount Oxenbridge.)

ARMY (GRENADIER GUARDS).
LORD SANDHURST(In rising to call attention to the late occurrences in connection with the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards; and to move for papers) said: My Lords, I should not have been so anxious to call attention to

865
the deplorable cases which are referred to in my notice had we been able to get from those who are in office, more information upon the subject. I am well aware that, up to this time, no question has been asked in your Lordships' House, but I think it would have been of public advantage if, in another place, where questions have been asked, some statements on the general circumstances had been made. The only source of information that we have is an article in the Times newspaper of July 22nd, and various statements in, other newspapers, more or less vague in their character, and, apparently, without authority, but uncontradicted. There are, however, three points which are tolerably clear, and upon which we may be quite certain. One is that, lamentably enough, there has been an émeute of some description, though of what description is not quite clear, in the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards; the second point, on which we are quite certain, is that the regiment has been banished—sent to the Bermudas; and the third point, upon which there is equally no doubt, I fear, is that Courts Martials have taken place, at which sentences have been given ranging between two years' imprisonment, with hard labour, and 18 months', with hard labour. Now, as to the first of these points. What I want to know is what was the description of this mutiny, and whether the whole of the battalion was concerned in it, or whether it was limited to a very small number of the men of that regiment? What was this mutiny which has involved these heavy consequences? I cannot see why there should be any mystery about it. The circumstance was known all over Europe by noon, with the exception of one individual, the Secretary of State for War, who answered about 6 p.m. in the Commons that he had no information. I pass from that, however; he might have been overwhelmed with business. There has been a Court of Inquiry, we are led to believe, formed of distinguished officers, and I should like to be told what course that Court of Inquiry pursued; whether the full statement of the case of the Commanding Officer was gone into or not, and whether the Commanding Officer had every opportunity of being heard before that Court of Inquiry? I should also like to know
866
whether the non-commissioned officers' case was also thoroughly gone into, and whether there remains no shadow of doubt that the non-commissioned officers of that battalion are free from suspicion which might have brought them to trial before a Court Martial? Because it seems almost impossible to believe that the men of this battalion could be in a state bordering on mutiny, and finally breaking out into open mutiny, and that the non-commission officers who live with them, and who in the Guards are to a great extent responsible for them, could be absolutely ignorant of these occurrences. Did they know nothing of the intended action of the men? Besides, if the noncommissioned officers did not know anything about it, there were plenty of other people who did, for I am informed it was the common rumour in the streets, and that there were no less than five reporters endeavouring to fight their way into the barracks half-an-hour before the meeting commenced. As I said before, unless the Board of Inquiry was satisfied beyond the shadow of doubt that there was no ground for suspicion against these non-commissioned officers I think some of those men ought to be arraigned to take their trial. I want to know whether a survey of their conduct was included in the deliberations of the Court of Inquiry, and whether it was considered so satisfactory as to allow them to escape suspicion and Court Martial. Then the next thing I want to know is whether the case of the Commanding Officer was thoroughly gone into. I will say at once that I hold no brief for Colonel Maitland. I have not seen him for months, and I have not communicated with him. But there is one particular point upon which I should be glad to be allowed to say one word, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is correct, as is commonly rumoured, that this gallant officer, when the Court of Inquiry was sitting, or after it had sat, either wrote or spoke to the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, or to the General commanding, to the effect that if his battalion was either not dragged before the public or was spared from being banished, he was willing to resign his command and be the scapegoat—that he would enter into no correspondence or take any steps whatever with the view

867
of putting himself right before the public, and that he would sacrifice himself. Well, I do not say whether it was a right course that was pursued—whether it was right to refuse to accept such a resignation, or to accept it; but I do think that when an officer has been for 31 years in a regiment, and has ended by commanding it, that it was a noble proposition to sacrifice himself entirely, so that the reputation of his regiment may be spared; and I hope that, if the facts are as I state them, the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War will inform us that such is the case. Before leaving Colonel Maitland, I would ask why he has been forced to resign? I may be told it is owing to the fact that his regiment mutinied. Well, let us follow that a little to the logical conclusion. Every time that men mutiny in a battalion or in a regiment, is the commanding officer to be forced to resign? Because, if that is so, I do not think that the office of commanding officer of any regiment would be worth one day's purchase under such conditions. But, then, again, if this mutiny is not the cause of Colonel Maitland's resigning, there must be some charge against Colonel Maitland of which we at present are ignorant, and I should like definitely to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he, as the head of the administrative part of the Army in this House, has any charges to make against Colonel Maitland; and I would further ask the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief whether he has any charges to make against him. If not—if Colonel Maitland's character, beyond the circumstance of the mutiny, is as clear as I believe it to be—I hope, with that sense of candour and honesty which the case demands, it will be so stated by the high officials who represent the War Office and the Army. There is one thing which I should like to remark with regard to Colonel Maitland and this mutinous battalion. Five days before the mutiny occurred the battalion was inspected by the General Officer Commanding, and I am told that he highly complimented Colonel Maitland on the appearance and condition of his men, and that when, as is customary, the men were asked whether they had any complaints to make, they shouted with one voice that they had no complaints at all
868
Well, then, how does the story go on?. We can presume that the Authorities at this Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion that the Commanding Officer must resign or be superseded; that the battalion must leave this country, and that there must be courts-martial held. I have dealt very briefly, and in perhaps rather a lame way, with the Commanding Officer, and I would now call attention for one moment to the sending of the regiment abroad. But, apart from that, I am told that between the time when the mutiny took place and the time the regiment left the country, this regiment of actual mutineers went on guard for what are termed "the West End duties," that is, at the Royal palaces, Government buildings, and elsewhere. But I have always understood that employing a man or a regiment on a duty is condoning the offence. I only mention that fact to show that these proceedings have not been as regular from one end to the other as one could have wished them to be. Well, then, the whole battalion is sent away. But only a portion of this battalion was in the barracks where this mutiny took place. At Wellington Barracks there were only four companies, and two more companies were at Kensington Barracks, two miles off. I should like to know very much whether, in the opinion of the Authorities, those other two companies are implicated in this mutiny, and why, if they were not implicated in this mutiny, they have been banished with the rest of the battalion? Were any men from them tried by Court Martial? Then the next point is that you are sending this battalion abroad as a punishment, you are practically only sending them on a routine duty which has to be performed by every other regiment in the Service, except the Guards, in turn; so that any other regiment, when told off for foreign duty, might very well retort that, "after all said and done, it is rather hard to be sent abroad on what is called 'punishment duty' for another regiment, though it is considered quite good enough for us as ordinary duty." That appears to me to be a pretty compliment for the high Authorities of the Army to pay to the regiments of the line and the reft of the Service. I do not know whether there is precedent for this

869
extraordinary step; but this punishment—if punishment foreign service really is—is cheerfully undertaken by the rest of the Army, and, what is more, cheerfully acquiesced in by the men, who will most likely prefer life in the Bermudas to sentry duty in London. Then, as regards the time-expired men. Is that going to lead you into no difficulties? Before very long there will, no doubt, be a certain number of men due on the expiration of their period to be sent home. I believe it is possible to extend their service for a year. We know not how long this punishment is to last, but if these men are due to come home before the expiration of the punishment time, which they will owe to the good luck of having been enlisted a little before their fellows, it does appear to me that will be the most happy-go-lucky kind of justice possible. Such an extraordinary mode of inflicting punishment I never had the misfortune to meet with before. I now come to the Court Martial. You must remember that in these deplorable proceedings you have practically broken your Commanding Officer. We may, therefore, presume that the mutiny is regarded as having been his fault. But what is to happen to the private soldier? Steps must, of course, be taken to vindicate the discipline of the Army; and so you have put back one man from each company, according to the reports we have seen, who are tried by a District Court Martial; and to get at those who are most culpable, I presume you follow the plan of taking the senior soldier from each company. The notion that you can get at the most culpable and guilty men by that process seems to me a species of reasoning which I do not think will bear investigation. And when you have got this man from each company have you really found out that he is guilty? I should like to see the whole proceedings of this Court Martial. I should like to see who the witnesses were, or who it was who got these men condemned to two years' imprisonment. If you have contented yourselves with punishing these men because they were the senior soldiers, another consideration arises. I know it used to be the case that it was always the younger soldiers who were the most insubordinate, and for the obvious reason that they are less accus-
870
tomed to restraint, and less brought under military discipline; but at any rate the men who have suffered in this case apparently are the oldest soldiers, the men who have served longest in the regiment. I cannot commend the idea, and to talk of the justice of the Plan would, to my mind, be waste of time. Then there is one other point, these men were tried by an inferior Court, a District Court Martial, instead of a General Court Martial. The substitution of a District Court Martial may very likely have been looked upon as an act of clemency by the Authorities at the War Office. I have have no doubt that is the case. But there is one great danger in turning these men over to the inferior Court: that the officers who form an inferior Court—I am not now alluding to this particular Court, I will take any Court Martial—are just as likely as not where they have a bad case of insubordination before them to sentence the men to the maximum punishment in the power of that Court. And for this reason, they say to themselves, "It is lucky for the man that he is before us; he might have been tried before a general Court, and then he would have had a much heavier sentence." So that there was danger in it on that head. Well, now, what actually occurred? Four of these men received sentences of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, one of them being sentenced to be discharged with ignoming, and two others received sentences of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Two years is the maximum sentence. And this is after you have declared the Commanding Officer to be guilty by causing him to resign—breaking him—and have punished the whole battalion by sending them abroad That seems to me such a method of procedure as to be almost incredible. Now, as to this sentence of two years' imprisonment. There are a great many eminent legal authorities in this House, and I venture to think there is hardly a Judge upon the Bench in this country, or a noble and learned Lord in this House who would not condemn those sentences as being excessive. But if a very excessive sentence is passed upon anybody in the Courts of this country there is the Press to take notice of it. It is true that in the case of a Court Martial the confirming officer

871
has the option of remitting the sentence or not; but there is none of that great pressure for the protection of men so dealt with brought to bear upon the Military Authorities, which is brought to bear upon the Civil Authorities in the country. Well, I cannot congratulate the Government or the War Office Authorities, or whoever is responsible in this matter for the action which has been taken. You have broken the Commanding Officer, although by passing these very severe sentences of imprisonment you tell us that the men were guilty. On the other hand, you have given very heavy sentences to the men, although you tell us that the Commanding Officer was guilty, and has, therefore, been forced to resign. That leads us to suppose that it is his fault, and that the men were badly used. In addition to that, you have sent the whole battalion away for a certain period of time for a holiday ! I hope very much that if the Royal Commission which was asked for some time ago by my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Herschell) into punishments is ever given him, it will include the sentences of Naval and Military Courts Martial. I hope very much I shall be able to extract from Her Majesty's Government some information which will expunge from my mind, at any rate, the idea, and I must say I think it is an idea which affects the public mind, that there has been grievous mismanagement in this case and great injustice done both to the Commanding Officer and to the men.
Moved,
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the late occurrences in connection with the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD DORCHESTER: As one of the oldest Guardsmen in this House, I trust your Lordships will bear with me while I say a few words upon this grave question. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken into all the details of the question whether the Civil and Military Administration should be fused together. It rather appears to me that there has been too much of the civilian element mixed up with the Military Administration of the Army. It appears to me that if we had had fewer civilian Secretaries of War and
872
one or two more military officers engaged in the administration, as is customary in Germany, in France, and in every other military nation that I know of, the Service might be better administered, although it might entail a little longer term than at present. England is the only great country which has a voluntarily enlisted Army, and I have it upon the testimony of one of the most illustrious warriors who have lived within the last 50 years, one who is now dead, and who was the head of a princely house, that short periods of service are inconsistent with the voluntary principle of enlistment. In that matter I remember I was scouted at by a noble and gallant Friend of mine who used to adorn the Cross Benches, but who is now seldom seen in this House. I have known the 2nd Battalion of Grenadier Guards for 49 years. I served with them in Canada in 1841. I have known them, when under very gallant commanders, who afterwards became distinguished generals in the Service, and I have never heard one word of complaint of them, whether on board ship, in camp, under great and heavy suffering from starvation, from cold, and from want of necessaries arising from the maladministration of the civilian bodies connected with the Army. I have never heard one word of complaint from them beyond the grumbling of some soldier who had, perhaps, imbibed more freely than he should. I never heard a word of insubordination except from one or two madmen during the long period of my service that could at all compare with what occurred a fortnight ago within a few hundred yards of this House. As I was walking down to this House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and saw "Mutiny among the Grenadiers" announced in the evening papers, I could hardly believe my eyes. I would not have believed it could have occurred, nor do I believe it could have occurred under the old system of reliable non-commissioned officers. Under the old system of non-commissioned officers the biggest blackguards were kept under control. I have experienced it. I never heard one word during the 14 months that I served in the Crimea, with General Sir Frederick Stephenson and my noble Friend on the opposite side of the House,

873
lying out in the snow, and living upon two ship's biscuits, three slices of salt pork, and five potatoes a day, for I well remember it, and I am accurate in the particulars. I never heard one word approaching to what happened on this occasion, nor do I believe, as I have said, that anything of the kind could have occurred. But as to what is to be said in defence of the officers. Much has been said about them. In no regiments in Her Majesty's Service is there better touch or a better feeling than I believe always used to exist, and, I believe, does now exist, between the officers and men of the Guards. The officers join with the men in their sports, and entertain them. The noble Viscount on the Ministerial Benches has given us to-day a vivid description of the wretched habitations of the poorer classes in London; but I do not believe that the worst of those tenements were as bad as the lodgings which the married soldier's means alone enabled him to secure for his wife and children. A lodging-house was built 42 years ago by the Brigade of Guards for the married men, to which the illustrious Duke, I believe, contributed. That building was erected by contributions from the officers, and was acquired by Government during the Crimean War. Again, in order to raise the tone and improve the moral condition of the men, the officers of the Brigade of Guards and their friends raised a very large sum to erect a palatial club for the non-commissioned officers and men of the Guards, and it is now the residence of one of the most eminent men in this country—Cardinal Manning. Now, so much in repudiation of the notion of the officers of the Guards not being in touch with their men, of which we have heard a great deal. At rowing, cricket, and athletic sports I have invariably seen the men of the regiment and the officers upon the most friendly terms possible, and quite as friendly as they should be. But we read in every newspaper, and I suppose the newspapers are read by your Lord-ships, statements to the contrary, and suggestions that if some of the officers were as they ought to be housed in barracks that would improve their relations with the men. I fail to see that at all, though I am quite sure that the officers of the Guards would accept it as the
874
very greatest boon possible if they could be lodged in barracks instead of paying for lodgings about St. James Street and other places in the neighbourhood. But what do those gentlemen know about the matter who write so freely in every newspaper without giving their names, and notably in a newspaper which takes its name from a street not very far from St. James Street—I may say that I do not allude to the St. James's Gazette—about officers living in barracks. Have those gentlemen ever travelled abroad? Do they know anything of the armies in foreign countries? I believe they know very little about army matters at all. In no army that I am aware of—I may be wrong, and if so, I speak subject to reproof—do officers live in barracks. They may do so in some regiments in Germany, and in some of the Russian Guard Regiments, but in France, Italy, Spain, and, I believe, generally in Germany, the officers always live in private quarters. They have not even a mess. When the late Emperor Napoleon tried to establish a mess system among the French as English officers have, it was with great difficulty he succeeded, and notably on one point, that was the score of expense. Well, so much for the officers not having been in touch with their men because they live within two or three hundred yards of them, and not actually within the barrack gates. But there are always officers within the barrack gates; there always used to be, and I know there is always a great desire on the part of young officers now, who are much more hardly worked than they used to be, to obtain free quarters, for a reason which affects their pockets, and, as we know, young officers may very well make that a consideration. I only hope we shall hear no more balderdash from the Press about officers not living in barracks. That has nothing at all to do with the matter. All I can say is that I have commanded one of the most, I will use the term, "rowdy" lots possible, and I do not dislike the rowdy soldier. There are, of course, rowdy soldiers in this country, because the men are enlisted from the lowest class; and I believe there is no reformatory equal to the British Army for quieting down some of the blackguards, such as I have had the honour to command, and making decent

875
soldiers of them. They soon begin to act properly for their own sake. I remember on one occasion I was riding round the outposts at Inkermann, and as I passed along I said to one of the greatest blackguards I ever had the honour to command, "Mind, you must keep a good look-out here;" and his reply was, "You may depend upon it, Colonel, we shall do that for our own sake." And I felt we were, perhaps, safer in that quarter than if we had had a better-conducted man. To these few words, and with many apologies to your Lordships for having detained you so long in defence of those with whom I served for so many years, I will only add that I trust justice will be done to the battalion, that due punishment may be meted out, and that the Commanding Officer may not be made the scapegoat for his men.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: May I be permitted to interpose for a moment? I hope this discussion will not be further prolonged. I trust your Lordships will feel that it is utterly impossible for any man to maintain discipline in the Army if such matters as these are to be discussed publicly in Parliament. If my noble Friend or any other noble Lord has not confidence in those who have discipline to maintain in the Service they would have a perfect right to attack their conduct; but as long as they have the perfect confidence they profess in the authorities, I am bound to say they must have that trust in them which will enable the authorities to carry out what they believe to be essential, absolutely essential for the interests and well-being of Her Majesty's Service, and for the well-being of the Army, which they must wish to see efficient in all its details. It is all very well for people to talk about mutiny, but I do not call this occurrence mutiny. It was, no doubt, an act of gross insubordination that was committed by these men, and if that gross act of insubordination was not to be dealt with in the way that we thought best, most just, and most thorough, in order to restore entire discipline and obedience amongst those who had forgotten themselves, I say it would be utterly impossible for either myself or any officer who has the honour to be at the head of the Army to conduct the duties of that position in a
876
manner which would be justifiable to those whom he commanded, or to the country which he was desirous to serve conscientiously and to the best of his ability. My Lords, I trust that this discussion may not be prolonged, and I must say that I do most deeply regret that any noble Lord should have started it. I am sorry for it, because the noble Lord is a friend of mine, and I wish, if he had anything to say in this matter, he had come and said it to me confidentially, in order that if anything was wrong it. might have been put right, instead of bringing the matter before the public in a discussion which I can only think will lead to mischief instead of to good.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, I cannot help expressing my surprise that the noble Lord, who has himself served in the Brigade of Guards and who has had some experience as Under Secretary of State for War, should have thought it desirable to bring this subject forward for discussion in your Lordships' House. Deprecating discussion on the matter, as-I do most strongly, I will reply as briefly as possible to the points the noble Lord has mentioned, and I will take them in order. The first question was whether the case of the non-commissioned officers had been investigated. My answer to that is that their case was investigated; and I would ask the noble Lord to remember that these non-commissioned officers were at the time of the outbreak on parade, they were not with the disaffected men in their rooms. Another point which the noble Lord raises is this. He asks why the six senior soldiers were selected to be tried by Court Martial. My answer is, they were not selected to be tried by Court Martial. The reason that they were tried was that in accordance with the custom well-known in Her Majesty's Army, in the absence of non-commissioned officers the oldest soldier is technically, I may say, in command. These old soldiers were in the barrack-rooms when the non-commissioned officers were where the old soldiers ought to have been—namely, on parade —and therefore they brought upon themselves a trial by Court Martial. Another point raised by the noble Lord was as to whether the case of the commanding officer was gone into. Un-

877
doubtedly it was. Colonel Maitland has had every opportunity of making his defence before the Court of Inquiry, and the result has been that he has been allowed to resign his command, but I cannot admit, for one moment, that the commanding officer has been in any way made the scapegoat for the regiment. Another question asked by the noble Lord is whether the other companies of the regiment stationed at Kensington were implicated in the mutiny. My answer is in the negative. I believe those are all the points which the noble Lord has raised, and I have endeavoured to give him as brief and as concise an answer as possible. The noble Lord, in his Motion, moved for Papers. The only Papers I know of are the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry and the Court Martial, and it is not considered it would be for the good of the Public Service that those Papers should be laid upon the Table.
LORD SANDHURST: Of course, I will not press the Motion for Papers; but I must say I am extremely sorry to hear no word either from the noble Earl or the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief as to whether they have any charge to make against, or can, on the other hand, say anything generous of, Colonel Maitland. I think it is a great pity that something has not been said upon the point, but I will not discuss the matter further.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL. (No. 158.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 183.)
  PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 209.)
    BIRSTALL WESLEYAN CHAPEL TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 204.)
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
    Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, the Lord Lyttelton, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Kinnaird, the Lord Rothschild, and the Lord Hillingdon for the consideration of the Directors Liability Bill, and the Lord Balfour for the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.