Sitting of 28 July 1890

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 339.)
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to move that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered forthwith.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have no desire to prevent an agreement with the Lords in these Amendments; but I wish to point out that they are taken without notice, and that hon. Members know nothing of them.
  MR. SPEAKER: I felt that objection myself, and it is only in consequence of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill having given public notice that the Amendments would be considered to-day at this time that I have allowed them to be brought on.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be considered forthwith."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: My difficulty is this, that I do not know what the Amendments are.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: The object of the Bill is to transfer investigations into explosions of boilers connected with mines from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. The Amendments are of a most formal and technical character.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will not stop the Bill as I have really no knowledge of the subject; but I think it ought to be on record that the taking of Amendments without notice did not pass unchallenged.
  MR. SPEAKER: I only allowed the Bill to be brought forward without notice when I found that the Amendments were not such as to call for the attention of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  OPEN AIR PREACHING IN CALCUTTA.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a bye-law has been just passed by the Calcutta Municipality, at the instigation of its Chairman, Sir Henry Harrison, prohibiting preaching in the open squares of Calcutta; whether he is aware that a similar attempt was made nine years ago and failed, being then declared a violation of Common Law; that Hindoos, Brahmists, as well as Christians, have long been in the habit of preaching in the open air, without let or hindrance; and that perfect quiet and order has prevailed at their assemblies; whether this prohibition, if not repealed, may be extended all over India, and would virtually prohibit the preaching of Christianity over a great part of the country, as much of the work is done in the open air; and whether he will call the attention of the Government of India to the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, which is one of Local Government, but he understands that the bye-law in question is now under the consideration of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, with whom the allowance or disallowance in the first instance rests.

  EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR IN INDIA.
  MR. HOTLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Government of India accepts, and will enforce in respect to the employment of labour in mines and in factories, the humane decisions to which Her Majesty's Government agreed at the International Conference recently held in Berlin?
  SIR J. GORST: The Report and proceedings of the Berlin International Conference have been sent to the Government of India for consideration with the Factory Bill now before the Indian Legislature. The Secretary of State cannot say how far the detailed recommendations will be applied to India, until the Government of India report their views.
  MR. HOYLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect an answer soon?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; from my experience of the Government of India some time will elapse before an answer is received.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As we are now arriving at the close of the Session, may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when we are to have the Indian Budget?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am unable to say. I wish it was in my power to say when the close of the Session would arrive.

  SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH SEAS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Government has been called to a statement recently made by the Reverend John G. Paton, Missionary, regarding slavery in the South Seas, wherein he states that the Presbyterian Mission Synod at Kwamera, Tanna, New Hebrides, unanimously resolved that the Kanaka labour traffic has
  "To a large extent depopulated the New Hebrides and adjoining islands, upset family relations among the natives, and has been, and is the cause of much sorrow, suffering, and bloodshed among them on the islands;"
  that he has himself seen white men in their boats taking Kanakas to a labour vessel, and by force lifting them on board, and when they tried to leap overboard to swim ashore, they were knocked down again and again on deck until they lay stupefied, and were so taken out to sea; and that he had been on board a labour vessel which had all the stout Kanakas that were likely to escape or give any trouble fastened under irons, and that the crew of the vessel had shot an Errumangan Chief dead while binding and taking his daughter away by force, they also shot one of his men who attempted to protect her, after which they took her on board the ship, and afterwards they shot dead one of the native Christian teachers; whether he is aware that this labour traffic, which was for a time suspended, has now been resumed, with a probability of the recurrence of similar treatment; and

  1043
  whether, under the circumstances, the Government will endeavour to put an entire stop to this labour traffic, in the interests of humanity?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I have been furnished by the hon. Member with a copy of the newspaper containing Mr. Paton's statement, but it is not possible to take action upon it unless Her Majesty's Government can be furnished with the names of the vessels, and the colony from which they came (if they were British ships), together with the dates of these occurrences. If these particulars can be supplied, the fullest inquiry shall be made, with the view of bringing the perpetrators to justice if possible. I am not aware that the traffic had been suspended, but by a law of 1885 it is provided that Polynesian labourers shall not be introduced into Queensland after the end of this year. As regards Fiji, which is understood to be the only other colony where this kind of labour is employed, no complaints of ill-treatment have reached the Colonial Office, and I do not see that Her Majesty's Government are called upon to interfere.

  WIRE-FENCING.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the finding of the Coroner's Court in an inquest on the body of Mr. John Dutton, of Davenham, Cheshire, to the effect that the cause of death was "blood-poisoning, the result of severe injuries to his arm caused by being dragged against a barbed wire fencing by a pony," and to the observations of the Medical Officer of Health at the meeting of the Rural Sanitary Authority of the district on the danger of wounds caused by barbed wire fencing; and whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to render illegal this description of fencing at the side of a footpath or a public highway?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the proceedings at the Coroner's Inquest in the case of Mr. Dutton, of Davenham, and I also to the proceedings
  1044
  at the meeting of the Rural Sanitary Authority with regard to the case. As I understand, the injury which led to the blood-poisoning, which was the cause of the death, was the result of an accident. Mr. Dutton was leading a pony and the animal made a spring and knocked him into the hedge, and, in consequence of his finger being fixed in the halter, he was dragged along the wire of the fence. It appears from the evidence that the barbed wire was not immediately adjoining the foot-path, but there was a sort of gutter between the footpath and the hedge. I cannot give any promise to propose legislation with regard to fencing of the character referred to.

  INCOME TAX ON LODGING HOUSE OWNERS.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether houses which were not originally erected for letting as tenement dwellings, but which are now arranged and let as such, are held to be within the definition given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being—
  "Constructed for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings at Tents not exceeding 7s. 6d. a week and approved by the Medical Officer of Health;"
  whether houses let in apartments and boarding houses are to be treated as places of business in the same way as lodging houses; and what is the proper definition of lodging houses, and the correct method to be pursued to obtain registration or otherwise in order to obtain the benefits conceded to them in the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The answer to the first question of the noble Lord is, Yes. The proper definition of a lodging house is a house used for the main purpose of letting furnished lodgings as a means of livelihood, and the actual name employed to describe such houses is immaterial. In order to secure the benefits of the recent concession notice should be given to the clerk to the Income Tax Commissioners for the division in which the house is situated, and in case the application is disallowed there lies an appeal to the District Commissioners.

  SALMON FISHINGS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the Report and Recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Crown rights in salmon fishings in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.

  CENTRAL FOREIGN PARCELS POST DEPOT.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether parcels reaching the Central Foreign Parcels Post Depot at Clerkenwell, for transmission to foreign countries and the colonies, are acknowledged by a sorter held responsible for their future safe custody, although his duty is fulfilled by placing the parcels in an open rack or basket, accessible to every person entering the department; whether such parcels, though in many instances of a valuable character, nevertheless remain for hours, and in some cases days, in such rack or basket, until actually required by the despatching officer when making up the foreign mails; and whether this officer has any check upon the number of parcels which should be in such rack or basket when making up his despatch?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Foreign and colonial parcels are transferred from one part of the office at Mount Pleasant to another in sealed baskets, and whilst awaiting despatch are packed in sealed boxes or baskets, or locked cupboards. Only such persons as are employed in the foreign and colonial branch have access to them. Unless a system of registration were introduced it would be contrary to practice to keep a numerical check on foreign or colonial parcels.

  DEBATES IN THE JERSEY STATES.
  MR. F. W. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey claims a right to interfere with the freedom of debate
  1046
  in the "States," or Parliament, of that island; and, if so, whether the Lieutenant Governor has any such right?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have referred this question to the Governor, and he informs me that he has had no intention to claim, and does not consider himself entitled to claim, the right to interfere with the freedom of debate in the States of Jersey. The Governor has a negative voice or veto in the making of ordinances, but he has no right to interfere with the freedom of debate.

  THE GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as skilled workmen are unable to ascertain on what principle they are paid, he would permit the posting of a scale of pay per week in Government dockyards?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The rates of pay per week are generally known to the workmen in the dockyards, and if there is anything with regard to his pay which a workman does not understand, he has only to ask his foreman or leading man. In the case of job and task or tonnage work the schemes of prices are not open to the inspection of the workmen, but any of the leading men or workmen, with the sanction of the principal officer of the department to which they belong, and in the presence of the measurer, are permitted to examine the measurer's account of their work, in order to satisfy themselves that such work has been accurately brought to account.
  In reply to Mr. WOODALL (Hanley),
  LORD G. HAMILTONsaid: The difficulty of laying down a stereotyped schedule as regards piecework in the dockyards is that it cannot be applicable unless all the ships are also stereotyped as regards classification and internal arrangement. Therefore, as the introduction of piecework is not on a great scale, it has not been possible in advance to publish a schedule of the price. I will do all in my power to meet the views of the men.

  NIGHT MAILS BETWEEN LONDON AND PLYMOUTH.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will re-consider the facts and arguments repeatedly laid before him by influentially-supported. Memorials from upwards of 200 Public Bodies under seal or resolution, in favour of contributing towards the establishment of additional night mail trains between London and Plymouth; whether the proposed trains would very materially improve the postal inter-communication between almost every town west of Basingstoke as far as Penzance and the Scilly Isles, as well as to and from London, and especially between the Naval Establishments of Portsmouth and Devonport; whether he will consider the advisability of improving the existing postal arrangements between many of the towns in the five south-western counties by utilising the railways now traversing them, the mails now being conveyed by mail carts during the night for many miles; whether the proposed improved service has been approved by Her Majesty's Postmaster General; and whether the expenditure asked is small for the services to be rendered?
  MR. JACKSON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to postpone the question until to-morrow or next day.

  BERMUDA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Clarke, late of the Medical Staff Corps, in the Daily News, of 25th July, as to the military stations in Bermuda, stating,
  "Last year we had a very bad epidemic of enteric (typhoid) fever, there being 139 cases and 22 deaths amongst the young soldiers of the Leicestershire Regiment, I sincerely hope the Guards will be more fortunate;"
  and what is the present information as to the sanitary condition of these stations?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is true that there was an epidemic of fever in Bermuda from October, 1888, to February, 1889. Since
  1048
  then the health of the troops has been very good, the annual ratios of admissions to hospital and of deaths comparing very favourably with those of other stations. But I regret to say that a telegram has been received this morning stating that six men have been admitted into hospital suffering from enteric fever. The sanitary condition of the barracks is stated to be satisfactory, and every precaution will be taken as to the health of the troops.

  LOCAL TAXATION BILL-POLICE BURGHS.
  MR. HUGH ELLIOT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that police burghs do not fall under the administration of County Councils, it is intended to give them a share of the residue grant provided by the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill; and, if so, in what manner it is proposed to allocate the grant?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend was good enough to direct my attention to the position of police burghs in regard to this grant, and he will see from the Notice Paper that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is altered in such a manner as to give effect to his representation.

  NAVAL ORDNANCE ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. DUFF: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Naval Ordnance Administration which he recently referred to?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Report has not been received by the Admiralty, and when received will require careful investigation as to the ultimate effect of its proposals. I cannot at present state when the Report will be made public.

  MISSION STATIONS IN AFRICA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the two British Mission Stations within the German sphere of influence in Africa; and whether, in the final delimitation of the boundary between the British and German spheres between Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika, he will endeavour by friendly arrangement with the German

  1049
  Government to have included within the British boundary the Nyassa Mission Sanatorium at Kararamuka?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The two stations referred to are the Free Church Station of Ukukwe, to the west of the Song we River, and the sanatorium mentioned, which is in the Livingstone Mountains, on the north-east of Lake Nyassa. The final delimination is nothing more than a rectification in accordance with local requirements, and could not be made to include a transfer of the sanatorium to the British sphere; but its position in the German sphere will not in any way interfere with its usefulness. Some of us hope to visit German sanatoria shortly, and I do not think that we shall benefit by them the less on account of their not being under the British flag.

  HORSE BREEDING.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can announce the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding in their Third Report, advising that the amount disposable for Queen's Premiums should be raised from £5,000 to £10,000?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; it is not our intention to give effect to this recommendation.

  CIVIL SERVICE COPYISTS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the interests of the Public Service, the Government will consent to heads of Departments granting the writers a half-holiday on every Saturday in those Departments where such privilege is allowed to the Upper and Lower Division clerks; and whether in those Departments where the half-holiday is allowed on every Saturday to Upper and Lower Division clerks, it is the wish of the Government that the writers engaged in such Department shall have the half-holiday granted to them only on alternate Saturdays, although in most cases the writers have rendered longer service than the Lower Division clerks, and were for 14 or 15 years in some Departments allowed such half-holiday on every Saturday?
  MR. JACKSON: The Order in Council of March 21, 1890, only authorises heads of Departments to, allow Second Division clerks of half-holidays on alternate Saturdays provided that public business will permit; and heads of Departments have, as far as I know, no authority to go out outside the Order in Council. In these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to make any further concession to copyists in respect of Saturday half-holidays.

  GWYLWYR SETT QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the name of the person with whom negotiations are pending for a lease of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire, when those negotiations commenced, and why they have not been brought to a termination; what are the terms demanded by the Commissioners of Wood and Forests as to dead rent and royalties, and what is the minimum with regard to time and number of men which they insist upon including in the proviso for re-entry; whether the Commissioners have received applications from more than one person or party for a lease; and, if so, in what order of date they received such applications; and when the last lease expired?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not able to answer the question, because the negotiations are not complete; and it would be unusual to make a statement until they are complete.

  NIGER TERRITORIES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can yet state the purport of Major Macdonald's Report regarding the Niger territories, and whether it has or has not justified what has been done; and whether the Report, or the substance of it, will be communicated to the House before they are asked to pass the Votes in Supply for the offices dealing with this subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Major Macdonald's Report was intended to be confidential. It is of a very detailed character, and cannot be communicated. Indeed, it will receive further and more

  1051
  particular consideration. A principal object of his work was to furnish Her Majesty's Government with materials for considering the question of extending the charter over adjacent districts. He was further to inquire into certain points under discussion with Germany, with the result that satisfactory explanations have been exchanged during the recent negotiations at Berlin. In addition, he was to examine the administration of the Royal Niger Company, with regard to which, while pointing out certain imperfections, he describes it as in the main highly satisfactory as to progress, system, and observance of the charter.

  HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will endeavour, before the Vote for the Stationery Office is taken, to procure from the Hansard contractors particulars of the cost of furnishing reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committees, similar to the report contained in the experimental number of Hansard of the 8th instant?
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether he will ascertain at the same time what would be the cost of extending the reports of the proceedings of this House and of supplying a copy of Hansard to each Member of the House?
  MR. JACKSON: The question asked by the hon. Member opposite was carefully considered by the Committee before the recent arrangement was made, and the Committee were practically unanimous upon the subject. There was one Member who took a different view; but with that exception, the Committee were unanimously against the proposal. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), it relates to a subject which has not been brought under my notice; but I need not say that it is a matter that would require very careful consideration.

  ABINGER GLEBE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, now that Abinger Glebe has been sold, he will lay upon the Table the Correspon-
  1052
  dence with the Land Commission on the subject, and especially the letters of Sir T. H. Farrer?
  THE PRESIDENT or THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I am not aware of any grounds on which it would be desirable, in the public interest, that the Correspondence with the Board of Agriculture on this subject should be laid upon the Table. I am afraid it would tend to destroy that free communication with the Board which it is desirable to maintain-in these cases.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the letters in question?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not sure what letters the right hon. Gentleman refers to. Some of Sir T. Farrer's letters are marked private I know, but there is nothing in the correspondence which I should desire to withhold, and, subject to his consent, I shall be very glad to show the letters to the right hon. Gentleman if he desires it.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND REVENUES.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Return of the revenues of the Church of England,, which was expected in June, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of the Session?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member is aware that this Return was formally presented to Parliament at the end of last month. The proofs are still with the printers, and the Ecclesiastical Com-missioners inform me that it will take a week at least to check the proofs, owing to the great mass of figures that have to be corrected. I hope, however, that it will be found possible to place the Return in the bands of Members before the end of the Session.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now state under what Law of the Imperial Parliament, or the Newfoundland Legislature, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, the instructions to Naval Officers on the Newfoundland Coast have been framed; and whether a copy of

  1053
  these instructions will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As it is believed that the legality of the action taken under instructions will be brought before a Court of Law it is undesirable to reply to this question. The tenor of the instructions to the Naval Officers will be found at page 384 of the correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries lately issued.

  COMPOUNDING FOR RATES.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will inquire if it is the fact that towns in Scotland which are counties in themselves do by special Acts compound with landlords for rates on rentals of £4 and under?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: None of the Scotch towns are counties in themselves, except in so far as Edinburgh is styled the County of the City of Edinburgh. In several of the burghs there are special Acts having clauses to the effect stated.

  COURT OF SESSION.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the effect of the recent Act of Sederunt in reducing the arrears of cases in the Court of Session; and whether counsel and agents have given the assistance that might be expected in attending when cases have been called?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am glad to be in a position to inform the hon. Member that the business of the Court of Session as regards the amount of arrears is in a satisfactory state, due no doubt to the effect of the recent Act of Sederunt and general assistance given by counsel and agents.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date he will, in fulfilment of the undertaking given on 16th May last, afford the House the opportunity of passing its opinion upon the Motion, of which notice has been placed on the Paper, disapproving the Treasury Minute of 15th July relating to perpetual pansions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hold to the undertaking given on this subject

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: We are getting on close to the end of the Session, and no date has yet been fixed for the Indian Budget.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware of that; I wish we were closer.

  TITHES IN WALES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the renewal of1 organised resistance to the payment of tithe rent-charge in Montgomeryshire, and to the riot which occurred on the 12th of July at Llanfihangel, in that county, in which Major Godfrey, the Chief Constable, was struck, and Mr. Craft, the auctioneer, repeatedly kicked by the mob; and whether the Government will take steps to ensure the punishment of those who enter into illegal combinations to defeat the law?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Secretary of State has received a Report from the Chief Constable, who states that there was no organised resistance to the payment of tithe on the occasion in question, nor has there been in that county for the last three years. It is not the fact that the Chief Constable was struck. The auctioneer was once kicked, but not seriously. In each case the amount distrained for was recovered, and the Chief Constable attributes what slight disturbance there was to the fact that insufficient notice was given to him of the levying of distraint, and time did not allow of the adoption of those conciliatory measures which have hitherto been successful in securing the due enforcement of the law without disturbance. The Chief Constable states that there is no evidence whatever of any illegal combinations to defeat the law. Were such evidence forthcoming in this or in any other county, the Government are prepared to take steps to bring to punishment any such offenders against the law.

  CONSTABLE OF CARNARVON CASTLE.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury upon whose recommendation the senior Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston) has been appointed to

  1055
  the constableship of Carnarvon Castle, as successor to the late Lord Canarvon; and whether he is in a position to state the grounds which led to a disregard of the expressed wish of the Carnarvon Town Council in the matter? I would also ask whether it is the fact that the hon. Member (Sir J. Puleston) has appointed the Conservative agent as Deputy Constable?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The appointment of the senior Member for Devon-port as Constable of Carnarvon Castle was made by the Crown on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, to whom questions of this nature should be addressed in another place.
  SIR J. PULESTON: There is no foundation for the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, who has made me the subject of a question without precedent in this House.

  TREASURER OF MIDDLESEX.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury have decided that the late Treasurer of the County of Middlesex, who had held that appointment for 18 years until the office became abolished on the London County Council coming' into existence, is not entitled to any compensation, notwithstanding that he was, in the words of the Local Government Act, Section 120—
  "An existing officer who by virtue of this Act, or anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of this Act, suffers direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary;"
  if so, on what grounds was such decision arrived at; whether the opinion of the Law Officers was taken upon the question; and, if so, whether the Government would allow such opinions to be perused by the late Treasurer; whether the following grounds, to which among others the above-quoted section directed that regard should be had, namely, the nature of his office (virtually a life appointment), the duration of his service (18 years), and all other circumstances of the case, were duly considered by the Treasury before arriving at their decision; and if the Government consider for any technical reason that the case is not within the Act, will the Government in any future Bill propose enactments to remedy the omission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The office of Treasurer of the County of Middlesex has not been abolished, but Mr. Allen has been removed from it. He held the office under the provisions of the Act 12 George II., cap. 29, and the 11th section of that Act gives power to the Court of Quarter Sessions to remove the Treasurer at pleasure. This power is, by the Local Government Act, transferred to the County Council, whose officer the Treasurer had become. The exercise of the power of removal given by the earlier Statute was not anything done in pursuance of the Local Government Act, and that Act, therefore, did not give the Treasury any power to award compensation to Mr. Allen. The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted in the matter, but their opinions are confidential documents, and I cannot undertake to present them. Nor am I prepared to introduce a Bill to extend the power of compensation given to the Treasury by the 120th section of the Local Government Act.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that an Ordinance was passed by the Council of Government in Malta in 1867, "to amend the laws relative to the rights and duties emanating from marriage and the separation of married persons;" whether his attention has been called to the fact that this Ordinance refers to the "Codice de Rohan," certain provisions of which it repeals and amends; whether the said Ordinance provides that a separation pronounced by any other Court than the Civil Court, produces no civil effect, and likewise "repeals and abrocates any other law or custom contrary to or incompatible with the provisions of this Ordinance;" and whether he will cause a copy of this Ordinance to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The answer is in the affirmative to the first three parts of the hon. Member's question. A copy of the Ordinance will be laid on the Table, if desired, but the Ordinance does not affect the law regulating the celebration of marriage.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the "Codice de Rohan,"

  1057
  which was the main body of law in force in Malta at the time of the British occupation of the island, treats of the subject of marriage (Dritto Municipale di Malta, Libro Terzo); and whether he will cause a copy of this Code to be placed in the Library of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The "Codice de Rohan" treats of the subject of marriage as regards the effect upon property, but not as regards the mode of celebration. I do not know whether a copy of the Code can be procured for the library of the House, but I will inquire.

  BIRMINGHAM MINT COMPANY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask whether the two officials of the Mint who acknowledged holding shares in the Birmingham Mint Company are still holding appointments in the Company?
  MR. JACKSON: The two officials in the Royal Mint who held shares in "The Mint, Birmingham (Limited)," never held appointments under that company, and parted with their shares as soon as they were called upon to do so.

  THE CASE OF MR. BERNARD DUNN.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Mr. Bernard Dunn has been discharged from Woolwich Arsenal; whether he can state the reason for Mr. Dunn's dismissal; whether Mr. Dunn supplied a great deal of the information which enabled the Government to hold the inquiry in 1887 with regard to the "inspection and reception of leather, &c.;" and how many of the Inspectors and Viewers who were proved before the Judge Advocate General to have passed in bad material are still in Government employment, and how many of them have since been promoted?
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Bernard Dunn was dismissed from the collarmakers' shop, Royal Dockyard, Woolwich, on March 29 last. The reasons for his dismissal were insubordination, he having published a pamphlet containing false statements about superior officers, and about the department in which he served. Dunn did give evidence before the Judge Advocate General as to the inspection and reception of leather, and his evidence was stated to have "more or less"
  1058
  corroborated that given by Mr. Moody, the principal complainant, who has since been promoted. No particular case was sustained against the Inspector or Viewer, and no man known to have passed in bad material has been promoted.

  IRELAND—LORD MASSEREENE'S TENANTS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to an agreement alleged to have been made between Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon, solicitors and emergency agents, and Lord Massereene, by which Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon agreed to charge only costs out of pocket in the case of proceeding against tenants which were unsuccessful, and, in the case of proceedings which were successful, to look only to the tenants for payment, being equivalent to an agreement to indemnify a party to an action against the greater part of the ordinary costs of the action, not from charity, but with a view to profit, and a stipulation for payment of the full costs only in the event of success in the action and out of the sum to be recovered therein; whether Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon, in making such an agreement and acting in accordance therewith, were guilty of champerty and maintenance; how many of Lord Massereene's tenants were proceeded against in the High Court at dates subsequent to the making of the agreement; whether, having regard to the large number of persons who have suffered, or who, owing to their poverty, are unable to avail themselves of their civil remedy, he will consider the advisability of resorting to the old Common Law process of indictment for champerty and maintenance; and whether he will call the attention of the Law Society to the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question.

  THE BARONY CONSTABLE OF KERRY.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the £2,484 5s. due by Arthur Hutchins, barony constable in Kerry, when he

  1059
  ceased to hold that office, was collected, how much was collected in the baronies of Glanerought and South Dunkerron respectively, and for how much were the landlords, as occupiers or otherwise, and the tenants liable respectively; whether the amount of defalcations was reapplotted, and thus paid twice by the cesspayers; whether Stokes, one of Hutchins' sureties, was in receipt of retiring pension from Grand Jury, and for what amount; whether Grand Jury appropriated part of said pension to meet Hutchins' defalcations; whether he can state what was the nature of the proceedings instituted by the Grand Jury, on the advice of counsel, against Hutchins' securities for recovery of his defalcations; whether it is the intention of the Grand Jury to proceed to recover interest as well as principal from the sureties; and who was responsible for the fact that Hutchins was allowed to retain so much money in his possession in contravention of the Act of Parliament, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 32?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As already stated, I have no official knowledge in regard to the subject-matter of this question, which is not a matter under the control of the Government. The secretary to the Grand Jury, however, reports to the effect that—1. There are no means of ascertaining the information sought in the first paragraph; 2. The amount of defalcation has not been reapplotted, as it is hoped that it will be recovered from the sureties; 3. Mr. Stokes was in receipt of £400 a year retiring allowance; 4. 5. 6. The Solicitor to the Grand Jury reports that, acting on counsel's advice, they did not proceed for an attachment against Mr. Stokes' pension. The defalcation was at July Assizes, 1884. Judgment was entered up against Mr. Hutchins and each of his sureties on the 10th December following, and legal mortgages got in 1885. It is stated not to be practicable at present to realise the amount, mainly owing to the fact that the interest of one of the mortgagors is one expectant on the termination of a life now at 77 years. These mortgages, as a matter of course, bear interest. 7. I am not in a position to state whether or not responsibility attaches to any person for allowing the money collected to be retained in contravention of the Statute quoted.

  MR. PERCY MAGAN, J.P.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the charge against Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., of having obtained money by false representations, made publicly nine months ago, and to the promise of Mr. Magan to the Land Commissioners immediately to forward an explanation, has Magan taken any steps towards its fulfilment; with reference to the statement that Magan's solicitor has died, would he ascertain the name of the solicitor, in what case in connection with the tenants named has he acted at Quarter Sessions or otherwise, and when he died; what length of additional time will the Land Commission give to Magan to make out his explanation, having regard to the fact that, with the lapse of time, proof of guilt may get more difficult; and whether, in the event of the Land Commission being of opinion that there is a primâ facie case on which Magan may be proceeded against for the recovery of the money alleged to have been fraudulently obtained, steps will be taken to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter is at present under consideration.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the £40,000 to be allotted to Ireland for the erection of labourers' cottages will be apportioned among the different Poor Law Unions; and can he state the rule by which the contribution to each Union will be fixed; and, if so, what are the amounts to which the Mullingar and Delvin Unions will be entitled?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until the matter comes before the House in the ordinary course.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the Supplementary Estimate be brought in?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question to the Secretary to the Treasury at the end of the questions.

  FALSE ARREST BY IRISH CONSTABLES.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fahy and Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts of the case are as follow:—Morrissey is a bad character who has been convicted of assaults on the police, of drunkenness, and of boycotting. Both he and Fahy are, on their own evidence, energetic agents of the Plan of Campaign in a district where that illegal conspiracy has been specially prolific in outrage. They were found together about 10 p.m., and it appears that Fahy was going home with Morrissey, whom the Chief Justice truly described as a bad character. They were arrested by the police under the Peace Preservation Act of 1881 of being illegally possessed of arms. Fahy, it appears, had a licence to carry arms; but he thought fit not to produce it, and the Chief Justice stated that he brought all the trouble that afterwards befel him upon himself. There can be no doubt that the police acted in bonâ fide discharge of their duty, and, therefore, their expenses will be paid.
  ME. DILLON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an appeal was taken to the Galway Assizes, and that Mr. Justice O'Brien confirmed the decree of the County Court Judge, with costs against the police? Yet the right hon. Gentleman now states that the police acted strictly according to their duty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say the police acted rightly, but that they acted bonâ fide, and that the mistake was not of such a kind as would justify the Government placing the costs upon them.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that the police against whom decrees have been given for false arrest and imprisonment are not to be punished, but
  1062
  are to be defended in their action by the whole support of the Executive Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is not to deduce any general rule. It must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice positively refused the request of the solicitor for the plaintiffs to increase the amount of damages.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men were arrested and detained in custody all night, and that no charge was made against them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The charge upon which they were arrested was that of the illegal possession of arms.
  MR. DILLON: These men were arrested on a charge of illegal carrying of arms, and were kept in gaol all night. Why did not the police search the men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The police, under the Act in question, had no power of search.

  PROSECUTIONS AT BANTRY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the prosecutions at Bantry, on Tuesday, 22nd instant, in which nine men were sentenced by Captain Welch and Mr. Cecil Roche, Resident Magistrates, to one month's imprisonment each, at hard labour, and at the expiration of the month's imprisonment to find sureties for good behaviour for a further period of six months; is he aware that defendants' counsel applied the sentences should be increased, to enable the defendants to appeal, but the Magistrates refused the application, and that counsel thereupon asked the Magistrates to state a case for the Superior Courts, on the ground that the facts proved did not amount to an unlawful assembly, bat this application was also refused; and, if the facts be as above stated, whether he will explain why the defendants' right of appeal was thus denied to them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that eight men were sentenced on the occasion referred to. The Magistrates proposed to deal leniently with the cases if the men would promise not to offend again, bat this they refused to do.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not the invariable practice in the English Courts to grant

  1063
  an appeal in the event of a prisoner desiring to have the case considered by a Superior Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am under the impression that an appeal would not be granted as a matter of course.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Every prisoner in England is entitled to an appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Magistrates to increase the sentence, so as to afford an appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not like to answer that question offhand, without notice.

  LIGHTKEEPERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade what period of leave is annually allowed to light keepers in Great Britain; whether the practice in Ireland is not to allow any leave; and if there is any sufficient reason why the Irish and British light keepers should not be treated alike in this respect. But I will postpone the question until to-morrow.

  SOLICITORS' INDENTURE FEES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, although in 1866 the Solicitors of Ireland were entirely separated from the Benchers, a sum of £14 in respect of each indenture of a Solicitor's apprentice has since been, and still is, appropriated by the Benchers; whether the sums so appropriated by the Benchers, from 1866 to the present time, amounts to £22,876; whether the body of Solicitors have derived any sort of advantage from this money; whether the Benchers have now accumulated to their credit a fund of over £50,000; whether a copy of the correspondence on this subject between the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, the Benchers, and the Treasury, will be laid upon the Table; and whether the Government will take any steps to institute a reform of the system?
  MR. JACKSON: A sum of £14 in respect of each indenture of a Solicitor's apprentice has been assigned since 1791, and still is assigned by Act of Parliament, to the Benchers. I am not aware what sum has been received by the Benchers since 1866, or how they have applied it. The case presented by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland to
  1064
  the Treasury has been submitted to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and is now under his Lordship's consideration, and it does not appear necessary to lay the correspondence on the Table.
  MR. SEXTON: When will a decision be announced?
  MR. JACKSON: It does not rest with the Treasury, but I shall be happy to make inquiry.

  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the meeting of the Dublin Port and Docks Board on the 19th ultimo, Alderman Kiernan, who attended as the duly constituted locum tenens for the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a Member of the Board, was obliged by the majority of the members to retire without taking part in the business of the meeting, although he produced his letter of appointment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information. The proceedings of the Dublin Port and Docks Board do not come under the cognisance of the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not the Docks Board nominated by the Corporation of Dublin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that that is so. I believe it is constituted under a local Act.

  THE IRISH POLICE AND EVICTED FARMS.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mrs. Mullally, who was evicted from her holding on the Modeshill property, Mullinahone, County Tipperary, about three years ago, was re-instated about four months since at a rent fixed by arbitration; whether her house has been and is occupied by policemen since her eviction, who have refused to leave though often asked by Mr. Hartford, the agent; whether he is aware that Mrs. Mullally's farm is about three miles from her present residence, to which she is obliged to bring the milk of her dairy cattle twice a day; and whether, as the object of the Government in sending policemen to the Modeshill Estate was to protect the emergency men who were herding 30 evicted farms, to which all

  1065
  the former tenants have been restored, the policemen will now be ordered to leave immediately?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the evicted tenant referred to was re-instated about 10 weeks ago. The house has been occupied as a temporary police barrack, under agreement, since 13th December, 1889. Possession does not appear to have been ever demanded by Mr. Hartford. The tenant's present residence is three miles from the farm, but it is not the case that she has cattle on the farm, nor does she carry milk to and from it daily. The caretakers were caring not 30 but 20 evicted farms. Consequent upon the former tenants being re-instated necessity no longer exists for affording personal protection to the caretakers, and steps are accordingly being taken to abolish the temporary police station in question.

  EMERGENCY MEN.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on 23rd July two emergency caretakers, named respectively Johnston and Thompson, were fined five shillings at New Pallas Petty Sessions, County Limerick, by Major Roleston, R.M., for firing four revolver shots in the village of Pallas on 5th July; and whether these men had a licence to have and carry arms; and, if so, will their licences be revoked?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the case that the two men referred to were fined as stated in the question. The matter of revoking their licences is at present under consideration.

  EVICTION OF TENANTS ON THE COAST OF CORK.
  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: No such application has been made so far to the Government. A gun might be given to enable the Sheriff to carry out a decree, but it would not be lent to a landlord for eviction purposes.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Will the Government employ gunboats in protecting the Irish fisheries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not able to answer that question.
  MR. FLYNN: Are the Government bound to provide gunboats for the Sheriffs in order to enable the Sheriff's officers to visit remote islands, and in that case would it not be right to make the landlord pay the expenses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to lay down any general principle without having time to inquire into the matter.

  MR. JUSTICE HARRISON.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In reference to the notice of Motion which has been given by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I wish to read the following letter which I have received from Mr. Justice Harrison: —
  "Newtown Park House, Blackrock, County
  Dublin, July 26.
  "Sir,—I observe in the report of yesterday's proceedings in the House of Commons that Mr. Dillon gave notice of a Motion impugning my conduct and the language of the charge recently delivered by me at the Galway Assizes. Of the terms of that notice I am not as yet aware, but, whatever be its character, I have no reason to shrink from Parliamentary inquiry into this or any other action of mine as a Judge of the High Court in Ireland. The meaning in which I used the words to which exception has been taken—a meaning which I believe was placed upon them by those who heard them—has been fully explained in my letter to you of the 23rd inst. To this explanation I can add nothing. It is to me a matter of deep regret that an error, even though it be only an error in language, should lay my observations open to a construction which assuredly was as remote from my thoughts when I spoke as it is in contradiction to every principle of law which for almost 22 years I have endeavoured to lay down from the Bench. I think I may say with confidence that no member, either of the Bench or Bar, would for a moment entertain the idea that I had directly or indirectly advocated the use of illegal methods for the redress of private wrongs, however intolerable those wrongs might be, and if among the general public there be (as I think there are not) any who hold a contrary opinion, I trust this letter, which I authorise you to use in any manner which you think right, may dissipate an impression not less unjust to me than injurious to the administration of justice.
  "I remain, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "MICHL. HARRISON."
  MR. DILLON: I think the opportunity is favourable for asking the

  1067
  leader of the House when I shall be able to bring forward my Motion on this important subject. I may mention that the construction which I put on the learned Judge's charge has been put upon it by several newspapers in Ireland which advise that it should be carried out by the people of Eastern Galway.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: While thinking that the question should come most appropriately from my hon. Friend, in the absence of any one else, I shall be glad to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly sorry to be compelled to refuse anything in the shape of a request from the right hon. Gentleman, who has had such great experience in the practice of this House. I do not think I should be doing justice to the House or to the learned Judge if I were to afford the opportunity which the hon. Member now desires after the full and complete explanation which has been given. I have referred to precedents, and I find that a Motion was made in 1834 impugning the conduct of Mr. Baron Smith, and a Committee was granted; but immediately after it was granted Sir R. Peel rose in his place in the House, and moved to rescind the Motion on the ground that—
  "To appoint a Committee was evading the law, which required an Address from both Houses of Parliament to authorise the removal of a Judge; because if that Judge were a man of honour, and if the House implied the slightest censure against him, his own sense of propriety would tell him that he could no longer remain effective as a Judge."—(Mansard, Third Series, vol. xxi., p. 745.)
  I am of opinion, and I say it with' great respect to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman, that the learned Judge has given a full explanation, and that if a Committee were appointed, as the hon. Gentleman desires, to inquire into the conduct of the learned Judge, and into the step which should be taken by this House, those consequences must follow which Sir R. Peel indicated in 1834. I cannot think it possible that the House would appoint or entertain the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, after the full and complete explanation which has been given. I think, therefore, I must ask the hon. Gentleman, if he desires to persevere, to find for himself an opportunity at a later period of the
  1068
  Session, as I should not feel justified in interrupting the business of the House.
  MR. DILLON: I am astonished at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, who has made a reply of a very argumentative character. In my opinion, and in that of many others, the learned Judge has given no explanation whatever. On the contrary, the learned Judge has accepted the language imputed to him, and has simply said that the interpretation put upon it is not that which I have put upon it in this House, and which is put upon it also by the great mass of the Irish people. I think I have an indefeasible claim to bring this question to a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the opinion of Sir R. Peel, but he forgot to quote the opinion of Lord Althorp, of Lord J. Russell, of Lord Palmerston, and of the Irish Secretary, Mr. Littleton, on the other side. Under these circumstances, and with these precedents, I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible for us to bring this question to an issue without the cooperation of the Government, and that a refusal to grant me the permission, without which I cannot bring the subject to a discussion, amounts to an inducement to Irish Judges of that character to use what language they choose.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Allow me to point out, in supporting this appeal for re-consideration, that there is this additional reason for it: that since the question was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman he has not merely refused the application, but he has made a speech in which he has given, as he thinks, conclusive reasons against it. That is a position in which any fair-minded person would not leave the question.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not make any speech, but I thought it only courteous to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation. The House is in possession of the whole of the facts which by any possibility could be elicited.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER,who was received with loud and repeated cries of "Order," asked to be allowed to point out that the learned

  1069
  Judge had himself admitted that he had used the language, and courted an inquiry.

  THE REVOLUTION AT BUENOS AYRES.
  MR. J. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he can give the House any information as to the revolution at Buenos Ayres?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not know that I can add anything to what has previously appeared in the public papers, but this telegram was received to-day. It is dated Buenos Ayres, 6.45 p.m., July 27:—
  "Revolution still proceeding. Heavy firing this morning. Four men-of-war declared for insurgents, and bombarded position belonging to Government troops. President left Buenos Ayres yesterday. Vice President remains Hostilities have temporarily ceased, armistice until 10 to-morrow morning having been agreed to. Her Majesty's ships Beagle and Bramble here. Town tolerably quiet for the moment."

  CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) what he intends to do with respect to the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name under the head "Charges against Ministers"? [The Motion was as follows:—
  "That this House deems it necessary to declare that when a Member of this House prefers a charge against a Minister of the Crown, which charge is denied on behalf of the Minister, such Member ought not to be restrained from refusing to accept such denial and persisting in his charge by reason that the Minister is a Member of the House of Lords."]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With respect to this notice, which has remained on the Paper longer than I intended, I have to say that the notice was given under the impression that there was some difference of opinion on the subject, which it would be desirable to clear up. A subsequent communication left upon my mind very distinctly the conviction that there is no difference on the subject, and that being so I desire to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will move—
  1070
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Rules of Debate ought not to discriminate (except so far as is now the practice with regard to proceedings in the House of Lords) between Peers and other persons not being Members of this House."
  In a day or two I will ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury will be disposed to state what view Her Majesty's Government may take on the subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the Supplementary Estimates be brought on?
  MR. JACKSON: In the course of a day or two.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the First Lord of the Treasury name a day for taking the Foreign Office Vote?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to say that I am unable to do so at present.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Will the Irish Census Bill be taken to-night, and will the right hon. Gentleman indicate an hour after which it will not be taken?
  MR. HANBURY: Is it intended to take the Committee on the Scotch Police Bill before the Report stage on the; English measure?
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope as to when the Navy Estimates will be taken. And will an opportunity be then afforded for the discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission from a Naval point of view?
  MR. ESSLEMONT: And when will the Committee on the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Scotland) Bill be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Irish Census Bill will not be taken this evening, unless we get through the Local Taxation Bill before 11 o'clock. The Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Children Bill will not be taken to-day, and I am unable to say when it will. In regard to the Scotch Police Bill, I am afraid we must adhere to the Order of Business as it is now laid down. We propose to proceed with the English Bill first, and then to take the Scotch measure. As to the Navy Estimates, I hope it will be in our power to reach them early. The Post Office Estimates and the Foreign Office Vote will be taken first, and then we propose to proceed with the Navy Estimates.

  DACOITY IN BURMA.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for India as to statements which appear in the newspapers this morning, that a certain dacoit taken in Burma had been promised that if he surrendered he would not be executed, but, notwithstanding that promise, he is now to be executed by the authorities. Is there any truth in the statement?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of the question.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promptly inquire into it.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL—A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I ask permission of the House to make a short personal explanation as to an incident which appears to have occurred in the Debate on the Heligoland Bill on Thursday, when I was not in the House, and which affects me personally. I am glad to see that the Attorney General has just entered the House, because, although I have no reflection to make upon him, he is concerned in the statement I have to make. I, having contended very strongly in that Debate that the question of cession lay entirely with the Crown, the hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have made a citation from an answer made by me to a question in 1870, put to me by Sir John Hay, as to the cession of Gambia. I replied that, according to my belief and impression, the Crown had no power to make that cession. I was not surprised to see in the report that the statement drew forth loud cheers. It would have been most disrespectful to the House if I, having made such a contention, had passed over the fact that I had declared a contrary opinion. The fact is, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken. He cited a portion of the question put to me by Sir John Hay, not the whole of it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I read the whole of it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE; I think that the hon. and learned Member was not reported as having read the whole of
  1072
  it, but I am glad to hear that he did. He supposed that my statement about the power of the Crown related to the cession of Gambia. But Sir John Hay's question referred to two matters, and not one. It did include the question of cession, but it likewise included an arrangement with France, giving to France the great arterial communication with Africa—that is to say, making an arrangement with France which would have been compulsory, as I understood, on the subjects of Her Majesty with regard to territory which was no part of the territory of the Queen. As to the right of cession, I may observe that in 1843 and 1854 and 1863 I had, as a Cabinet Minister, been a party in two cases to direct cession by the Crown, and in the third case to the cession of a Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, which included many of the same elements, but had no reference at all to the question of cession. The answer I made, and the declaration of my belief and impression, that the Queen did not possess the power had reference exclusively to that portion of Sir John Hay's question which referred to territory not within the dominions of Her Majesty. I quite understand that the hon. and learned Member may have felt that that part of the question was immaterial, but whether it was, or not, it was to that question I replied—Sir John Hay's question embraced both points—that I did not believe such an arrangement could be made without the assent of Parliament, because it contained one portion to which the Crown could not give effect without the assent of Parliament. It was, perhaps, bold of me to give that opinion, but the reason was that I had been studying an important qutstion of the same kind with regard to the Hudson's Bay Company's charter, which was a charter granting' rights to British subjects outside the British dominions; and I had arrived at a very strong conviction that such a right was not in the power of the Crown. It was to that I referred in the answer I gave.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I claim, permission to explain to the House how the matter stands. The House is aware that Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest notice, direct or indirect, that the question was going to be raised. I obtained by accident, by

  1073
  communication with the Foreign Office, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, information which led me to suppose that the question had been raised in connection with Gambia; and without going further than I am entitled to do—I will show the right hon. Gentleman the Papers, if he desires to see them—I was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the question had been raised and discussed distinctly with reference to Gambia. After the right hon. Gentleman had left the House I had no means of communicating with him, and having to reply to the right hon. Member for Derby I, with the assistance of the Solicitor General, found out this reference in Hansard. I will read the question and the answer as I read them the other night; and although I accept, as I am bound to do, the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, as to what he had in his mind, there is not a single word in that Report which could possibly lead any one to the conclusion which he now asks the House to come to. Let the House be the judge. Neither am I aware of any Report that puts upon the question and the answer the construction, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to bear. The first question was put by Mr. Robert Fowler (now Sir R. Fowler) to Mr. Monsell, who was then the Under Secretary for the Colonies—
  "West Coast of Africa—The Gambia Question.
  "Mr. R. Fowler said he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that negotiations have taken place with the view of the transfer of the settlement of the Gambia to the Emperor of the French.
  "Mr. Monsell: In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to inform him that communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, having for their object the determining the limit of English and French influence on the West Coast of Africa, and that the transfer of Gambia to France is one of the steps under consideration as part of that arrangement. It may be well to state that in 1868 the European population in Gambia numbered 39 males and eight females.
  "Afterwards—
  "Sir John Hay said he would beg to ask the head of the Government whether it is possible that the settlement of Gambia and the great arterial communication of Africa can be conveyed to France without the consent of Parliament.
  "Mr. Gladstone said that though he was taken by surprise by this question being put, still he might say that his impression was that such an arrangement could not be carried out without the consent of Parliament. He could not answer positively, but that was his impression and belief.
  "A little later in the afternoon the right hon. Gentleman added that what he had already said had reference to the power of the Government -to the question whether there was power in the Government or not. He added that there never had been the slightest intention of taking any proceedings of the kind without the consent of Parliament."
  I have read every word, and I am perfectly certain that no one reading that answer could possibly come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman, in answering the question, specifically referred to the great arterial communication of Africa, and had not referred to the cession of Gambia. The question is distinct; there is no reservation in the question, and the answer is categorical. Of course, I was not in the House in the year 1870, but I went to the only possible authority, and I read verbatim the other night the Report from Hansard. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it I shall be glad to show him privately the document to which I have referred.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Of course, I make no charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman. I by no means undertake to say, for I do not recollect, what exactly may have taken place in the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office; but the hon. and learned Gentleman argues very illegitimately that my answer must be taken as referring to everything that Sir John Hay's question contained. No; Sir John Hay asked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to do two things, one within the power, and the other entirely beyond the power, of the Crown. I answered that no such step could betaken without the consent of Parliament, having reference to that which was beyond the power of the Crown.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 390.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  EAST INDIA (CASE OF THREE MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  Address for—
  "Copies of, or Extracts from, Correspondence relating to the case of three Assistant Surgeons dismissed from the Bengal Establishment."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1890, stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and, also, the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.141, of Session 1889)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1890, with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.136, of Session 1889)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1890, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.132, of Session 1889)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1890, stating, for each day, the date of the month, the day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.134, of Session, 1889)."— (Sir Charles Forster.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Bills distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1890; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 0. 135, of Session 1889)"— (Sir Charles Forster.)

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of the number of Private Bills introduced and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1890, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, &c. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; and Miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, which, in the Session of 1890, have been treated as Opposed Bills; specifying those which have been classified in Groups by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills; together with the names of the Selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each Selected Member has served; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed; the Bills referred back to the Committee of Selection, or to the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, as having become unopposed, and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties."
  "And of all Private Bills, which, in the Session of 1890, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.131, of Session 1889)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  COLONISATION.
  Ordered—
  "That the Report of the Committee on Deer Forests, 1883, and the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners to imquire into the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, 1884, be referred to the Select Committee on Colonisation."—[Sir James Fergusson.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Poor Law (Ireland) Rating Bill, Panper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Officers' Superannuation) Bill, Birstall Wesleyan Chapel Trust Scheme Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  CITY OF PARIS.
  That they do communicate Copy of Report of the Inquiry into the causes of the accident which recently happened to the passenger ship City of Paris, as desired by this House.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL [LORDS].—(No. 393.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. MACNEILL: I desire to move an Amendment to provide that the proposed cession of Heligoland shall be subject to the consent of a majority of the male inhabitants of the island, such consent to be obtained in the manner hereinafter described. As long as I have the honour of a seat in this House I shall do my best to protect the interests of the people. The cession of this island may be a small thing; of course, we know only 2,000 souls live on it; but, so far as we know, the cession has been rashly agreed to, and in no way— either directly or indirectly—has the consent of the inhabitants been asked. The island has been in our possession 83 years; three generations of the inhabitants have been loyal to us, and yet this cession was made in a rash and hasty manner, without their feelings being consulted. So recently as the 2nd June a Cabinet Minister pronounced against the cession, yet on the 1st July we have
    1078
    the Agreement produced. I look on this as a matter of vital importance, and I warn the Government that one result will be to excite a dangerous feeling in the colonies if you once let it be supposed that they are held simply for the benefit of a class or a Minister in England. We are in the position of Trustees to these islanders, and we have no right to do anything which is not for their benefit. I think there were ample means of obtaining a fair index of the opinions of the people, as they have for four or five years had a Constitutional Government. On the occasion of the cession of the Ionian Islands the opinions of the people were consulted. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, before the first word "the," to insert the words "subject to the consent of the majority of the male inhabitants of Heligoland as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It has been admitted from the first that the people of Heligoland were not formally consulted. It would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, to submit for the decision of the inhabitants a great Agreement with the German Empire, of which the cession of Heligoland is an essential part, and the Government cannot assent to the Amendment. The Constitutional Government to which the hon. Member has referred consisted of a Governor, assisted by a Council of paid officials.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Yes, I know that a few years since the island was made a Crown Colony.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Well, 'we could not set up a new constitution ad hoc. The hon. Member also said something in the nature of a general proposition as to the action of the Government towards the colonies being entirely dependent on the necessities of the moment. But I laid down no such general rule. As cases arise they must be judged upon their merits. We cannot accept this Amendment, because

    1079
    it is utterly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to consent to any modification of the terms of the Bill, which is destined, I hope, to be productive of great good to the British Empire.
    MR. CHANNING: I think my hon. Friend was amply justified in moving the Amendment, because the Debate on the Second Reading hardly touched the great constitutional question whether the inhabitants of any portion of the Empire can or ought to be handed over to another Power without some consultation of their wishes. It is quite absurd of the right hon. Gentleman to contend that this proposal would mean referring the whole Agreement to the inhabitants of Heligoland. It does not follow that, as a result of the consultation, the views of the majority should determine the policy of the Empire, but that they should be heard before their destiny is decided. The case of the Ionian Islands has been referred to as constituting a precedent. That was merely the cession of a Protectorate, and not a cession of territory. But that only makes the argument stronger. What was Lord Palmerston's answer when questioned on the course to be taken as to the Ionian Islands? He said that the first thing to do was to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants, and the next thing was to obtain the consent of the other parties to the Treaty. When it was asked how the wishes of the people were to be ascertained, Mr. Chichester Fortescue said the obvious course was to have a new Parliament elected in the Ionian Islands and to refer the question to that Parliament by proclamation. In regard to the Island of Heligoland, we have seen exactly the opposite policy adopted. Obviously, the Prime Minister considers these people of no consequence whatever, except as mere objects of barter, in. order to purchase certain privileges in Africa. This question is mixed up with other questions that I may not, perhaps, be free to discuss on this Vote, but I do urge on the House the necessity of recognising this great and noble tradition of Great Britain in dealing with populations under our rule. I look on this Bill as one of the cardinal errors of Her Majesty's Government in their foreign policy, and I regard it in that light on wider Imperial grounds besides
    1080
    this simple ground to which my hon. Friend has referred. But this ground touches the traditions and constitutional order of proceeding of Great Britain in parting with subjects under her rule in a way so important, and raises so serious an issue that I sincerely hope the hon. Member will proceed to a Division.
    MR. W. A. McARTHUR: I do not know whether it is of any use to further protest against this arrangement. We, at any rate, have cleared our consciences of what we consider the shame of this barter of British subjects, for all we know, against their will. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs opens up a vista of still further cases of this kind, for he has told us that each case as it arises will be treated on its merits. I must say our opposition would be very different—would, in fact, be one of strenuous resistance and obstruction—if we thought the case of the cession of Heligoland was to be made a precedent; and if we thought that this Government had any idea of making other changes of this kind in order to conciliate other powers than Germany,. I can understand that the case of Heligoland is a case quite by itself—that it is unique—but if there was any idea of proceeding on this policy for the sake of making things pleasant for our diplomacy in Europe, I confess our feelings as to this Bill would be completely changed. I would ask an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of that ominous sentence to which I have referred, namely, that all cases as they arise will be treated on their merits.
    MR. ATKINSON: I see no shame whatever in what has-been proposed in connection with these people, but, on the contrary, I think it is a proposition which recommends itself to all who understand it. I may say that if I had been in the House the other night I should have voted for the proposal of the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division, not on the ground he put forward, but on the ground that I always expected that partition of the British Empire if it came at all would come from the hon. Member and his Party. I intended to vote against the present Government doing it, as I know very well that if the hon. Member and

    1081
    his Party came into power they might propose to give up Gibraltar, Malta, and a few other inconsiderable portions of the Empire. That would be "shameful." I see no shame in giving up Heligoland. I have been 30 or 40 years connected with shipping in Hull, which port has done the greatest business with the Elbe——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is not the cession of Heligoland, but as to requiring the consent of the inhabitants.
    MR. ATKINSON: I went into this simply because the hon. Member opposite was allowed to do so. I would call attention to paragraph No. 4 of the Treaty.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment before the House, and that must be first disposed of.
    MR. ATKINSON: Very well, Sir. Then I will sit still until the proper time arrives.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I may say I voted for the Bill, but no one has taken more strongly than I have the view that populations ought not to be voted over to alien powers like so many sheep. The present is a peculiar case, however. Provision is made for the inhabitants of the island, and we have reason to believe that opinion is not unanimous, or, at least, that it is divided, on the subject, and that there is no general resistance to the proposal on the part of the inhabitants. I do not agree that a plébiscite should be taken, and that the majority should decide; neither do I regard the Agreement as handing over the island to an alien power. Formerly the island belonged to Schleswig, and it will again form part of Sohleswig. It was only occupied by this country for military purposes, and to take a plébiscite here would hamper the Government in its dealings with other places only occupied for military purposes. Gibraltar is nothing more than a nest of smugglers, who make a living by getting contraband goods into Spain. I do not think we should take a plébiscite in a place like that. An enterprising newspaper, which I do not admire, despatched a Commissioneress to Heligoland to obtain the views of the inhabitants. From the boatmen, who form the majority of the inhabitants, the Commissioneress learnt that they are opposed to the transfer of
    1082
    the island to Germany, because they fear Germany will make a steamboat pier and a way to the bathing island, which will deprive them of the charge of 1s. per head they make for every passenger landed in the island. I must say that a consideration of this kind does not form a sufficient reason why England should retain possession of an island which it is inconvenient she should keep.
    MR. CHANNING: AS the hon. Member has not proposed a practical method of obtaining the opinion of the people of Heligoland, I would suggest that the Government might very well have sent the amiable and accomplished Under Secretary for the Colonies or some other Delegate acquainted with the language to visit Heligoland, in order to ascertain the feelings of the inhabitants. His recent expression of opinion would have given them confidence in stating their views. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) the other night reminded us that during the Franco-German War the Heligolanders declared that they did not wish to do an ill turn to Germany. That was perfectly natural,seeing that the islanders depended then just as they do now on German visitors for their livelihood. However, in reply to the argument of the senior Member for Northampton, I would point to a letter written to the Times in 1876 by a Prussian, who stated that he had been some years in Heligoland, and that, while sympathising with the desire of his countrymen to possess the island, there was not the remotest desire on the part of the islanders to leave English for German rule, and that this absence of sympathy with Germany was proved in the Wars of 1866 and 1871. It is obvious, therefore, that the Heligolanders dislike the transfer. Only a year or two ago they got the Governor to pass a law preventing the Germans from acquiring the land in Heligoland. Their whole wish is to continue free.
    MR. PICTON: Although there may be only 2,000 inhabitants in Heligoland, they are human beings, and human beings, whatever their numbers, have individual rights. You may do as much wrong by ignoring the rights of a dozen people as you could by ignoring the rights of a thousand. I do not think numbers should form an

    1083
    element of consideration. We have heard how some of our leading statesmen have held that the transfer of British subjects to an alien Power should not take place without the consent of the people affected, and I would remind the Committee that we have even the example of foreign countries to guide us in this matter. In the case of the transfer of Savoy to France, a plébiscite of the inhabitants was taken, and I very much regret that in the present case Her Majesty's Government have acted contrary to that principle. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but having voted for the cession of Heligoland on a former occasion, I wish to explain how it is that I shall vote for this Amendment now.
    DR. TANNER: If my hon. Friend goes to a Division in this matter I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby. If the Government wish to be at all fair I think they have an opportunity open to them in connection with this Amendment. It would certainly go far to satisfy my mind if the hon. Gentleman could satisfactorily answer this question: Is it a fact that one of the reasons why Heligoland is to be given up is that, in the event of a war with Germany, Great Britain would not be able to protect the island? If that is the case it would be better to give Heligoland up, and so perhaps save the people from the horrors of war. It seems to me to be a bad mess altogether. It is a case of swop. The Heligolanders have certainly got the worst of it, and some concession ought to be made to their feelings.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think it very doubtful whether we ought to make this agreement dependent upon the assent of the Heligolanders. Heligoland did certainly form part of Germany. [Cries of "Denmark."] Hon. Gentlemen do not seem to remember that there was a union between Holstein, Schleswig, and Denmark. Schleswig, with the full assent of its people, is now a portion of Germany. I really do not see why, in the case of a great Treaty like this, the people should be consulted, or why they should wish to remain British when they are only British by conquest. If they are not a very contemptible set of people, they will certainly wish again to become Ger-
    1084
    mans. We have been told that Mr. This and Mr. That have gone over to Heligoland and whispered to some of the people, and have learnt that they are ready to die rather than desert the British flag. I attach no importance to that sort of thing. If a man's patriotism is of such a character that he dare not come forward and state his views, because he is afraid if he does so he will be unable to let his lodgings to Germans, I do not think we need pay much attention to what he says. I believe these people will be much happier as Germans than as Englishmen. The newspapers tell us that land in Heligoland is going up considerably in price in consequence of this agreement. I have no doubt the people will be able to let their lodgings, or sell their land.
    An hon. MEMBER: And go away.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No; they need not go away. They will take in lodgers. They will stay and prey upon those lodgers. Germany could in a moment oblige these people to declare that they are in favour of belonging to Germany by simply boycotting the island, and declaring they are not going to it in summer. The island absolutely depends on summer visitors there, the fishing amounting really to nothing. These people understand how their bread is buttered. They were afraid at first they would have to pay higher taxes, or be subject to conscription. Directly it became clear to them that neither of these things would happen, as far as I can gather from the public press, and the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, they became anxious to join the German Fatherland. In point of fact, during the Debate on the Second Reading, I cited a very interesting document signed by these British patriots in 1871, in which they declared they would not supply pilots to the French fleet, and said their sympathies were German.
    SIR W. LAWSON: The answer to my hon. Friend is this. If these people are so full of sympathy for Germany, why not let them say so?
    MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the question I put to him.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot suppose that there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to cede any other British possessions?
    MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR: I supposed it possible, because to-night for the first time it has been laid down as a principle that cessions of territory are to be made. We have previously been told that the cession of Heligoland was an exceptional thing.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I was asked whether the principle was to be of universal application, and I said no one ever heard of a British Colony wishing to be separated, but that every case must be dealt with on its merits.
    MR. MACNEILL: Most distinctly these people wished to remain with us, and a more shameful betrayal of the rights of people who have been associated with the British Empire for years can scarcely be recorded. It is not the less a shameful instance because a small one.
    DR. CLARK: I do not support this proposition, because I do not see that we should care any more for the interests of the Heligolanders than we do for the interests of the people of Bechuanaland, and of other South African territory which you are now handing over to Germany.
    (5.32.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 56; Noes 172.—(Div. List, No. 205.)
    MR. ATKINSON: I have an Amendment to propose, which may perhaps occupy only a few minutes. When we conquered Heligoland we made an arrangement that the privileges of the inhabitants should be continued, and one of those privileges was that they should not be called upon to serve in the King's Ships. The clause now before us does not give quite as good terms to them, now that they are transferred to another Protectorate, without any conquering having taken place. The clause is—
    "All persons natives of the territory thus ceded, and their children born before the date of the signature of the present Agreement, are free from the obligation of service in the Military and Naval forces of Germany."
    I wish to add—
    "Service in the Naval forces of Germany shall never become obligatory on persons
    1086
    natives of the territories thus ceded, or their descendants."
    My argument is that you should give them as good terms as they had from us when we conquered the territory. I am perfectly certain, from what I know, that the Emperor of Germany is very much delighted with his bargain. I know that he considers that he has proved to the world that he has done as clever a thing without Bismarck as could have been done if we still had Bismarck. I know that from the attitude he has taken, and from the meteor-like shower of stars and decorations that has taken place since he made this bargain. I believe it is our duty to insist upon the terms we propose, because up to the present time we have had to take care of the interests of the natives of Heligoland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have to point out that this cannot be moved as an Amendment to the Agreement entered into, and which is contained in the Schedule. It may, however, be moved as a proviso to this clause.
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not object so long as it is moved.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after the word "Germany," to add the words—
    "Service in the Naval forces of Germany shall never become obligatory on persons natives of the territories thus ceded, or their descendants."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I fully appreciate the feeling of my hon. Friend which has induced him to make this proposal, but I must remind him that Her Majesty has entered into an Agreement with the Emperor of Germany, and that it is not possible for us now to insert these conditions. We will do what we can to represent to the Emperor of Germany the desirableness of exempting these persons from Naval Service. I have no doubt that the consideration which has been promised for the native laws and customs will have the effect which the hon. Member desires. My hon. Friend will see that one of the conditions is that native laws and customs now existing will, as far as possible, remain undisturbed. And I should certainly imagine that

    1087
    these laws and customs would prevent the Heligolanders for Naval Service under the German Crown. One point my hon. Friend has failed to observe, that every person at present in Heligoland may opt for British nationality, and if he exercise that option he and his children and his grandchildren will be exempt from Naval or Military Service under the Crown. The greatest possible care has been taken to preserve to every person now living in the island the rights which they at present enjoy under the British Crown. I trust, therefore, my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that we will do everything in our power to secure the continuance of those privileges. The inhabitants of Heligoland should take what we have done as some evidence of our concern and desire to secure these privileges for the inhabitants. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. ATKINSON: I wish to point out that what has been done is subject to the assent of Parliament. I, as one Member of Parliament, should not give my assent were I not certain that the Government will do their utmost in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I confess I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can think that a provision with regard to usages and customs is capable of preventing the imposition of the obligation to Military Service. The provision seems to me clearly intended to apply to usages and customs in the nature of local customary law, and not to the Military and Naval Service to which other German subjects are liable. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the rights of a person to opt, a term which I confess I regret to see used, as it is not English, does he mean that the children of that person, born after the signature of the Agreement, will remain of British nationality, their father having elected to remain a British subject? If we are assured that this is so—and no doubt such would be the rule under English law—it will, I think, make a good deal of difference in the opinion of the Committee, and we shall feel less anxiety with regard to Heligoland than we do now.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no doubt at all about the matter. I am perfectly correct in the statement I made
    1088
    in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. We now know by the opinion of German prints that a child born in the German Empire of alien parents is not a German subject, nor, again, his children, though the rights of German nationality may afterwards be acquired. Therefore, the children and grandchildren of those who opt remain British subjects.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think this Amendment is a move in the right direction; but it should apply both to Military and Naval Service. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were not accepted, I should move that the children of the Heligolanders for 20 years should not be liable to Military Service. I am putting the limit at 20 years. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Boston. I would like to point out that the whole contingent from Heligoland for the German Army would, at the rate of one out of every 200 of the population, be only 10 men a year. That is the whole number the German Emperor would lose, if this Amendment were carried, and then the in habitants of dependencies of the British Crown would know in future that they were not liable to be handed over to compulsory Military Service, which is not in accordance with the spirit of the British nationality, excepting in the very last
    MR. ATKINSON: My reply is simply this. I go by the original Agreement in which there is no mention of the Military Service, and, therefore, I could not accept the suggested Amendment to my Amendment.
    DR. CLARK: The Amendment is totally unnecessary. The third clause really gives the Heligolanders everything they could possibly ask, and had they remained Schleswigers they would have been required to give both Military and Naval Service. If these people go back to the Fatherland, they ought to bear the burdens which are imposed on all the other subjects of the German Empire. I shall vote in this case, also, with the Government, if they determine to keep the Agreement as it stands.
    MR. CHANNING: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken as to the position of the Heligolanders. It is perfectly clear that they had a traditional privilege, and that privilege

    1089
    was laid before the English Commanders in 1807, when the island was taken. The evidence in favour of that privilege was so strong, that in the Articles of Capitulation it was agreed that the privilege should be maintained in perpetuity to the population. It is obviously useless to labour the point. I think the matter has been managed in the pettiest and most pusillanimous way by Her Majesty's Government. It would have been far better had they dealt with the matter boldly. We have given Germany an enormous boon in handing over to her this island of immense strategic value, and we might at least have asked that those traditional privileges should be maintained. Are any effective means whatever being taken to make known to this population, which is evidently somewhat behind the times—I am told that there is no current newspaper circulated in the island—as by notices the steps which they ought to take in order to retain British nationality?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am in a position to say that the fullest information has been given to the people of Heligoland of the conditions attached to the Agreement in their favour. I have had separate and independent testimony that, generally speaking, the Heligolanders have expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied; and when there was reason to believe that they were dissatisfied before they were totally unaware of the liberties secured to them.
    MR. MACNEILL: Satisfied! They had only Hobson's choice. In reference to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Boston, I say that the people of Heligoland are entitled to total exemption from Naval Service. By the 10th Article of the Treaty under which Heligoland was capitulated, they had full privilege of exemption; indeed, they enjoyed at that time higher privileges than Englishmen, who were subject to the press gang system. The Heligolanders have behaved well towards us during the interval, and their vested interests and rights should be now guarded to them under this Agreement, unless we are entirely under the thumb of the Germans—perhaps we are.
    MR. BRYCE: I hope the Committee will not divide on this Amend-
    1090
    ment. We have made our protest, and it seems unnecessary to divide.
    MR. ATKINSON: My Amendment was moved with the object of carrying out the Agreement, but having regard to the assurance of the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government will do all they can, I beg to withdraw that Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish now to move my Amendment—
    "Provided Clause 3 be so amended as to include exemption from Naval and Military Service children born of native Heligolanders, within 20 years after the cession of the island."
    Though a more moderate Amendment, it is more substantial than that of the hon. Member for Boston, because the natives would now be more liable to Military than Naval Service. I do not say that we are bound to keep the Heligolanders for ever from the German Empire, but I think the limit of 20 years, which I propose, is a reasonable time. When the German Emperor sees that such a mild Amendment has passed through the House of Commons, and when he remembers that he only loses about 10 men a year, I have no doubt he will accept the proposition.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 15, after the word "Act,"' to insert the words "Provided that clause three of article twelve set forth in the Schedule be so amended as to include in the exemption from military and naval service the children born of native Heligolanders within twenty years after the cession of the island."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words-be there inserted."
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment. Very large privileges have been secured to the people of Heligoland, and these conditions have been guaranteed to the German Government. Let us consider what they are. Every person now in Heligoland will be exempted from compulsory service, and he may also, if he chooses, opt for British nationality, which would extend to his-children and his grand children. I venture to think that the House does not wish to put the Government in such an unworthy position as to go back to the

    1091
    German Emperor to ask for this consideration.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am perfectly astonished to hear the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs talking about what is unworthy. It would be most unworthy not to ask for this condition in the Agreement, and the whole of Europe and America would think it very shameful on our part if we did not ask for it. On what authority does the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs say that the Heligolanders are satisfied? Though he speaks truthfully, yet he is liable to commit a great inaccuracy on the present occasion, and I believe he would find evidence not so absolutely affirmative as he thinks
    MR. ISAACSON: The law has been that children born in a country that has been ceded after the signature to the Treaty, are not entitled to the nationality of their parents. That was laid down some years ago in a case in which I was very much interested, and where the children, born of English parents in Hanover, were not, after the signature to the Treaty of cession, allowed to vote at elections in this country.
    DR. CLARK: I take my standpoint on common sense. The Heligolanders have 18 months further to choose, and if they elect to become German subjects, they have a right to bear the burdens which are imposed on other German subjects. If they desire to be English subjects, then before the 1st January, 1892, they can choose to be British subjects. Everything the Government could ask has been asked, and they ought not to ask for any further privileges.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the tone he has adopted does not tend to facilitate discussion, that we are making a disgraceful bargain, and that the right hon. Gentleman makes no reference to that fact. We are giving up everything for nothing, so let us not hear that this is an Imperial bargain.
    (6.10.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 68; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 206.)
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Mr. Courtney, I wish to move an Amendment, which I venture to think
    1092
    will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The Amendment I wish to move is, in line 17, to leave out the words "that appears to Her Majesty." I think that all the words after the word "Act," in line 15, are really unnecessary on the theory of the Bill which was laid before the House the other night by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who gave to my mind the best explanation that has been afforded of this Agreement. It is really a conveyance, and nothing but a conveyance, of this island to the Emperor of Germany. The Emperor of Germany is advised by very able jurists, who know that the Sovereign power in England is not Her Majesty the Queen but the Imperial Parliament, of which Her Majesty is the head. I can conceive that it has been said to the German Emperor that the reserved power of the British Parliament cast a sort of cloud upon his title to Heligoland, and that it was prudent for him to ask that the assent of Parliament be specifically given to this Instrument. That, I think, to be in substance the view of the Attorney General. I must say it is a very tenable view, and one which removes all constitutional objections which have been taken to it. If that is the real purport of this Agreement, I venture to think that the Act itself ought to be restricted to this specific purpose of the conveyance. If I am right the Act is a mere instrument by which Parliament is co-proprietor of this island; and, therefore, it seems to me that these words, although unnecessary, from my point of view, are harmless. But there is one phrase which appears to me distinctly objectionable, and that is the phrase "that appears to Her Majesty." As a matter of law there can be no doubt that Her Majesty has power to direct that which is necessary for the proper carrying out of this provision. But I submit that the subsection goes further than that, and that it gives to Her Majesty the power to do everything that seems to Her Majesty to be necessary. Now, that is a different thing. Of course, I am entitled to take extreme cases in arguing against those words, and although I do not suppose for a moment that the power would be in any way abused, nevertheless the words, literally construed, would grant powers which this House could not

    1093
    for one moment sanction. I mean that the discretionary power contained in this phrase would make it legal for Her Majesty to do that which would otherwise be illegal.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words"that appears to Her Majesty."—{Mr. E. Robertson)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the words are necessary in order to give Her Majesty a certain amount of discretion in carrying out the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Her Majesty takes such steps as may be advised to be necessary by the Law Officers of the Grown, upon whose discretion the responsibility rests. It is a common form, and not mere surplusage. It does no more than leave with the Executive Government the discretion and responsibility.
    MR. R. T. REID: I do not know that it is a very important point that my hon. and learned Friend has raised, though it seems to me that he is right. I am not aware that it is a common form, though the right hon. Gentleman may be more familiar with the subject than I am. The point is a very short one. It is, whether Parliament has the right to give the Crown a discretionary power. It appears to me that Parliament might take a very different view to the Crown of what is necessary and proper. Unless the phrase is a common form, I do not think it will do any harm to eliminate it.
    MR. MAC NEILL: In what Statute or series of Statutes does this common form appear? I am not aware of it.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): These words leave it to the Crown to judge what is necessary and proper. If they were omitted, the Treaty would have to be carried out under the Courts of Law—a course which would be rather inconvenient.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman—he will excuse me if I say and "learned Gentleman,"—has really given a reason why the Amendment should be accepted. The test to be applied now would be
    1094
    the Common Law. Under the Bill as it is drawn it would be a complete answer to an action to produce a declaration from Her Majesty's Government that it appeared to them to be necessary or proper. I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman has conceded all the substance of our contention.
    SIR J. GORST: Formerly the doctrine was that the Crown could do no-wrong. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Crown can be sued, and therefore can do wrong. The words imply no doubt that the Crown must be the judge of what is right in. carrying out the Act.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have not the same implicit faith in the lawyers as my hon. Friend has, and I think it would be very objectionable indeed to throw the whole matter into the crucible of the Law Courts. I feel bound to vote against the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am very glad indeed that the clause stands as it does, and that due consideration has been given to the inhabitants. But. Heligoland is not the only island whose wishes and feelings should be consulted. There is another island which ought to be consulted, and that is the island of Great Britain. We are not bound to keep an inconvenient and dangerous possession if there are good reasons for giving it up. We, who advocated the cession of Heligoland earlier in the Session, have been accused of desiring to give it up for sentimental reasons. Nothing of the kind. We desire to give it up because it will be better for the country to be without it. Much has been said about the constitutional argument. I am one of those sacrilegious persons who do not care much about the Constitution, and I am glad to have this thing done in any way in which it can be done.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I move to reject the clause altogether. We have not got the consent of the people to this cession. That consent would be usual. We have been acting on the consent of Parliament in a case in which the consent of Parliament was never asked before. We say this is an invasion of the

    1095
    prerogative, and that it is also an invasion of the just rights of the people. This clause is vicious, because, in the first place the executive and legislative functions are jumbled up, and executive functions are, for the first time, given to the House of Commons. Another objection is that you are entering upon this matter hap-hazard. On the 4th of June the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Baron H. de Worms) asked why we should cede Heligoland to Germany, and said we might as well cede Gibraltar to Spain and the Channel Islands to France. How have matters altered since then? They have not altered at all except that, through the working of some power with which we are not acquainted, the Government have completely reversed their position on the question. We get no consideration for this cession. This Agreement, from beginning to end, is illusory. The main features have been fully discussed, but it is well allusion should be made to the words "the native laws and customs now existing will, as far as possible, remain undisturbed." That shows—I scarcely like to say the mala fides —the insincerity of the Agreement. Who is to judge whether the laws shall remain in force? The Germans are to be the judges, and the words "as far as possible" are introduced simply to blind the people of England when giving up to the German Government full jurisdiction over the rights and privileges of the Heligolanders. You are doing an act of injustice to the poor and defenceless, while you are truckling to the great. You have no right to surrender this island as long as the islanders, who have grown up under your protection, do not choose to surrender it, or have not given their consent.
    MR. R. T. REID: It seems to me that the Government have done one good thing, and that is they have introduced a Bill for the purpose of carrying out this cession. I cannot at all assent to the view that it is to the interest of Parliament that these transactions should be carried through by the use of the prerogative of the Crown without consulting Parliament. I hope there will not always be the difficulty in one branch of the Legislature which Liberals have always had to encounter,
    1096
    and I am sure that it is to the interest of the freedom of the country at large that such measures as this should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. I am sorry, on other grounds, the leaders of the Liberal Party have not seen their way to take any part in opposition to this Bill. I believe it will be found that this Bill is objectionable in many ways. Certainly, to my mind, it is objectionable in two ways. When this subject was discussed in June last the Ministers representing the Crown got up in this House and used very strong language indeed against the suggestion that Heligoland should be given up to Germany. That took place at the very time that Her Majesty's Government were actually intriguing for the purpose of ceding Heligoland to the German Emperor. It is a piece of gross indignity to the House of Commons that we should be treated with such an entire want of consideration. I also think that the matter itself of the Treaty is' not so light as some hon. Gentlemen appear to think. We are surrendering territory in Europe. Often hitherto we have surrendered territory in India; but India stands on its own basis. But we are curiously situated all over the world with regard to territory. There are islands and provinces belonging to this country all over the world, where we have contracts with various foreign Powers. Hitherto no foreign Power has endeavoured to make the cession of territory by us to them the basis of any transactions between us. I do not know how long that state of things will continue when it is seen that the cession of European territory can be made the subject of a bargain in the time of profound peace. I am afraid the precedent will not be useful to the interests of the country. We may have serious difficulties with France that may raise the question of the possession of the Channel Islands. Spain may raise a question with regard to Gibraltar. I might amplify this argument, but it is unnecessary to do so. But I feel it is difficult to blame the Government when those whom I had hoped would have assisted us in this matter have not been able to see their way to do so. I must assume that Statesmen of experience are likely to take a different view to myself, but as I entertain the views I have expressed,

    1097
    I thought it only right that I should state them temperately to the Committee.
    MR.LABOUCHERE: I cannot understand why several of my hon. Friends should be so enthusiastic as to the right of the Heligolanders to belong to this country, and as to their allegiance not being passed from one country to another without their absolute assent, while they welcome all the annexations that take place in Africa. It seems to me the men of Africa and Europe stand precisely in the same position. By this Treaty we get certain possessions in Africa, we practically annex them without in any way asking for a plébiscite of the Africans, without asking for their consent. What right have we to do this, and why do not hon. Gentlemen complain of it or protest against it? Why are they so exceedingly zealous with regard to the aspirations, or the supposed aspirations, of the inhabitants of Heligoland to remain British subjects? Upon one point I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and that is the monstrous character of the action of Her Majesty's Government. The First Lord of the Treasury smiles; he is so accustomed to treat us in this monstrous fashion that he laughs if we protest. I cannot help pointing out how monstrous is the conduct of the Government in this case. In June last we took the liberty to suggest that we should not be exceedingly sorry if we parted company with Heligoland, ceased to pay a Governor of the island, and ceased to incur the liability of being obliged to defend Heligoland in the case of a European war. Hon. Gentlemen denounced us as unpatriotic and revolutionary. What is remarkable is that at that very moment Lord Salisbury was treating with a Foreign Power for the cession of Heligoland. What does all this disclose? Why the great evil of the Prime Minister not being a Member of this House, and the still greater evil of a noble Peer, not a Member of this House, being not only Prime Minister but Minister for Foreign Affairs. Under present circumstances it is impossible that we can have any reasonable control over the action of Her Majesty's Government. [The CHAIRMAN: Order!] I gather you think I am travelling beyond the question, therefore I will not pursue the matter. But I
    1098
    hope my words will weigh with Her Majesty's Government, that they will consider well and ponder over any future arrangements, and that they will let us have the Prime Minister in this House, and the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs separate individualities.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Members for Dumfries and Northampton have spoken of the gross inconsistency of the Government resisting in June last the proposed cession of Heligoland, and in now submitting a Bill to sanction the cession. The difference between the position at that time and the present position is so obvious that it is quite unnecessary for me to explain it.
    MR. R. T. REID: The Government not only resisted the Motion, but denounced the injustice and folly of surrendering Heligoland under any circumstances.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: This is not a matter raised for the first time. This matter was brought forward some years ago, when the present Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out how unjust it would be to hand over the people to another State where they would be subject to onerous obligations from which they were then free. It would have been a strong ground of attack and complaint against Her Majesty's Government if provisions had not been introduced into the Treaty to give relief to the Heligolanders. The hon. Member for Northampton was willing to give over Heligoland, and without an equivalent.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I never said so.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: There was clearly no question last June of an equivalent for the cession of Heligoland, and there was then no question of immunities for the Heligolanders. Even if at that time the cession had been determined upon—and it had not—is it not evident that it would have been in the highest degree impolitic to have acceded to such a Motion in the midst of pending negotiations.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am totally unable to understand why the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs says that in June it was proposed to give up Heligoland without an equivalent. I had the honour of raising the question in June, and I alluded to the fact that negotiations regarding Africa were then going on, and I suggested that Heligoland might be traded away in those

    1099
    negotiations. Later on in the Debate the hon. and gallant Member for Galway emphasised that view. No doubt, negotiations were necessary, but if the right hon. Baronet was a responsible man of the Government, we should complain that he not only refused to accept our Motion, but used the strongest language in regard to the utter folly and absurdity of people who made any such proposal.
    MR. CHANNING: My hon. Friend has established his case and clearly shown that the Ministry and the Tory Party in this transaction have walked humbly and meekly under the Caudine Forks in adopting the suggestion made by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Mid Cork. We can trace plainly enough what has been the origin of this proposal. If we look back we find that the Ionian Islands cession was due to the fact that the English Government wished to strengthen, and strengthen in a righteous way, the power of the young King of Greece, but I venture to say that when the historian records these events, he will say that the feeblest and flabbiest Foreign Minister who has ever held power in this country deliberately handed over one of the European possessions of the Crown, to gratify the vanity and increase the pride of the young German Emperor. Resistance to this Bill is not merely due to the fact that the wish of the Heligolanders should be respected, but I do think that the important opinions which have been expressed by the highest authorities on the strategic value of the island to Germany deserve fuller consideration from Her Majesty's Government than they have received. Admiral Von Werner, one of the greatest naval authorities in Germany, has said recently in an article in the German Press that the cession of Heligoland amounts to a subsidy of more than 10 or 12 million marks a year to Germany, and will enable Germany to set free 10 to 15 battleships for operations elsewhere. If that is the measure of the gift which has been given to the German Emperor, for dynastic and not Imperial reasons, I might almost say for family reasons, history will record that the Prime Minister has not been the happiest and the most firm of Foreign Ministers. I am reminded of the remark Prince Bismarck once made of the Prime
    1100
    Minister—"Lord Salisbury is a bending reed, painted to look like a bar of iron"—and I think these events prove the correctness of the opinion of Prince Bismarck.
    DR. TANNER: I desire to point out that the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to refuse the salary of the Governor of Heligoland was upon the Paper some time before the Vote came up in Supply on the 4th June. Why was not the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs prepared to do his duty to the House? He was the Representative of the Foreign Office, and, presumably, was in communication with the Premier. He had ample opportunity of going to the Premier, and of finding out what was being done with regard to Heligoland. I feel for the right hon. Baronet in the humiliating position the Premier put the right hon. Baronet. Personally, I am delighted that Heligoland is going to be given up. I tried on two or three occasions to bring the matter forward, and I am glad to see that the present Premier, although not always of our way of thinking, has, at least, adopted the suggestion of a humble Irish Nationalist. I shall certainly give my vote most heartily in support of Her Majesty's Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have put down an Amendment to this clause, and also to the Preamble, with the object of limiting the Bill to a cognisance of the Heligoland cession, but, on consideration, I think it is a good thing that Agreements like the Anglo-German Agreement should be brought within the cognisance of Parliament. I will not move the Amendment, but will take the opportunity of the Motion for the Third Reading to make some general observations.
    DR. CLARK: The Amendment referred to is one I am able to support; and if my hon. Friend does not move it, I will. If the Amendment is accepted, I shall not be compelled to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I thoroughly approve of the Heligoland cession, but I very strongly disapprove of the Anglo-German Agreement. As to South Africa, the Government have been humbugged by the Germans.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "Anglo-German Agreement" and insert "Heligoland Cession."—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question, "That the words 'Anglo-German Agreement' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. BRYCE: It deserves remark that the Government have committed the strange breach of diplomatic regularity and correctness of phrase of speaking of Emperor William as the Emperor of Germany, while his proper title is the German Emperor. The title is one which was deliberately adopted, for strong, political, and historical reasons, when the present German Empire was established.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The title "Emperor of Germany" was used by the desire of the German Foreign Office. "German Emperor" is the title which will be employed in this country.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time. The Bill has, I think, been very fully discussed, and there are very few questions that can be left to be raised upon it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have no objection to the Bill being read a third time; but when the right hon. Gentleman says the Bill has been fully discussed in all its aspects, I must differ from him entirely. For the first two days almost the whole of our time was devoted, not to the merits or demerits of the Bill, but to a high constitutional question connected with the Bill, and raised by a great authority in this House, and those of us who took an interest in the matters in the Bill itself had no opportunity of speaking. On the second night of Debate, when we were approaching the Bill itself, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby again raised the constitutional question. Although I do not wish to
    1102
    detain the House at length, I wish to make a few observations, not in reference to Heligoland, which has been well discussed, but upon those matters which you, Sir, have ruled to be in order, the equivalent for Heligoland in Africa. I am not altogether satisfied with the bargain Her Majesty's Government have made, for I think they have got too much for Heligoland, too large a slice of Africa. It seems to me that our position with Heligoland is something like that of a man who has a horse in his stable—absolutely useless to him—"eating his head off," and he puts him in the market, willing to take a few shillings from a knacker, and with the chance of somebody taking a fancy to the animal and giving a good price for him, and is fortunate to secure this purchaser. I am not going to find fault with the Agreement. I regret the observations which have tended to encourage the impression that in this matter we have tried to enter into a special alliance with Germany to conciliate the German Emperor. In my view, it would be most undesirable to do anything of the kind. I wish for amicable arrangements, not only with Germany, but with France, and with all other nations. In justice to the Foreign Secretary and Under Secretary, I do not think that they are open to the accusation that they have at all truckled to Germany; they have not got into trouble with their own Jingo followers as in reference to the New Hebrides. I thing we have, to a certain extent, got too much of Africa, more than is good for us. In exchange for a useless horse we have got a sort of elephant, as it were, not a white one exactly, but a wild one, and which requires catching. I am a little uneasy about this huge tract of Africa in exchange for a little island we were ready enough to get rid of at any price. I am somewhat uneasy, too, not as regards the actual delimitation made by the Agreement, but in regard to special words used that carry our minds down to the confines of Egypt. We thought the limit of Egypt was Wady Haifa, but a dangerous question is suggested by the words and raised already by the African Company, whether they mean we are to extend our influence all round and take in not only the equatorial provinces of Emin Pasha, but even Khartoum. I have heard that Nubar Pasha has ex-

    1103
    pressed his surprise that we should be seeking to come from the South-East to occupy that very equatorial country we formerly divested ourselves of. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will give us to understand that we are not going to take under our control the whole of these vast provinces of Africa which we are at liberty to control, so far as Germany is concerned, under this Agreement. I think we ought to have some consideration for that noble ally of ours—Italy —and come to an agreement with Italy which will leave ample scope for Italian energy and genius an Africa. I do hope that the desire to conciliate Jingo votes will not lead Her Majesty's Government into imprudence. I am afraid the wording of the Agreement will be construed into support of the extravagant claims of those Jingo gentlemen who think enormous additions of African territory are given to the Chartered Companies. I see the advocates of the East African Company claim that 750 square miles of territory have been given to them. But who has given this to them? We have made limitations as between ourselves and Germany, but I see nothing in these limitations which gives these African Companies any right to acquire equatorial provinces and the country up to Khartoum. I see one advocate claims that the country from Wadelai up to the Congo State is thrown open to them. But licence to grab land in this way has not been confirmed by Parliament, and the consent of Parliament is surely required. No doubt we shall be told that certain territories have been acquired by Mr. Stanley, who has made over certain Treaties. In this respect, I think, when the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian come to be studied in the interior of Africa, as I am sure they are in all civilised and uncivilised countries, they may cause great alarm. I understand that African lawyers have an opinion that their chiefs have not the power to make away with territories for a few bottles of rum or gin. I am given to understand that under the Constitutional Law of Africa, those who have acquired territory under Treaties with pretended chiefs have no real title until the Treaty is confirmed by an African Parliament of the representatives of the African people. I have
    1104
    not the least doubt that the constitutional doctrine of this country may be misconstrued as applied to Africa, and that force and significance are given to Treaties which are utter trash without the consent of this African Parliament. The East African Company makes claim to enormous territory and hopes to get enormous dividends, but have they sufficient force to occupy the country and maintain dominion? Is there not fear of their being dragged into too great responsibilities? We know they have a subscribed capital of £180,000, the dividend upon which they are going for the present to take out in philanthropy, and I do not doubt that much of the capital was subscribed from motives into which philanthropy enter considerably; but to command and develop these immense regions, millions of money are required. Where is this money to be found? I am alarmed at the manner in which the East African Company rejoice over these great possessions and boast of their own concessions, and at once suggestions are made that Her Majesty's Government should help them to construct a railway. But who knows the physical difficulties in the way? It is very easy to take a small map of Africa and say we will make a railway from that point to this, but the character of the country is almost unknown. This East African Company have not reached Lake Victoria from the coast, and do not know what the country is. One gentleman, I understand, has found his way to Lake Victoria; but as he has not come back yet, we do not know the result of his journey. At the meeting of the company the other day it was announced that he had to cross passes 9,000 feet high, a greater height than the Alpine railways have had to traverse. If I remember rightly, the St. Gothard and Mont Cenis passes are somewhere about 7,000 feet high, and this railway talked of with a light heart presents enormous difficulties in a mountainous region. I am alarmed, I say, when I hear the company suggest pecuniary assistance from Her Majesty's Government to assist their operations in these vast regions. There is another view of the case some of my hon. Friends take very strongly; and I think there is no doubt that, in order to acquire, I will not

    1105
    say the right to territory, but between ourselves and Germany large hunting grounds in the North-Eastern portion of Africa, we have made perhaps less valuable terms in South Africa. To a certain extent, the interests of the South African people have been sacrificed. I do not sympathise with the Jingo aspirations of Cape Colony or any South African Colony. I entirely subscribe to what was said by the Under Secretary in this respect. I think that our colonies there have quite enough to do to look after their own, and that we are not called upon to make large acquisitions of territory for their gratification; but I must say I should very much prefer, looking at our direct route to India, that if any African Empire is to be constituted it should be in the South rather than that we should enter into the dangers connected with the Northern regions. I should be satisfied with a desire to establish in the South an Imperial dominion such as that in India. I am led to take that view by the perusal of the small book in regard to Basutoland. We know that Cape Colony undertook to manage the territory and failed, and got defeated by the Basutos; but now we have the Report showing the success of Imperial management. I believe if we established an Imperial dominion in the South it would be a success, but, at the same time, I admit there are very grave reasons to doubt if Her Majesty's Government would have had the courage, and, therefore, I am content that our delimitation in South Africa should remain what it is. Just a word more on the question of Zanzibar. I believe a mistake has been made in the wording of the Treaty, and that not sufficient regard has been had to the sensitiveness of France in connection with the Treaty of 1862. I hope it may be merely a matter of wording, but I could have wished it had been made clear that our arrangement with Germany does not shut out an arrangement with Prance. I confess it seems to me that the position of England and Germany towards Zanzibar is akin to that of two robbers, who, having stripped a man of all that belongs to him, discuss who shall protect him. We have allowed Germany the most valuable part of the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and we take the remainder.
    1106
    As a matter of fact, the Protectorate of Zanzibar resolves itself into nothing more than a Protectorate of those two islands. What I object to is that the arrangement which has been made is one which will entail upon this country enormous responsibilities fraught with much trouble and difficulty, and from which we shall derive little or no advantage. I think, Sir, that this Bill has within it dangerous responsibilities, and I, for one, do not feel at all easy with regard to the bargain which has been made.
    MR. BRYCE: I do not intend on this occasion to repeat the observations that I have made upon the policy of this Agreement in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. But I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government a question of practical importance with regard to the steps that have been taken to preserve Free Trade on the Zanzibar Coast. By the Act of Berlin of 1885 a considerable area, not only on the West side of Africa, but also on the East, extending from lat. 5° N., to the mouth of the Zambesi in lat. 18° S., was declared to be open to the trade of all nations. And the 8th Article of the present Agreement constitutes an engagement as between England and Germany in their respective spheres to promote complete free trade as contemplated by the Act of Berlin in all those parts of Africa to which the Agreement applies and to which the Berlin Act applies. It is within the knowledge of the House that there is a very large trade between Zanzibar and British India, and there has been considerable alarm among our British subjects in India as regards the effect of the cession of the coast line by the Sultan of Zanzibar to Germany. The idea entertained among the British India merchants, and also among merchants here, is that it will be in the power of the German Government, notwithstanding what would seem to be the obvious meaning of the present Agreement, to establish Customs Houses on the East Coast and so stop freedom of trade on the mainland of Africa. Her Majesty's Government have not made any declaration on this subject. The question I put to them on the Second Reading of the Bill has not been answered by them. I trust we shall, on

    1107
    this occasion, receive a satisfactory answer on this point. It is a matter of the utmost consequence to Englishmen and to our fellow-subjects in India that there should be the fullest freedom of trade on the East Coast of Africa, all protective tariffs, and especially all differential rates, being forbidden; and if we can only obtain from the Government an absolute guarantee on this point, we shall probably be less disposed to criticise the other points of the Agreement.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of the evening distinctly stated that the German Foreign Office had expressly stipulated that in the English translation of the Agreement the German Emperor should be called the Emperor of Germany. The right hon. Gentleman must have been under some mistake in the matter, because I have never yet heard of a potentate who was not recognised by a particular title in his own country assuming that title in his diplomatic relations with foreign countries. In the German version of the Agreement the Emperor is called "Der Deutscher Kaiser," which means the German Emperor, and he is not the Emperor of Germany. I think that a Treaty submitted to the English Parliament for its approval ought to be an exact translation of the original. We might as well call him the Emperor of Timbuctoo as the Emperor of Germany, and I submit that we ought not to be called upon to use a phrase which is simply due to a mistranslation which has taken place in the Foreign Office.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I assure the hon. Member for Northampton that I have been perfectly right in what I have stated; that it was at the request of the German Foreign Office that the phrase has been translated "the Emperor of Germany." In all future documents, as far as this country is concerned, the term "German Emperor" will be used. As to freedom of trade, no doubt, under the new arrangements, some of the existing mainland commerce will be diverted through the German ports; but Her Majesty's Government are assured that the Germans will gladly welcome the presence of British Indians in those ports. There are remarkable facilities
    1108
    for trade in that part of the country, and it would be in the highest degree unwise, and very unlike the Germans, if they were to discourage trade coming from any legitimate source. I hope that the East Africa Company will have a great future before them, and that they will not risk their prosperity by offending against the prejudices or the customs of the native population.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: It has been stated that Free Trade through the German sphere of influence has not been obtained, and apparently it will not be possible to send goods from Lake Tanganyika to the Victoria Nyanza without their having to pass through German territory, and being subject to whatever dues the Germans may impose.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: There will be absolute Free Trade between Tanganyika and the Victoria Nyanza.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I am very glad to hear that that is the case; but I think that in addition to that the Government ought to endeavour, as far as possible, to secure that Free Trade should generally prevail throughout the German sphere of influence.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am afraid the House does not fully appreciate the observations that have fallen from the hon. Member for Aberdeen with regard to the modification of the Berlin Act. It turns out that one of the results of the Agreement is that we are practically shutting up a large portion of the interior of Africa, which was supposed to be insured to English trade, from anything in the shape of Free Trade in the future. We have obtained a most important port on the East Coast with which our Indian trade is principally connected, but the value of that acquisition will be materially affected if we are to be deprived of the opportunity of Free Trade with the interior of Africa. I think it unfortunate that this point did not crop up much earlier in this discussion, because we should have elicited fuller and more complete explanations than we are likely to obtain at the present moment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I beg to move the omission from Clause 2, page 2, line 8, of Subsection 2.—Agreed to.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I beg to move the omission from Clause 2, page 2, line 11, of the words "a sum not exceeding 40"in order to insert the words "the sum of 90." I hope the Committee will extend its indulgence to me, because it is impossible that this Amendment can be adequately discussed unless it is placed in clear contrast with an Amendment which stands lower down in the Paper, in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The situation, in fact, is this—the ingenious financial schemes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tempered and modified by the hazards of the legislative Session, have resulted in placing before us the sum of £50,000, which has to be expended somehow or other in Scotland, and our business is to find not only a good and beneficial object for its expenditure, but the object which shall be the most beneficial and the most agreeable to the wishes of the Scottish people. I, therefore, have to show that my proposal is better than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that the Chairman will turn a blind eye on any references which it may be necessary to make to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I have, however, first of all to make out a case for my own proposal, which is that the sum now available should be devoted to freeing from payment of fees the entire system of primary education in Scotland. It is a proposal that has been standing on the Paper in the name of several of my hon. Friends, to whose courtesy I am indebted for allowing me to come before them—a proposal put forward as an alternative to what was originally intended by Her Majesty's Government. It is, in fact, but the development, and the necessary development, of the principle for which many of us have con-
    1110
    tended ever since this question of Local Government and Local Finance has come under the review of Parliament. But in order that the Committee, and especially such Members as may not have followed the course of Scottish affairs, may understand the precise present position of this question, I should like to make a brief reference to the facts of its history during the last Session of Parliament. The moment it became known that a large sum from the Probate Duty was available for the relief of local burdens in Scotland, several of my hon. Friends put forward free education as the first demand to be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen issued a statement of the case, formed a Committee, and did all he could to concentrate public opinion upon the question; and it soon became apparent that there was a strong current of opinion in Scotland in favour of the abolition of school fees, and that any other proposal had no chance of public favour. And this need not surprise us, because while the pressure of this burden is more irksome and more widely spread among the poorest classes of the community than that of any other local burden, we must, at the same time, remember that there has always been a traditional sentiment in Scotland in favour of a widely diffused system of education, and especially of primary education, and that sentiment strongly and very obviously accepted this destination of the money as the best that could be adopted. This current of feeling was in no sense of a political character. Members on the other side of the House fell in with it, and we were all gratified to find when the Local Government Bill was introduced that the Government had recognised the sentiment, and proposed to meet it by a considerable relief of school fees. But the Government proposed to go only to a very modest and timid extent. They proposed to confine the relief to the lowest three standards. It was generally felt that such a concession would be altogether inadequate, and that it would probably do more harm than good. It was thought it would do substantial injury to the interests of education, because it would throw on the whole of the advanced standards a great degree of prejudice and discouragement, and,

    1111
    therefore, last Session the whole I machinery of Parliament pressure was brought to bear on the Government to egg them on to grant as large an amount of money for the purpose of free education as they had at their disposal. These efforts were successful. In fact, we succeeded in getting transferred to the purpose of free education a large sum of money which was intended for the very object of direct relief of rates, to which this money is now proposed to be devoted. In the end a Minute of the Scotch Education Department was issued, abolishing fees for the three lower standards, and for as much of the 4th and 5th standards as the money available would be sufficient for. This is, I believe, an accurate and impartial account of what occurred; but what was our surprise when we went down to the country after the Session was over, and the severities of the Autumn campaign commenced—a campaign which turns what is still by convention called a holiday into the most hard-working portion of the whole year for the unfortunate Member of Parliament—to discover that we had been entirely mistaken, that the activity of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) and his friends was nothing but a dream, and that it was not the case that the Scottish people, and still less the Scottish Members, had forced Her Majesty's Government step by step to enter upon and develop this policy. We were assured, on the platforms and in the Press, by the supporters of the Government, that they were the true authors of the policy of free education, and that any apparent reluctance they had shown in making these advances was only their way of dissembling their zeal, and this view was confirmed when the Prime Minister said that he was in a state of impatient expectation for the time when if the Budget was favourable and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good-natured, he would extend to benighted England those blessings of free education which he and his Colleagues had already spontaneously given to Scotland. I am not concerned to inquire into the question, interesting as it may be, to whom credit is due for this thing, but I want the thing to be done, and I want it to be done thoroughly and at once, and
    1112
    that is why I move this Amendment. I am glad, at the same time, in moving it, to afford an opportunity to the Government and their friends, which, no doubt, they have been longing for, of justifying and confirming all those fine phrases and declarations which they made so freely last Recess. I have stated how Parliament left this question. But what have the School Boards of Scotland done? They were obliged, as I have said, to abolish all fees in Standards I., II., and III., and more or less in Standards IV. and V., and they were free in the matter of remitting the rest. What has happened is this: In 2,265 schools, fees have been abolished up to and including Standard V., in 100 schools up to and including Standard VI., and in 674 schools the fees have been abolished for all scholars. I would ask, Can anyone conversant with Scotland doubt that the 674 schools in which all fees have been abolished have the sympathy and approval of the great mass of the people in that country? Can anyone doubt that the 2,265 other schools would have followed that good example if it had not been that they were timid as to the financial result? And they were timid with good reason, because, unfortunately, many of the schools which were bold enough to abolish fees altogether, with the full approval and consent of the School Board constituents, found that they could not make both ends meet, and the Boards were compelled to impose a rate. Now, that is the position of things at present in Scotland. There are some, of course, who will say that we should stop short in this matter at the compulsory standards, and that there is no need to dispense with fees where attendance is voluntary. I do not know whether that is the line which the Government propose to take. Of course, everyone can see that there exists, in the one case, an argument that does not exist in the other. The argument is this—you compel a man to send his child to school, and it is too bad to impose on him the burden of a fee, but when he has an option in the matter, as in the case of the voluntary standards, it may be asked, Where is the hardship of a fee. My answer to that is, that, although there is a necessary limit to the compulsion exercised by the State, there is no

    1113
    limit whatever to the encouragement that ought to be given by the State, and that if at a certain period of a child's school career there is introduced the new element of a fee, you may depend upon it that you at once indicate discouragement even if you do not actually discourage from further attendance. Let the Committee consider for a moment how this works and what it involves. A child, I presume, when it has passed the fifth standard may be 10 years old. If it is discharged at that age from further attendance, not only is it debarred from the higher and further branches of learning, but by the lack of exercise it loses to a great extent all it has learned. We in Scotland are not, and have never been, devotees of the three R's. We have never believed that reading, writing, and ciphering are the whole educational duty of man. We have never feared to spoil our people with over knowledge. We have in our mind the traditional idea so often quoted of the ladder with its feet in the parish school and its upper steps in the University. That is the reason why we refuse to stop short at the compulsory standards, and why we will never rest until the scheme is complete. Now, I proceed to ask, "Can we do this?" The total amount sacrificed by the extinction of fees in these standards may be put at from £330,000 to £340,000. The amount -available last year was £250,000, so that there is a deficit of £80,000 or £90,000. The Government, under this Bill, propose to give £40,000. The Committee will see, then, that here is a gap in our educational system crying aloud to be filled up. Here is a great national purpose, a beneficent, necessary, and even vital purpose, waiting for a windfall of money to meet it, and here is a windfall of the exact sum required tumbling accidentally into the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and which we ask them to devote for this purpose. We have, let me say, no Party, or sinister, or selfish motive in moving this Amendment or making this recommendation. It is odd that I should have to say this, but we constantly are accustomed to have imputed to us the worst Parliamentary and political vices. We are supposed to be degrading Parliament, and to be anxious to bring about the dismemberment of the Empire,
    1114
    and I do not know what. This view of our conduct could not be better expressed than it was by the Home Secretary, on Saturday last, in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be much more triumphant in Birmingham than he has ever been in this House, had the audacity to say of us, amongst many other complimentary things:—
    "I ask you, if ever you meet those who differ with you in political opinion, to contrast the condition of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, and to challenge them to tell you what their Party have done except obstruct. What measure have they ever improved? What useful suggestion have they ever made? Their function has been to delay all useful legislation, to hamper the action both of the Government and the law, to waste the public time, to degrade Parliament."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Hear, hear!
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: That is the opinion of the Home Secretary. Why, there is not one of his Bills which is not made up of the suggestions he has received from this side of the House. He goes down into the country and boasts of the Bills he has passed, but he cannot point to one as to which he has not received a useful suggestion from this side of the House. Having been challenged in this way, and told that we never make useful suggestions, I think I am in order in pointing out that here at least is one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that no secret had been made on this side of the House of the object to which we think this money ought to be applied. We have told the Government that in this way they can gain credit and popularity, and make capital, if you like, if they choose to do so. They have not acted on that hint or advice, and it seems to me to be somewhat strange conduct for right hon. Gentlemen, who a few months ago expressed themselves as eaten up with a burning zeal in the cause of free education, to be obstinately resolved that, whatever else is done, this is a thing they will not do. Now I come to the other part of the question, and I wish to point out that it is not as if there were a great many other national purposes in Scotland to which this money could at present be devoted. Free education is not surrounded by a great number of competing attractions. I know, in

    1115
    fact, of no other subject fulfilling the conditions of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been troubled, like Paris, with the beauties of contending goddesses. His choice is rather Hobson's choice. This is the only thing he can reasonably do with the money. The right hon. Gentleman has been for some weeks engaged in trying to find some other purpose to which to devote the money. It was shortly after Whitsuntide that the Licensing Clauses were withdrawn, and it was only on Monday that he could tell us what he is going to do with this money. And what is he going to do with it? He has ransacked Scotland from one end to the other to find some purpose to which he can devote the money, and although here before him is this great national purpose, he thrusts this £50,000 literally into the waste basket.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It goes in relief of local taxation.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In relief of local taxation! I have this personal advantage, that I have sat at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman in this very matter of the relations between Imperial and local finance. I was an inexperienced Member of the House of Commons during the years from 1868 to 1871, when the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Local Government Board—or, as it was then called, the Poor Law Board—and I listened with reverential awe to the doctrines he propounded, and absorbed his financial doctrines into my political fibre. One of the right hon. Gentleman's canons consisted in pointing out the evil effects of general subsidies in aid of local taxation. He urged that they led to extravagance and mal-administration; that a definite object ought to be kept in view in giving such grants; and that it should be a definite single tax which should be so devoted, and not a haphazard sum of money out of the general taxation fund.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is really not representing my views. These are not propositions I laid down.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am representing my recollection of them. If he repudiates these principles I shall be very much astonished to hear him do
    1116
    so. Another point of the right hon. Gentleman's was that the money in relief of local taxation ought to be derived front the owners, if possible.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection is again wrong-That is an entire, involuntary misrepresentation of my views. The right hon. Gentleman said he absorbed my canons;. he seems to have exuded them.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know whether I acquired these views by endosmosis or by ecdosmosis; but these were the general lines of financial doctrine that the right hon. Gentleman then propounded. They are in my very distinct recollection. The right hon. Gentleman now proposes to do that which conflicts with everyone of the principles I have alluded to. He takes a part of tax which is paid by the consumer, instead of taking a totally definite and distinct tax; and besides that he does not devote the money to any definite purpose, but merely hands it over to the County Councils and Town Councils that they may do with it what they like.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any passage in which I said that these contributions from new taxes ought to be devoted to a particular object, and not to the relief of general rates?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is my impression. I confess I am speaking from recollection, and if the right hon. Gentleman repudiates that doctrine, I will admit that he never propounded it. What I wish to submit to the right hon. Gentleman is whether, in proposing to hand over this money in this loose and slovenly fashion to the County Councils and Town Councils in Scotland, he is not really handing it in the main to the landowners, and not to the great body of the ratepayers. At any rate that is so in the counties. The right hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the general county rate is a consolidated rate—a stereotyped rate, and so long as the expenditure does not exceed the stereotyped limit the whole of that expenditure is paid by the owners. Therefore, the whole of the relief will be given to the owners, if the County Councils choose so to apply the money. I do not say they will do so in all cases. It may be asked, "Why should you object to relieving the ratepayers?" Well, I

    1117
    do not object to relieving the ratepayers on the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do object to it in this loose fashion. Last year the Scotch Members deliberately and almost unanimously urged the Committee, and the Committee agreed, to transfer to remission of school fees large sums of money originally intended to go in relief of rates, and that was done with the entire approval of the country. And this is the very proceeding, the freeing of education, for which the Government took so much credit during the autumn of last year. I have little more to say. I appeal to the Committee to deal with this question as a Scotch question, and in accordance with the views of the Scottish people, and with the circumstances and necessities of Scotland. My proposal will not be questioned or objected to in any part of Scotland. I will not do the English people the discredit of saying that even they would not prefer to the mere naked brutal relief of rates in the indiscriminate fashion which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, a definite relief given to the heavy burden of school fees with all the educational impulses which would necessarily follow. I am well content to set the two objects clearly before the Committee and the country and to leave it to their judgment. These are the two alternative purposes to which the money can be applied. The application of the money proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer sins, as I think, and as I think he himself would have admitted 20 years ago, against sound principles of finance. The relief afforded will be inappreciable, and it is not asked for by the very bodies who will receive it. It will benefit most the class which least requires it. On the other hand, the destination of the money which I ask the Committee to approve is eagerly desired by the Public Bodies who will have the distribution of the money. It will benefit the most hardly pressed class in the community, it will save many a poor man from the temptation of failing to do justice to the capacity of his children, and, at the same time, it will maintain and vindicate that faith in the widest diffusion of learning which has been long a happy characteristic of the Scottish people. (8.35.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words "a sum not exceeding forty," and insert the words "the sum of ninety,"—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'a sum not exceeding forty' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I have no desire to-traverse the ground so ably traversed by my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, but I do desire to express sympathy with that Amendment on general terms, while indicating one or two reasons for its acceptance. In their own interests I think it is desirable the Government should accept the Amendment. They have already dealt, to the great satisfaction of the people of Scotland, with this question of the abolition of school fees, and it would greatly redound to their credit if they would complete the good work to which they have set their hand, and earn the gratitude of the people of Scotland to the full extent as they already have to a certain degree. This proposition is put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an alternative, and surely it is a great pity that he should propose to fritter away this money by handing it over to Local Authorities, while the work commenced stands in need of completion. I think we have the sympathy of the Lord Advocate in this matter. I do him the justice of assuming that, if he had his own free way, he would be glad to support this Amendment, but, owing to the exigencies of office, he has to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not do him the injustice to suppose that he is not in sympathy with the desire to confer this boon upon the people of Scotland. I may urge the proposal on Conservative grounds. We wish to look back to a state of matters such as existed in Scotland in days long gone past. We have heard from right hon. Gentlemen glorifications of John Knox, and here is an opportunity to carry out, on Conservative grounds, with application to modern, interests and requirements, the grand doctrine of John Knox, that education in Scotland should be free. The Government should think themselves fortunate in having this £90,000 available for the

    1119
    purpose, and devote it to the completion of the work they have begun. It would be a graceful thing to do, and would be in accordance with the principles they professed. I need scarcely insist upon how much this is wished for by the people of Scotland. I think it has been sufficiently shown that these school fees are exigible from poor parents just at the time when they are least able to bear the payment, and no relief of taxation will give relief when it is so much needed. I will not retort upon the Government the adaptability to circumstances they have exhibited in regard to this money. I shall be perfectly content to forego all such remarks if they will only accept the Amendment. Let them complete this work, with the commencement of which their administration is already connected, and the Government will leave an excellent monument behind them to declare that, whatever their short-comings in other respects, at least, they did this good thing for Scotland, and to meet the clear wish of the Scotch people. As regards the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this money should be given to County Councils, Town Councils, and Police Burghs, I think the amount is so infinitesimal, when it comes to be divided, that really I may say it will have no effect at all in giving relief to localities. It has also been pointed out by my right hon. Friend that the rate that has to be paid now to County Councils, and I refer particularly to County Councils, the effect being very small in burghs, that the rate is a Consolidated Bate, and the money going to the reduction of this would relieve the landlords and larger ratepayers, and would not reach the poorer ratepayers at all. Give it to the relief of school fees, and you apply direct relief to the poorer classes. I think this has not been sufficiently taken into account, for I am sure it is the poorer ratepayers the Government would desire to relieve. I also appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to stand too much upon his dignity in this matter, now that it has been made clear to him what the motives of the people of Scotland really are. It was due to him that this should be made clear, and I appeal to him on the broad ground that he should assist the Scotch people to maintain their educa-
    1120
    tional position in the world. The Government proposition is that the distribution of this money should be according to valuation, and that, of course, means that the locality showing the larger valuation gets the larger share, and it is obvious that on this principle the apportionment will not be according to needs. Speaking for my own constituency, the part of the country with which I am best acquainted, I am certain, from the expressions of opinion at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act, that the feeling of the people is heartily in favour of free education not only for compulsory standards, but in the rural districts there is a strong desire for the application of the principle to higher education, that they may have a share in secondary education, such as is within reach of the inhabitants of burghs. I have still a hope the Government may accept the Amendment, but if not I shall have great pleasure in giving it the support of my vote.
    MR. M. J. STEWART: There can be no question that the Conservative and Unionist Party were quite agreed in giving free education to the people of Scotland, and the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that every conceivable piece of legisla-lation should be thrown to the winds until the Irish Home Rule Bill was carried show that we should have heard nothing about free education if a Liberal Government had been elected on the last occasion. I must say, therefore, I am surprised to hear the vaunting statements of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man) to the effect that free education was forced from the Government by Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to distrust the County Councils and the Local Councils in the burghs. One would imagine, after listening to many platform speeches in Scotland, that Gentlemen opposite were willing to trust the County Councils with anything; but I hold that we on this side of the House are really more anxious to show our trust in them than they are. We wish to say to the County Councils, "You know your districts. We give you

    1121
    £50,000 amongst you. Do with it what you please."
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I make no complaint about the impartiality of the County Councils. What I complained of was that they were tied down to the Consolidated Rate.
    MR. M. J. STEWART: I maintain that my argument is strictly correct. I think we ought not to stint our trust in the County Councils in this House. We have given them very large powers already, and we wish to increase these powers, step by step. The hon. Member said the Lord Advocate had given way on this question, and then he made an appeal to him to give way further. I maintain that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken the proper course on this question. He is not going to consider one class only, but to give the money to the County Councils, for the benefit of all classes. There are many questions in the counties which require money in order that they may be properly dealt with, such as the parochial rates and the rates for roads, which press hardly upon tenant farmers and small proprietors. There is a tendency in many counties to expend more than has been spent, and if that expenditure can be reduced by £50,000, proposed to be devoted to the ratepayers, so much the better, not only for the proprietors but for every other class in the counties. This is just one of those question where, when one class benefits, all classes benefit. There has been no strong expression of opinion in Scotland in favour of getting this money for education, whereas there have been strong representations on the other side, and I, therefore, think the Government are taking the right course. I have not received a single letter in favour of handing over the £50,000 for free education. I hope the Government will stand by the proposals, and will not be led away by any specious arguments on the other side.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: The hon. Member has talked about trusting the County Councils. Will he and the Government agree to let the County Councils expend this £50,000 on any good purpose they, in their discretion, think wise? If not, what becomes of the hon. Member's argument about trusting the County Councils? The fact is, that the hon. Member, with his Con-
    1122
    servative views, wishes that this money should be tied down for distribution by the wealthier part of the ratepayers, as a relief fund for themselves. That is really what it comes to, and the people of Scotland will be able to judge respecting the views the hon. Member entertains as to the discretion of the County Councils. I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for the courteous assistance he has given me in seeking to obtain information as to the destiny of this £50,000. The right hon. Gentleman has been clear and courteous in the answers he has given to my questions on the subject, and has, thereby, I think, enabled us to obtain a clearer issue than would otherwise have been the case before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it is within the discretion of the County Councils to apply the whole of this £50,000 to relieve the landlords and proprietors of Scotland from the obligations they took up last year in regard to the Consolidated Rate. There are very few purposes to which, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, it is possible to apply this money. There is the improvement of public health to which the money can be applied, I admit, for the benefit of the whole community; but, after all, public health, lies at the doors of the proprietors. It is the duty of every proprietor to make the dwelling he owns healthy and fit for his tenants to live in. Therefore, we can dispense with the question of sanitation. Then we are induced to look at the Road Rate. That rate has never fallen at all heavily upon the great masses of the population in Scotland; it has fallen largely, and very properly so, upon the landed proprietors and tenant farmers. The obligation to keep up the roads has rested hitherto upon those who use the roads for the purpose of carrying on their business. We are consequently reduced to the old Consolidated Rate, which includes payment for police and other purposes in the counties, of a very light kind indeed. The obligations which are heavy in Scotland are the obligations in respect to the relief of the poor and the education of the people. The County Councils have no power to apply a single penny of this £50,000 to the people in these respects. Originally the Government proposed to apply the

    1123
    money to the promotion of temperance, but, at the request of the Scotch Members, they" withdrew their proposal, and now we have to apply the money to some better purpose. In making their original proposal, the Government had the good of the people at heart; will they, and my hon. Friend who has just spoken, accept the decision of the Representatives of the people of Scotland on this subject? My hon. Friend says he has not received a single communication from his constituents in favour of applying the money to the completion of the scheme of free education in Scotland. I have had many communications, and I have had none from Scotland which has not been in favour of applying this money to the completion of the scheme of free education. I believe the landed proprietors and large farmers, who will be benefited to some slight extent by this £50,000, will feel more pride and satisfaction by far in having the system of free education made complete, than in receiving the relief at present proposed But we are not confined to free education. It has been a matter of great regret to every educationalist in Scotland that while we have got the great boon of free education up to Standard V., we suffer greatly from the want of opportunities for secondary and higher education. Here young people are forced through Standard V. at a very early age—often at 11 years of age, and certainly in all cases at 12 years of age. These young people, on account of the necessities of the families, are sent out to work. They have no chance of receiving secondary, or higher education, and, to a large extent, they lose the education they acquired in their young days. The people of Scotland have long desired the establishment of technical and evening schools. Such schools exist in large industrial centres, owing to endowments which have been wisely given by the Endowed Schools' Commissioners; but they are entirely wanting in the counties of Scotland. Not only do the people want evening schools and schools for technical and higher education, but they feel that if no other purpose could be found to which to devote this £50,000, the money might be usefully employed in establishing free libraries in large centres of population. I hope the Lord Advocate who, on several occasions, has taken a liberal view of
    1124
    Scotch affairs will not take the retrograde step of relieving the landed and wealthier-classes at the expense of damping the aspirations of the people of Scotland in respect to secondary and higher education. If a poll of the Scottish people were taken, I do not think there would be half-a-dozen Scotch Members who could come to the House and say that the landed proprietors and the larger farmers are desirous of absorbing the whole of this £50,000. If the money is applied as now proposed, it will do no good to any large class of the community, and it will be received with no thankfulness by the County Councils.
    MR. HOZIER: During his political career hitherto, I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs has only been celebrated for one magnificent phrase, the phrase of his "having found salvation," but to-night he has used another phrase which will become celebrated, and which I trust every ratepayer in the country will carefully note, namely, "the naked and brutal relief of rates." Surely that is a form of nakedness and that is a form of brutality of which no Government need be ashamed. Undoubtedly, from every point of view, this is a question of rates. According to the plan of the Government it is proposed to hand this money over to the County Councils, and a considerable portion of the money will probably go to the relief of the Road Rate. That rate is paid half by the occupier and half by the owner, and relief to that rate will be warmly welcomed by too long suffering ratepayers. I think I have some right to speak on this subject, because it was actually on my Amendment that the Government were run so close last year, that they gave way upon the question of the large additional grant for free education. I acted with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) as teller in the memorable Division in which the Government majority was reduced to 13. The object we had in view last year was to secure the entire freedom of the compulsory standards in Scotland. With the addition of the £40,000 already allocated, the compulsory standards will, according to the proposals of the Government, be set perfectly free. But the right hon. Gentleman says that he would

    1125
    put no limit to the freeing of education. Does this mean that the Universities are also to be free? ["Hear, hear!"] I congratulate hon. Members opposite on having the courage of their convictions, because I do not think that the ratepayers of Scotland will support them in that proposition. I am myself in favour of all the standards in primary schools in Scotland being free; but where, at present, is the money to come from? The sum now allotted to the relief of rates was never meant for education. Next year we have every reason to hope that free education will be granted to England out of Imperial funds, and, of course, Scotland will then receive her share from the same source. The people of Scotland will then be able to free all the standards in the primary schools, and will also have a very considerable sum for the relief of rates; but, in the meantime, let the Committee be just before it is generous.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am glad to take part in this Debate before it partakes in any sense of a Party character, because I want to lay before the Committee a practical argument which I think is unanswerable. I recognise the practical interest the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier) has shown in freeing education in Scotland. He says that he and we last year did not go further than urging the Government to set free the compulsory standards. That is quite true, because the money which we were dealing with last year was not sufficient even to free the compulsory standards. But now Providence, in the shape of this distribution of the Spirit and Beer Duty, has placed before us this sum of money we never expected, and now we make a further demand. The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire asks whether we put any limit to free education, whether we desire to set free the high schools and the universities. I reply that we want to make elementary education free in Scotland; we wish to set free all the standards in the elementary schools. Do hon. Members know what the state of elementary education in Scotland is at this moment? It is free in the lower standards, but parents have to pay in the higher standards, in almost all cases, and so the higher standards are omitted. At present the parents of children in the Sixth Standard
    1126
    pay fees in 2,310 schools in Scotland. And what, after all, is the Sixth Standard? It consists of reading aloud with appropriate expression, writing a short letter on a given subject, and working out some extremely simple questions in arithmetic. In addition there are what are called class subjects, which consist of intelligent explanation of passages in English read by students, learning by heart 150 lines of poetry, and answering a few questions on the geography of the world and British colonies and dependencies. In addition, there are certain special subjects which may be taken up in a very humble and elementary manner by children in the Sixth Standard. Now, I ask hon. Members, and Scotch Members particularly, whether this presents such an extended system of education that we should be satisfied if only a few children reach it? Out of 648,000 children on the register, and 510,000 in average attendance, less than 30,000 attain the Sixth Standard. The main cause of this is that parents of the working classes are tempted and induced to take their children away from school because, after a certain point, the fees increase with the standard reached, until the amount becomes considerable to the poorer class of people. I have a paper here which gives the highest and the lowest fees charged in the different standards. The minimum fee rises from 2d. to 3d. and from 4d. to 4½d. in the Sixth Standard, and the maximum from 6d. to 9d. and from 1s. to 1s. 6d. I maintain, therefore, that this increase of fees is the reason why so many children in Scotland are removed from school before they reach the higher standards. I hope the Government will not yet commit themselves to a proposal that will perpetuate this system. I may remind the Committee of the Report of that important Commission upon educational results in England, and I may quote a few lines from the minority Report of that Commission, to which great weight will be given, as being the Report of very eminent, practical educationalists, and which cannot be considered prejudiced, as my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Hart Dyke) will agree. The Report says—
    "We think that in no case should fees be raised with the standard in which the children are being educated. The increase of fees as the children get higher, has had an increasing

    1127
    tendency to drive the children prematurely to work."
    Now, I would ask hon. Members to consider, if this is the effect of raising the fees, how much more is the effect of driving children prematurely from school likely to be brought about when it is not a question of raising fees merely, but of instituting fees for the first time on entrance to the Sixth Standard? Yet the Government, by the course they propose to adopt, would help to perpetuate this unsatisfactory state of things, and I venture to say that their action will cause much disappointment in Scotland. There are 44 schools in Scotland where fees are paid in all standards. In Glasgow, 10 schools have been picked out, and in these fees are paid and from these schools children of poorer parents have been evicted by the hundred, and are obliged to walk past the doors of these schools to some distant and less efficient schools where fees are not charged. In good faith the Glasgow School Board have made this arrangement; they have not money enough to free all the schools, but the result is that the attention of people interested in education is concentrated upon these 10 schools, and diverted from the other schools. The poorer children, the ragged children, the waifs and strays, are concentrated in the free schools, and socially and morally there is a tendency in these schools for the tone to deteriorate, they having no proportion of the better class poor children among them. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Stewart) says it is necessary to be just before we are generous, and we should give relief to the ordinary ratepayers, but just see what the relief would be to Glasgow. A sum of £7,000 falls to the share of Glasgow, and at the very outside that is a relief of ¾d. in the £1. On the other hand, concentrate the relief upon education, and you assist people at the very moment when they want it most, when their children are young. A good deal has been said about the wish of Scotland in this matter. I will not refer, as others have done, to coming elections, but I will simply direct the attention of the Government to the coming Division of the Committee to-night as an indication of the feeling of Scotch Members, and of Scotland, on the question. Let this be the test. Let me remind the right hon.
    1128
    Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury of the very effective speech he made in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, last year, when he said that in the carrying out of these financial proposals for the assistance of local rates, deference had been paid by the Government, deference which it was their duty to pay, to the expression of Scotch opinion. Let him pay that deference now to that opinion as it will be expressed to-night. The Division will show that Scotland unquestionably desires that this £90,000 should be given to free elementary education, and the amount is just sufficient to enable the much-desired object to be carried out, with a few thousands on the right side. It has been said that we have been trying this Session to legislate for classes, and not for the benefit of the people as a whole. Each side has been charged with this by the other; but here, at all events, is an opportunity to do something for the benefit of an entire community, something for which they will be grateful; and I appeal especially to those who are in favour of free education not to let this opportunity pass. Here we have an opportunity to accomplish an object thoroughly and completely. To those who are nervous about free education, I would direct attention to the present state of things in Scotland. They will see that all the harm that could happen from free education in Scotland has been done already. If free education makes men dependent, and robs them of self-reliance, that has been done already, because all the dependent and non-self-reliant classes already get their children paid for. But you have stopped exactly at that point, and I say, if the system be left as it now exists, there will be an immense temptation to parents to remove their children from school before reaching those subjects which have been the glory of Scotland in the past. The Amendment, if adopted, will avert a great blow to all that is best in Scotch education. I have not discussed the matter from a Party point of view, and I hope the Government will agree to do that which will be so much to the benefit of Scotland. If they do, the House will never have done a better day's work, nor will the Government have ever made a more gracious concession.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The right hon. Gentleman felicitated himself upon rising at that opportune moment in the Debate, up to which no Party element had been introduced. He has qualified himself for making that observation by having studiously absented himself from listening to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). That speech was conceived in such a tone that even the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at Birmingham must be made the subject of his comment—not because it was relevant to the subject, but merely because it was made by an opposing partisan. The right hon. Gentleman dilated with eagerness upon the ferocious attacks made by my right hon. Friend upon the dilatory tactics of the Opposition, but he failed to convince anyone of the relevancy of his arguments. Accordingly, I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton upon the judicious method by which, when he has got points which he considers, with some justice, to be fair points, and points which are ad rem, he abstains from listening to the intemperate utterances of some of the more furious and violent spirits of his Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs rose to heroics such as we are not accustomed to from that quarter. I am sorry to observe that they have deserted him now, because I do not see him in his place. But in filling up the canvas with a very broad brush, he said the option presented to the Committee on the present Amendment was that, on the one hand, we might choose mere naked brutal relief of the rates, and, on the other hand, what he described, in what I observed to be written and deliberate language, as the widest diffusion of knowledge. This is a monetary question. We have to determine the allocation of £50,000, and the question is whether we are to descend into the abyss of political degradation involved in the handing over of this £50,000 to the naked and brutal relief of the rates, or whether we are going to offer up the £50,000 towards some evanescent wave in favour of "the widest diffusion of knowledge." The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that
    1130
    if we adopted the naked and brutal plan our money was not worth having. Yes, but rates sound in money, because they are made up of nothing else. Well, the right hon. Gentleman goes on in the strain the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevel-yan) warns us against. He wanted to inquire whether we would discard an opportunity of showing our zeal for a policy to which he considers we are committed. If he means the policy which he most inaccurately described as free education—if that is the policy for which we are invited to show our zeal, may I retort with the very appposite question: "When did he begin to show his zeal?" He has been a Member of this House, and a responsible Minister for a number of years, but I cannot recall, and if he had been here I should have asked him to aid my recollection, any occasion on which he showed any such zeal. [At this point Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN re-entered the House.] I am asking when the right hon. Gentleman showed his zeal for free education, until free education had been introduced from another political quarter into the arena. It is not a question which has risen into existence or into prominence since 1885. It has been a standing problem for years, and therefore I think that before the right hon. Gentleman charges us with lack of zeal, he ought to look a little at his own record, and show that he was of the regenerate when we were of the unregenerate. I might further remind him that the essential ground of his politics, and the ground upon which he stands now, was only discovered by him to be essential in the year 1886. The right hon. Gentleman asks what I am talking about. If he makes an observation in a tone accessible to this side of the House, he must take the consequences; but this new apostle of free education transcends the limits not only of moderation, but of discretion, in describing the scope of his ambition. He tells us what he aims at is the widest diffusion of knowledge. But when he descends to more specific terms what is it I find? His spirit rises above even relevancy, and he has, in the most apposite and convincing, against himself, illustration, pointed to what he revels in describing as the old Scottish system of

    1131
    education. It certainly was a most admirable system in one respect. A lad went to a parish school. He found that he got from the schoolmaster instruction in Greek and in Latin, and he went straight from the parish school to the University. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we should complete the scheme of last year by carrying this lad into his studies of Latin and Greek at the school?
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: No, no.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: But the right hon. Gentleman does not say no. That is left to his inconsequent supporter behind him. Well, the right hon. Gentleman does not propose that. No, but I do not think his theory or principles or aspirations will permit him to stop short of voting money out of the Local Taxation Account towards carrying enterprising boys into and through the University. The right hon. Gentleman assents to that. Well, then, let me put this question to him. What is your tariff? Would £50,000 suit you? Would £100,000 suit you?
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: It might.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member who interrupts me has spoken on such a variety of subjects during the evening that I think he had better reserve his energies. I should like to ask any reasonable Member of the House this question: Is the demand made upon us—is the Amendment we are now considering an Amendment which implies that the House of Commons is to be asked to vote moneys arising from taxation to the purpose of educating boys at college? If so, let the ratepayers of Scotland know it, and let them know it over and over again. I cannot understand this new-born enthusiasm on such a large scale, because we are now rising, I am afraid, out of the region of the masses, and are following the classes into their ignominious and academic seclusion. You would really be subsidising the apostates from the cause of
    1132
    freedom, because you would be conferring a bonus on every one who leaves the elementary school and seeks a refuge among that class, which is the most widely denounced of all the others that are now proscribed, namely, the educated class. Therefore, I rejoice that I have drawn an exposition of policy from the Front Bench opposite. We now understand that the proposal is not merely to get to the Sixth Standard or to the specific subjects in the schools, but that you are going to carry boys through the course of training usually found in intermediate schools, and you are going to carry them through the Universities, and all at the expense of the ratepayers. No limit was prescribed. The only limit pointed out was that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs when he said he went in for "the wide diffusion of knowledge." "The knowable," then is the limit for education at the expense of the ratepayers. If we are going to descend from the elevation to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division aspires, and if we are going into the question of Party politics, then I will gladly undertake to discuss the question in any constituency in Scotland whether the money of the ratepayers is going to be spent on academic and on intermediate education. The right hon. Gentleman has thought that it would promote general political interests, because he avowed that political interests was what he was speaking for. The right hon. Gentleman must pardon me for turning to the question of what is the alternative plan proposed by the Government. Now, he has resorted to a method which is the most crude that I have ever discovered in the demagogic party. I listened with some surprise to the right hon. Gentleman upon this account. He thinks, apparently, that it is a good plan to call attention to the amount of rates which are paid in the counties by landlords, and he deduces from that that we are making an attempt to give money to the landlords. There is a large amount of uninstructed sympathy with that statement among hon. Members opposite. How does the case stand? We are proposing to give money for distribution by the County Councils and the Town Councils throughout Scotland, and the

    1133
    right hon. Gentleman says we are proposing to give it to the landlords.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say yon were proposing to give it to the landlords. I said, if the money was devoted as the Government propose, there is a chance of a large part of it going to landlords owing to the system of rating.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will grant me this—and, if he does not grant it the House knows it—that in describing our alternative scheme of relieving the ratepayers, he presented it as conferring a boon on the landlords. I want to show how the fact stands. We are giving this money equally between counties and burghs.
    MR. HUNTER: No, no.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen speaks a great deal more frequently in the House than I do, and I really think when I am speaking I might be conceded a freedom from listening to him. I say we are giving this money between the counties and burghs of Scotland, and in what proportion between the two? The counties are about £13,500,000 of valuation, and the burghs are about £12,000,000. Accordingly, they are very nearly equal. In the burghs the rating is wholly upon the occupiers; and accordingly, in the burghs you are conferring it on the occupiers, to the exclusion of the landlords. I turn to the counties; and the right hon. Gentleman, who, by-the-bye, is a Scottish landlord, apparently is so ignorant of his own affairs that he does not know that of rates administered by the County Councils, the greater part falls, not upon the landlords alone, but half on landlords and half on occupiers. The rates levied by the Commissioners of Supply according to the last Local Taxation Accounts were £187,000, which fell on owners alone, and the road rates in counties were £255,000. I think I must say
    1134
    that liberties are being taken with this Committee when assertions are made by the right hon. Gentleman, who I do not say consciously misleads the Committee on the subject, when he leaves out of account the half of that which fell on the occupiers only, and then, turning to the other half, misrepresents it to this extent, that of the half he selects the greater part is a divided rate. Accordingly, I say, to represent the proposals of the Government as being an attempt to favour the class of landlords, is one of the wildest and most desperate attempts that has come from a quarter in which, I am afraid, such attempts are not infrequent. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is marked by this characteristic at the outset, that, if such a proposal is carried out to its results, and unlimited by figures—and the right hon. Gentleman gave no figures—it carries with it consequences which are absolutely untenable if you have the slightest regard to the interests of the ratepayers. There are some Members who may be anxious to know how the facts stand about our educational scheme. Is there a necessity for a larger grant than £40,000? That is the question which is primarily before the Committee, but which has been voluntarily altered by the right hon. Gentleman. He has indulged in a long historical narrative, mostly entirely inaccurate, as to what took place only so lately as last year. Parliament is not committed in any sense or degree to the wild scheme of enfranchising or freeing education in Scotland. Nothing of the kind. When the Local Government Bill was introduced, the giving of the money to the relief of fees was an integral part of our scheme. Speaking with the special instructions of the Government, I said, in introducing the Local Government Bill, that we thought ourselves justified in proposing relief to fees, because, inasmuch as parents were compelled to pay fees for the compulsory standards, there was at least an opening given for the approval of Parliament to relief by the payment of these fees. I made no limitation on the subject. Our proposal related to the lower standards, but the principle we have asserted as regards the compulsory standards is irrespective of the

    1135
    number. Is there the smallest warrant for saying that we have gone beyond that? I do not remember, except in the speeches or lectures of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) that there was on the part of hon. Gentlemen any recommendation of the wider scheme which is now enunciated. Most certainly, among the cautious utterances which came from that quarter, I do not think there was much said about the "wide diffusion of knowledge," spoken of by the right hon. Member for Stirling. Our proposals being thus limited, what I am concerned to show is, that we are now completing them by the grant of £40,000. In the first place, I want to ask this: To what extent is it that our present supply of money falls short of freeing the five compulsory standards in State-aided schools? Here is the answer. There are 3,134 State-aided schools. 2,981 have no fees in compulsory standards; that leaves only 153 in which there are some fees; but of these 13 are voluntary schools, which lie outside our scheme and do not take the grant. Forty-two are fee-paying schools in the large towns, where, I think, it would be preposterous to force people to go free when they want to pay, leaving only 98 schools in which the state of matters is this: that they come under the second alternative of our regulations and provide the first three standards absolutely free and only a proportion free in the Fourth and Fifth Standards. Therefore, the problem before us in order to confer free education in the State-aided schools in Scotland is merely to get rid of the payment of fees in 98 schools.
    MR. HUNTER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman how these figures are to be reconciled with the Return presented to the House on the 16th March, from which it appears that there are 25 schools only which are under the five standards, 16 where the grant is not claimed, and 42 where it is claimed.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That is a very fair question. The hon. Member is quite accurate in saying the smaller figure was the figure at a previous date;
    1136
    but the increase to 98 has arisen from the fact that the School Boards found that they had outrun their funds, and accordingly they were reducing these School Boards which accepted freedom in the Fourth and Fifth Standard absolutely to School Boards in which freedom was only accepted for a proportion of places. Before leaving this subject, let me point out that, so far as the mere problem of dealing with free education in the State-aided schools within the five compulsory standards is concerned, we are limited to 98 schools alone requiring aid, but I see, and we have always seen, the force of the indication given by the increase from 25 to 98. Some of the School Boards have gone too far for their means, and they have enfranchised the standards without attending to their resources. If we were to stand by the 98—and I do not see any reason why it should be much increased—if we were to look a little ahead, we should have to regard the financial position of the School Boards generally, in order to conjecture whether more might come into the 98, so as to increase the number. And this leads me to consider the question of how stands the balance between the financial state of the school managers before our system was introduced and after. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling gave figures which, I think, he will find are not quite accurate; I will state what I believe are the accurate figures as regards, in the first place; the receipts of the School Boards and school managers when the system of fees for the five standards was permitted. They amounted to £315,000, of which £295,000 was paid primarily by parents, and about £20,000 by Parochial Boards as standing in loco parentis to poor children. I want to make this quite clear. In striking a balance sheet, of course, you take into account what is the alteration of the scheme as affected by your plan of last year. £315,000 is the sum we start from. But part of that is covered by the Sixth Standard and the extra standards. Therefore, to compare what the School Boards got as compared with what they gave up, you must reduce the total receipts

    1137
    by the amount of the higher standards, which we do not touch. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite consider to be the cost of the Sixth Standard and the special subjects, but they will not quarrel if I put it at as low a figure as possible —say 10 per cent. I understand that is a very low estimate. That leaves £283,000 as the amount of fees which we may ascribe to the five compulsory standards. Now, we already give £250,000, and we propose to give £40,000 more. Thus the Committee will see that while it requires £33,000 we give £40,000. Accordingly, I do think that we make adequately fair pro vision. The margin between £33,000, and £40,000 is on the footing that fees were probably rising when we did away with them. If a defect can be pointed out in this calculation it is on the side of our being more than liberal. Now, in what I say I am addressing my self to the Committee upon the footing that you are not going to adopt the mere general diffusion of knowledge, but stick to the compulsory standards. I pursue this because I think the point is important. It has been suggested, and I have not the least doubt that the reflection occurs to many hon. Gentlemen, that, after all, one can name places where there is greater deficiency in the rate than will be made up by the grant we propose. I conceive that to be the case, but every effort to equalise payments by a grant of this kind must necessarily regard the aggregate and not individual cases. I will tell the Committee why. Because the scale of fees varies to a very great extent. There are some places, which I could name if it were not invidious, where there is a heavy deficit. But these places are the rich and not the poor places. The reason of the deficit is a simple one: that in these places they have fixed high fees, that being merely an indication of their wealth, and it is in consequence of that that our grant, which is distributed according to the average attendance, is inadequate to fill up the gap made by the withdrawal of fees which are only calculated on their own affluent abilities. Therefore, it is in vain to pursue any plan for filling up gaps and holes in the finances of School Boards. If we do that, the result will be either that we
    1138
    shall give the money entirely over to those large and rich places, and give nothing to the poorer districts, or that we shall have to increase our additions enormously and give to the poor districts pari passu according to the emergencies of the richer districts created by requirements of which the poorer districts are entirely ignorant. I venture to think the Committee will appreciate the justness of the standard I suggested, and if that is so, is not the conclusive reason this: that in the bottom of their hearts and minds they know that the fair principle of distribution of this money ought to be, education or no education, the relief of the people who have to pay rates. There is, however, one point which I ought not to omit. I included 2,981 as the number of school managers who have no fees in the compulsory standards, but in that there are degrees of liberality. Of these 2,247 have abolished fees up to and including the Fifth Standard, but 734 have outstripped Parliament's notions of liberality and abolished fees altogether. Then there comes the question which has been boldly mooted by the right hon. Gentleman in his adventurous speech. I quite understand that if School Boards are so constituted that Members can retain their seats after having voted in favour of a wide diffusion of knowledge, Parliament cannot control them. That is quite a matter for them to determine, and if a programme of that kind finds acceptance in the arena of School Boards, good and well; but the question we have to consider is whether it is permissible to us to take money which in the first view belongs to the ratepayers, and apply it to those elevated and expensive notions. I think the Committee will decline to agree with them. I fully believe that education in Scotland is extremely popular. I am entirely in favour of giving all proper facilities for that purpose, but I do not think there would be any justification for Parliament to take away money which primarily belongs to the larger class of the ratepayers, and limiting the gift. [Cries of "No, no !"] Certainly the larger classes. Does any hon. Gentleman opposite pretend to such statistical knowledge as to believe that all people who pay rates have children at the Board or elementary schools?

    1139
    That is putting an exception in favour of unmarried and childless people which is not to be found in Statutes. Is this the proper moment to make the present proposal? Why, of all others, it seems the very moment when it would be very unwise to make any fresh departure, to encourage any fresh unrecognised liabilities on the part of the rates or ratepayers towards the cost of education. It is an open secret that there are proposals in contemplation as regards England for assisting education by grants from public moneys. If so, it will be borne in mind when that method is applied to Scotland that the transaction of last year was not a vote of Imperial money to Scotch education, but was a surrender, an assignation from the Scotch ratepayers towards free education. Would it not be well to wait, leaving our hands free, having nearly completed the system to which Parliament is already committed, and enter upon the consideration of what is to be done for Scotland then, with all the fresh ideas furnished by the aspirations of Scotch opinion, and also enlightened by the experience of the last experimental year. I think the Committee would do wisely to adopt the proposal of the Government, and I cannot believe any defeat will be encountered by Scotch education if we do not limit our aspirations by what would be merely a tentative and somewhat limited plan.
    MR. HUNTER: With one statement we shall all agree, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was most incorrectly described as a policy of free education. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the admission, because some of his friends in Scotland have been posing as advocates of free education, and have claimed credit to the Government for this policy. One point, then, is cleared up. I would remind the Committee that in endeavouring to extort from the Tory Party free education for Scotland, we have been engaged in a very difficult and arduous task. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has never been a policy of free education; it has been entirely opposed to free
    1140
    education, and they have never budged one inch, or made the slightest concession, except under terror of losing all Tory representation in Scotland. On December 21st, 1888, the application of the Probate Duty in Scotland 'to free education was suggested by myself about half-past 2 in the morning. I did not want a patent for the idea; I presented it as a free gift to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it appeared not to have occurred to him, and I told him he would make himself most popular if, instead of foolishly squandering the money on what he was pleased to call the rates, he devoted it to freeing education. I might as well have appealed to a stone wall. The right hon. Gentleman would not listen to me, and then, for once in my life, I made a great mistake. I allowed him to take the Second Reading of his Bill after 12 o'clock, when a simple objection would have stayed its progress. That was on Tuesday. On the next morning I repented of my error, and arranged with the late Mr. Biggar, the Whip of the Irish Party, that on the Wednesday his friends of the Irish Party should discuss those grievances which afflicted them until half-past 4, by which time I hoped I might bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government to reason. Sir, sweet are the uses of obstruction! Before 3 o'clock the Chancellor of the Exchequer surrendered to force majeure and consented to confine his Bill to the then coming year. The fact was, he had an engagement at dinner that evening; he had to meet the Civil servants at the Hotel Metropole, and make what we all recognised as an important speech; so between the Irish Members in the earlier part of the day, and the coming dinner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, much against his will, saw reason and consented to make his Bill applicable to the current year. That gave us an opportunity to test the opinion of Scotland in regard to the application of the Probate Duty. It happened that on this side there was exhibited an unanimous opinion in favour of education. What did the

    1141
    Government do? After they were made acquainted with this unanimous opinion, they introduced a Bill which limited the application of the principle of free education to Standards I., II., and III. That was what we met with in the beginning of the Session of 1889, and that concession was made, but, I agree with the Lord Advocate, not because they hold the slightest possible inclination in favour of free education—I am sure they have not—but solely and simply to stave off the demand for free education and to defeat the purpose of those who are in favour of that proposal. What did the Government do after they had introduced their Bill in 1889? They stood to it in the firmest possible manner. I remember going with a deputation to meet the Secretary for Scotland, and it was very near the time when the Government Bill would be going into Committee, and the Secretary for Scotland put down his foot in the firmest manner and said he would have nothing to do with free education, and would not go an inch beyond the Third Standard. Well, we are familiar with the causes that induced the Government to go beyond that, and make another concession. We had a Division in Committee, and 52 Scotch Members voted against the Government, and only 10 in their favour. The next day the Government came down and announced another surrender. Therefore, I cheerfully recognise the claim of the Lord Advocate to be an enemy of free education and one who has not taken any steps towards it, except under external compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma: As a matter of fact, at the present time very nearly a fourth of the schools in Scotland have adopted the principle of free education through all the standards—700 out of nearly 3,000. The argument upon principle is, therefore, not now an open one, because these schools which have abolished fees could not have done so without the express consent of the Education Department, which includes, of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Permit me to explain. The consent of the Scotch Education Department was limited only to certifying that certain
    1142
    conditions were fulfilled; assent was given to nothing beyond.
    MR. HUNTER: That is open to another difficulty; that the Scotch Department, for what reason I do not know, sanctioned that relief in the case of 25 per cent. of the schools, and now they refuse it.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certainly, because the question was whether they came under conditions of which the Education Department was especially seized, and on this the Department assented to the arrangemont.
    MR. HUNTER: Well, in 700 odd schools the Department have sanctioned free education.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Assent was limited to those considerations with which the Department are conversant, the first five standards.
    MR. HUNTER: Well, the fact is they did it.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is inconvenient to continue interrupting the hon. Gentleman, and if he continues repeating his statement, he must consider me as giving the most emphatic denial that courtesy will allow.
    MR. HUNTER: Well, it is not denied that 734 schools have abolished fees in all standards. Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the alternative proposal, to which the Lord Advocate alluded. I should greatly regret if there should be any mistake or exaggeration on this point. The Government divide the £50,000 between the counties and the burghs, not according to the amount of the rates which are payable by them respectively, but according to their wealth, which is a totally irrelevant consideration. The result is, that for every 6d. given for the relief of rates in burghs, 1s. 6d. is given for the relief of rates in counties. That is a fact not capable of serious denial, because you find in burghs, rates are, roughly speaking, three times what they are in counties. You have adopted not

    1143
    the standard of burden of rates, which would be relevant, but the standard of wealth, which is wholly irrelevant. It is in the power of the County Councils to apply the money in relief of the rates that are paid by landlords only. In Aberdeen 75 per cent. of the houses are under £10 rental; and the benefit would be 5d. to a man at £10, 3d. to a man at £6. For these ridiculous benefits the people of Scotland are to be denied the dearest wish of their hearts—the completion of the scheme of free education. I ask the Government to make this concession, because, in the first place, it is obvious that if we have a system of free education for the lower standards and begin school fees for the higher, we deal a deadly blow at these higher standards. But another reason for the concession is, that it is demanded by the almost universal opinion of Scotland. The distinction between non-compulsory and compulsory standards does not commend itself to the people of Scotland. Why should the Government, having swallowed the camel, now strain at the gnat? The total amount required is very small compared with what has been already given, and their refusal is viewed by the people of Scotland, not with amazement, but with absolute stupefaction. I ask the Government to remember that the tax out of which this money comes was imposed against the wishes of two to one of the Scottish Members. That taxation produces £200,000 a year, equal to 1s. per head of the population of Scotland, or an average of 5s. per family. When the working man is told that a fifth of that goes to the provision of pensions for the police, he will not unnaturally say, I would rather the 1s. went towards a pension for myself. Then another 1s. is to be expended on the extension of free education. That the people of Scotland are not only prepared to assent to, but they enthusiastically welcome it. What becomes of the other 3s? You propose to give 1s. 3d. to the rates. But this will scarcely benefit the poorer ratepayer; he will only benefit to the extent of the 3d., while the richer ratepayer will not only
    1144
    get all the 1s. 3d. which is intended to go to him, but also the 1s. which is withdrawn from the poorer ratepayer. Still you have 1s. 9d. left, and what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say about that? He says "I cannot give that to you; I must give that to England. "And thus the whole of the 5s. is disposed of, and a more outrageous or more iniquitous financial proceeding it would be difficult to imagine. Out of the £200,000 you are giving the working man only a paltry 3d. or 4d., a result that is at once ludicrous and scandalous. All I can say is that the Scotch Members will not consent to this waste of money, and that they are determined that their schools shall be free from top to bottom. There are magnificent palaces of education in Scotland, but over their portals is written "The sons of working men not admitted here." I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the matter, that he will compare the advantages to be gained by concession with those likely to result from resistance, and that he will make provision out of this Fund to abolish all school fees in Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I think the appeal of the hon. Member is not likely to be successful by reason of, the manner in which he has treated the concessions made last year to those who, in the course of the Debates On the Local Government Bill, demanded Free Education for Scotland, I do not think it was fair for the hon. Member for Aberdeen to claim for himself and his friends the credit for the concessions granted last year by the Unionist Government. But I am sorry that the hon. Member was not the only speaker to introduce Party considerations into this Debate. I think the Lord Advocate would have been better advised had he not taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs with the introduction of Party politics into tonight's Debate. He taunted him with a new born zeal for free education, and said his only limit was the widest diffusion of knowledge that can be given. I

    1145
    venture to say that the Scotch people care very little as to when the right hon. Gentleman first came to the conclusion he now seems to hold, that education throughout the elementary schools of Scotland should be free. This is absolutely a non-party question in Scotland, and I say that the opinion of the people so far as I have been able to gather it, is that, as far as possible, elementary education should be free. I represent not a rich city like Edinburgh, or a rich burgh like Glasgow, but comparatively poor districts, and on their behalf I can only express regret that the Government have not seen their way to giving a larger sum than they propose for educational purposes. To carry free education from the elementary schools to the higher schools, and from the higher schools to the University, may be a dream of the future, but it is not desired at the present time by the Scotch people; at this moment they only desire to see elementary education absolutely free, and that is the reason why we ask the Government to grant a further sum. I appreciate the difficulty in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves. Of course they do not know if the extra duty on spirits and beer will be imposed for a longer period than one year, and if they freed all the standards now they would be committing themselves to the proposition that the standards other than the compulsory ones should be free in the future. I admit that it is not unreasonable for the Government to say that, at any rate for this Session, all they can do is to free the compulsory standards. But why should the Government refuse the suggestion that has been made to them, that they should give the County Councils the right, if they deem it advisable, to apply some portion of this money to the purposes of education, so that the County Councils may hand some part of the money over to the School Boards to lessen the burden of fees? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in answer to a question I put to him the other day, that it was not in the power of the County Councils to give grants for educational purposes, as they had no control over such matters.
    1146
    But if he will not go so far as is suggested in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, he surely might make some concession, and allow County and Town Councils to grant for educational purposes some portion of this money if they so decide, so as to lessen the burden of school fees. It must be remembered that in the Debate last year, some of us protested strongly against the proposals of the Government to free the lower standards. We felt that if anything was to be done for the relief of education, it should be rather by abolishing the fees in the higher standards. During the whole of last year's Debate there was an Amendment on the Paper in my name which suggested that. The Amendment we are now discussing is a step in the same direction, and unless Her Majesty's Government modify their scheme by accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, or by adopting the suggestion I have mentioned, very few of the Scottish Members will support Her Majesty's Government on this matter. The Scottish people are anxious to see elementary education entirely freed from school fees, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will meet this widespread feeling, and the all but unanimous wish of the Scotch Members.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: When we discussed in this House the proposal to appoint a Minister for Scotland, I expressed my fear that the Lord Advocate would be the Minister for Education in this House, and that the real Minister would be in the other House. The speech of the Lord Advocate to-night has confirmed my worst apprehensions as to the manner in which Scottish education would be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the "wild scheme" of free education for Scotland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold that language in the constituencies at the next General Election?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certainly, sir; and I shall state the matter exactly as I did to-night—the"wild language of the scheme as stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite."
    SR L. PLAYFAIR: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of "the wild scheme of free education."
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, the word "the" being demonstrative of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, including free University education.
    SIR L. PLAYFAIR: The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was against free education in Scotland in the upper standards, though the principle of the Scotch system is to encourage higher education in public schools. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have wholly mistaken the principles which have ruled Scotch education in the past. I should not have objected if the right hon. Gentleman had done for Scotland what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done for Wales in the matter of intermediate education. On the contrary, I should have been exceedingly pleased. What we ask is that the Government should free the upper standards as they had freed the lower. The great bulk of the Scottish Members request that the money shall be applied to that purpose. Why should not the Government be gracious and carry out the work they have begun? The right hon. Gentleman, whose speeches I always read with interest, took much credit at Inverness last year to the Government for having freed education in Scotland. But, if he wishes the Government to retain that credit, if he wishes them to hold a position in Scotch politics in the future, I would advise them not to apply this money to a mere reduction of the rates, but to accede to the wishes of the Scotch people and free the upper standards.
    (11.23.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 188; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 207.)
    MR. C.S. PARKER: I hope that the Government, after the Division just taken, will be open to argument. I think that the Lord Advocate will not find it easy to defend in Scotland the language he has uttered in this House. It is the general wish of
    1148
    Scotland that education in all the standards should be free; it is not a wild scheme which is entertained either by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs, or by anyone else. It is the deliberate conviction of teachers, of School Boards, and of others who best understand the question, that it is not well to confine freedom from fees to the compulsory standards. I hope that the Government will re-consider the position, and will not limit the application of this money, so cut down as it now is to £40,000. There are many School Boards in Scotland which have freed all the compulsory standards, and in their case if this money may not be applied to the higher standards it will become simply a grant in relief of the rates. Why should not the Government leave it open to School Boards to use the money at their discretion, subject to the approval of Dover House? I have only one other remark to make. Whereas the Lord Advocate seemed to put his foot down firmly against going beyond abolishing the fees for the compulsory standards, yet, afterwards, he seemed to forget that principle when he dwelt on what might be done for Scotch education next year, and agreed that whenever England got money from National Funds for purposes of free elementary education, Scotland should insist on having a corresponding sum for higher instruction.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words "of children in the compulsory standards of the Scotch Code.)"— (Mr. Charles Parker.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I can hardly suppose that the Committee will expect any formal reply from me on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, which is manifestly within the scope of the Debate which has just closed. The question between the compulsory and non-compulsory standards was the gist and essence of that debate. The hon. Member has totally misconceived what I have said. I have not indicated, and

    1149
    did not intend to indicate, that in future years the non-compulsory standard will be the subject of any grant by Parliament.
    MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think we have reason, to complain of the manner in which this important subject has been treated by the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs as if it was a wild and vague proposition for the diffusion of useful knowledge. The Lord Advocate evidently spoke under great excitement in the greater part of his speech, which must have been intended as a reply to some castigation which he had previously received from my right hon. Friend, because the speech of the Lord Advocate was in no way relevant to the speech of my right hon. Friend. If my right hon. Friend feels that he has been extinguished by the exuberant eloquence of the Lord Advocate, he must feel he is buried in flowers, because such an accumulation of flowers of rhetoric as the right hon. and learned Gentleman presented to the House we have rarely had the advantage of hearing. Indeed, I was glad when at last the right hon. Gentleman came to figures, and returned to his accustomed clear style of oratory. This question of devoting the money to freeing non-compulsory standards is a very important one for Scotland. I for one disapprove altogether of this system of grants in aid by which one interest after another is sought to be bribed. We have some reason to complain, when we have a useful object on which almost all the Representatives of Scotland are at one, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes no pains to ascertain what the wishes of the Scottish people are; and when they are forced on his attention, he attempts some means for the disposal of the money which will go contrary to
    1150
    our wishes. There is no object of legislation which Scotland cares for that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find some opportunity of flouting and thwarting, and though I believe there is just reason to complain of the manner in which Scottish business is neglected in this House, it is with regret that I observe when proposals about Scottish Home Rule are mooted, which we think extreme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes it impossible for us to give an answer to them to our constituents. From the point of view of Party, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do the Opposition nothing but good, but I would rather see the people get this boon than secure a Party advantage, and I therefore appeal to the Government at the eleventh hour to assent to the Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELL: According to this clause, the £40,000 can only be applied for the purpose of freeing education in the compulsory standards. Yet the statistics quoted by the Lord Advocate shew that these standards are already free in all the elementary schools, and that more money is not required. You are dealing with Imperial money, and I maintain that every portion of Scotland is entitled to a share of it, and that it is wrong to impose a restriction that the money shall be applied to freeing education in the compulsory standards. I contend that the money could not be better spent than in freeing the higher standards, and in that way, you will be placing all your schools in the same position as the 734 schools which charge no fee whatever. I hope that the Amendment will be carried.
    DR. CLARK: In Caithness all the compulsory standards in the schools are free. The rates in that county are high, varying from 2s. to 4s. 6d. in the£l, and the fees low, and I am anxious to know whether we are to lose our share of this money.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No, Sir. The schools indicated by the hon. Member will participate in the grant just as the others would.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: If the Clause passes in its present form, will a School Board be able to pay the fees in the compulsory standards out of this grant of £40,000, and then apply money from the Probate Duty to the sixth standard?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir. The condition of the payment will be, that the Boards shall free the compulsory standards. When that is done, they may deal with the rest of the money as they please.
    MR. HUNTER: I cannot agree with that construction of the clause. It is distinctly stated that the £40,000 shall be applied for the compulsory standards, and the effect of that will be that those schools which provide for more than the five standards must necessarily be deprived of any share of this grant.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 259.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  FISHERIES REGULATION'S (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 53.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: In moving the discharge of this
  1152
  Order I claim the indulgence of this House while I say a very few words. Six years ago I was asked by the then Government to preside over a Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the Scotch Fisheries. I was asked to state what were my views upon the subject, and to put them in the form of a Bill, which I did. That Bill, however, was not passed. I subsequently reintroduced the measure with certain Amendments, but the Government said they would themselves take up the matter. They did so, but their measure was nothing but an emasculated edition of my Bill. The matter is one of very great importance to the fishing interests of Scotland, but the Government have not been able to see their way to obtaining a full consideration of the measure this Session. It would have been perfectly possible for them, at any rate, to have passed a simple measure dealing with the important matter of the mussel fisheries. I beg to enter my strongest and most indignant protest against the way in which the Government have neglected the Scotch fishery interests, and having done that I move that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 181.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

CITY OF PARIS.
Message from the Commons for Report of the Inquiry into the causes of the accident which recently happened to the passenger ship City of Paris.
Ordered to be communicated accordingly.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 164.)
  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. —(No. 168.)
  Petition of the Duke of Westminster, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, presented on Friday last, referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, with leave to the Committee to hear the petitioner, if they think fit, by his counsel, agents, and witnesses.

  ARMY-NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  THE EARL or DUNDONALD: My Lords, in asking for the Return which I have placed on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House, I do not wish to occupy many minutes of your time in explaining the desirability of that Return being granted. First of all, the information I seek is not in the preliminary Annual Returns for the British Army; and I think it is desirable to know the age and services of the non-commissioned officers who are brought into direct contact with the men, excluding those noncommissioned officers who are generally of mature age and of longer service, and who are specially employed in staff appointments in their various regiments. I think, if this Return is granted, it will be seen that the non-commissioned officers are, as a rule, of such a youthful age, and of such short service, that they cannot exercise that authority over the men, nor imbue the men with the respect which is, as a rule, accorded
  1006
  by young men to those older than themselves, and which is so necessary in the interests and the well-being of the Army. Roughly speaking, the conditions of service of the non-commissioned officers are as follows: the non-commissioned officer after a year's probation can engage on for 12 years, and after 9 years he can re-engage for 21 and a pension. These conditions are subject to certain restrictions affecting various corps, or, roughly speaking, the conditions affecting the non-commissioned officers of the corps. So that, practically speaking, any man who has good health and a good character as a non-commissioned officer, can serve for 21 years. But the point is that non-commissioned officers do not serve for 21 years, as a rule. Now, why-is this? The causes are various. First of all I should put the question of the deferred pay among the principal reasons which induce the non-commissioned officers to leave the Service. They find coming to them at the expiration of a certain number of years' service a considerable sum of money, and they are desirous of obtaining this sum of money into their possession; but, as a rule, unfortunately no sooner do they obtain this money than they spend it, the result being that the country loses the services of good non-commissioned officers, and the non-commissioned officers lose their money, so that neither the country nor the non-commissioned officers., are in the end benefited. Then, again, we must remember that the conditions in civil life of the class from whom these non-commissioned officers are drawn, have very much improved of late-years. They receive, as a rule, greater pay, and they work shorter hours; they have far more leisure, and are in possession of greater advantages than they had in former years. This, also, is an attraction to non-commissioned officers to leave the Service and join their brothers in civil life. Of course, there are many other causes which induce non-commissioned officers to leave the Service. I will not go into them, but the fact is, that non-commissioned officers do leave the Service, and they leave it too young for the good of the Army, more especially now since the introduction of short service, when there are so very few older soldiers in the ranks to imbue the younger soldiers with ideas of

  1007
  discipline, and to teach them what is, perhaps, more important than anything else, reverence for the traditions of the regiment in which they serve. I should like to quote to your Lordships a few statistics as to these young soldiers. There were serving at home with the colours in 1889, 99,647 men, of whom 36,977 were under 21 years of, age, and 70,380 were under 25 years of age. The question may now he asked, in view of what I have said, how does this extreme youth of so many men in the Army affect discipline. Again, I will quote a few figures. I find that Courts Martial have decreased from 16,523 in 1881 to 12,188 in 1888; but the cases of violence and disobedience to superiors tried by Courts Martial have increased from 1,650 cases in 1881 to 2,198 cases in 1888, and cases of minor insubordination, neglect of orders, have increased from 1,472 cases in 1881 to 2,106 cases in the year 1888. So that it will be seen though Court Martial cases have largely decreased in bulk, offences in relation to discipline have considerably increased. There is also another point in connection with the discipline of the Army and non-commissioned officers which is, perhaps, of importance, to mention, and that is in regard to the territorial system. Now, the territorial system is taken more advantage of than it used to be by private soldiers. There are more soldiers now enlisting from any one district or village than there used to be. The consequence is that a non-commissioned officer promoted in any of these territorial regiments has a considerable number of men serving under him in the ranks who will leave the regiment probably about the same time as himself, and it is not in human nature that in those circumstances a non-commissioned officer will not think rather of the good opinion of those whom he will be with at home in the village so long in civil life than of the discipline of the Army. When at home in the Reserve there would, of course, be many chances for the private to repay any grudge he might owe his former non-commissioned officer. Of course, there are exceptional cases, and there are numbers of good non-commissioned officers who would be a credit to any Army in the world: but still, taking
  1008
  them in the bulk, they are liable to be influenced by those considerations. Now, undoubtedly, a non-commissioned officer should be of mature age, tact, and experience, and should be able to imbue the men under him with respect, and to administer discipline without partiality or favour. I would like to quote to your Lordships some statistics as to the conduct of non-commissioned officers. I find by the Preliminary Annual Return for the British Army for 1890 that, during the year 1889, in the Home Army only, there were 673 non-commissioned officers sentenced by Court Martial to be reduced to a lower grade or to the ranks; and, in addition, 55 more suffered imprisonment as well as reduction. Those figures indicate a percentage of offences among the non-commissioned officers which is certainly far more than is desirable. I think a considerable step towards improving the position of noncommissioned officers in the Army might be taken by eliminating from the ranks all those men who are of really bad character, and by those means inducing a better class of men to enlist, as many men of good character will not enlist to serve along with men of bad character. I will not weary your Lordships with any words or ideas of mine as to the pay or advantages' which should be offered to non-commissioned officers, to induce a really good body of non-commissioned officers to serve in the Army. Any such ideas from far more experienced heads than my own would be at the disposal of any statesman who chose to grapple with this question; but I would say that when this country pays an immense sum for procuring men to fight for it, and when it arms those men with the most improved and deadly weapons of modern science, it should not grudge the money necessary to place those men who compose its Army on a sound footing. Now, stability may be obtained by making it to the self-interest of a body of men to serve the country, and to give the best years of their life in the Service; but if the country will not pay those men enough to induce them to give the best years of their life to the Service, then I see nothing for it but that we must have some modified form of conscription, and by those means—by the introduction to the ranks of all classes of the community—we shall

  1009
  obtain that stability which is obtained in foreign armies. We have in our Army a short service system, with only one class of men in the Service, while in foreign armies it is a short service system for all classes. I cannot help quoting to your Lordships a saying which has been attributed to the Duke of Wellington: he said that, "The noncommissioned officers of the Army are the backbone of the Service." If this was true in the days when the Duke of Wellington said it, at a time when there were many old soldiers in the ranks, how much more true must it be now, when we have the short service system of obtaining men for the Service from a single class of the community. I hope Her Majesty's Government will grant the Return I ask for, and I trust it may be found useful.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House,
  "Return of the average age and service of privates in the regular army at the time of their promotion to be non-commissioned officers during the year 1889; and for a Return of the average age and service of the non-commissioned officers of each rank at present serving with the colours, excluding those who are specially employed and not doing ordinary duty with their respective batteries, troops, or companies."—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, there is no objection whatever to granting the Return asked for by the noble Lord opposite. I would, however, point out to him that it will involve some delay to give the particulars required with regard to every unit of the British Army serving both at home and abroad.
  Agreed to.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 205.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 8.
  LORD THRING: I dare say that what is the obvious meaning of this clause is not intended to be its meaning, and I wish to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to this clause. It certainly would, I think, form a difficult precedent at a future time. Your Lordships will observe it provides that any person holding land for public, ecclesiastical,
  1010
  parochial, charitable, "or other purposes," may, in effect, grant, sell, or exchange it for the purposes of the Public Libraries Act. It then says that where land is held for ecclesiastical purposes the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall assent; that where it is held for parochial purposes, the Guardians and Poor Law Board shall assent, and in the case of other charitable property, the Charity Commissioners shall assent. Then it provides that the money shall be applied as the Charity Commissioners shall decide. But just see what the effect of this clause would be. It enables, in effect, the Trustees of any charity to alter altogether the disposition of their trust by applying land or property which they hold, for the purpose of the Public Libraries Act. Now, I shall not be suspected of having too strong a bias in favour of pious founders, and, I believe that, after a certain time, all charities ought to be considered; but I think to put a clause of this kind in the Act, enabling persons who may hold, as the noble Earl (Lord Meath) will presently show, land for maintaining open spaces,' to allow that land to be built upon for the purpose of forming a public library, is a precedent which may create difficulty in future legislation. If this provision is passed in regard to public libraries it may be passed for any other charitable object which people may think desirable, for example, for the purpose of building a chapel, or public wash-houses, or baths, and no charity will be safe for a moment. To show the carelessness, as it appears to me, with which the measure has been drawn, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it does not even provide that the money arising from the sale of land shall be applied for the purposes of the original Trust; on the contrary, it is to be disposed of as the Commissioners think fit. Then it is perfectly clear that the word "gift" must be struck out, for I cannot imagine that your Lordships are going to allow the Charity Trustees to give away their land as they like. There is another point. I have said nothing as to the effect in reference to private persons, but I do think it is rather a strong order to allow any owner of land to do what is here authorised. I only wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this clause.

  1011
  I submit that it certainly ought, in any case, to be amended, and I doubt whether any part of it ought to be proposed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the noble Lord to tell us what is the meaning of the words "any persons holding land for charitable, parochial, or other purposes." I should like to know what the words "other purposes" mean.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I am sorry, as it has turned out, that this Bill was referred to Committee of the Whole House, and not to a Standing Committee, but that was not entirely my fault. I was not aware of any objection being taken to the clause at the Second Reading of the Bill by noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not make any observation upon it whatever, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow this matter to be considered at a later stage of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment which the noble Earl will move, I shall be very glad to deal with that, but perhaps any question of construction your Lordships would be willing should be considered afterwards.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say I think the point a somewhat serious one. My attention was not called to it, but it seems to me rather a question of principle than a mere drafting. I do not think it is a question of drafting at all.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is really both. I do not quite understand the object of putting in "other purposes." Ordinarily, you read those words ejusdem generis, but when you specify what some of the purposes are—public purposes, or charitable and parochial purposes, the words may have a very wide signification. It is difficult to understand from the language what the "other purposes" can mean, unless they are private purposes. Then there is the other point. In addition, the assent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is required to the alienation of land held for ecclesiastical purposes, and the assent of the Local Government Board in regard to land for parochial purposes, but it requires no assent in reference to these "other purposes," whatever they may be. I cannot help thinking those words must have got in unintentionally.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understand the noble Lord would be willing to strike out the word "other," and in that case that the difficulty would be removed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): How would this proviso affect land held by Universities or Colleges? It seems to me that is a rather serious-question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think myself such purposes as those would come within the word "charitable."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I think not; they are excepted under the Statute of Elizabeth.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure that that would not be so. However, I should certainly think the best course would be to take the course first suggested of putting in "or" before "charitable," and leaving out the words "or other."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I should be quite prepared to accept that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must reserve to myself liberty to move that the word "public" be left out also. I am more afraid of that word than of the others.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am a little doubtful, I confess, about the whole clause. It seems to me, unless there is some precedent for it, it is rather an innovation to allow property held in trust for a charity of one kind, to be applied for a charity of a different kind, even with the consent of the Charity Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly what I meant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, at all events, there ought to be reciprocity, and that the Public Libraries Trustees ought to be allowed to alienate their land for the benefit of other charities.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I had given notice of an Amendment to this clause, but I do not quite understand whether the Motion before the House is to strike out the whole clause or not. My point is with regard to the preservation of open spaces.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, to insert the word "or" before "parochial,"

  1013
  and to omit the words "or other."— (The Lord Herschell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As at present advised, I do not propose to take any part in the discussion upon this portion of the clause, because I shall be very much disposed, when the Question is put by the Chairman "That this clause stand part of the Bill," to meet it with a negative.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know that there would be any harm in allowing Trustees to do it by way of sale or exchange, because then they would get the full value of the laud. I should content myself with taking out the word "gift."
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I cannot agree to the point as to sale. It appears to me that is a very important matter. How this clause got in is difficult to understand. It was not in the original Bill, and was only put in at the last moment on Third Reading. I do not know who is the author of this clause. It is in this connection a somewhat peculiar circumstance that in this Metropolis one very populous district, Bethnal Green, has been for the last 12 months in the throes of an agitation for this very purpose—that is, to get land which was conveyed 200 years ago for charitable purposes, and in regard to which there is a Trust to keep it as an open space, built over. There is an agitation going on as to whether some of the land could not be used for other purposes than that of an open space, and there are three distinct purposes put forward, one to erect a library upon it, another to erect a vestry hall, and another to build an infirmary. There has been a division of opinion on the subject, and there have been about 70 public meetings held in the district. Public opinion is greatly divided upon it. There are a certain number of ratepayers who are anxious to utilise the ground for these purposes. It is a terrible temptation to them to save money by building upon public land. On the other hand, there are a large number of ratepayers who wish the Trust to be maintained. I must adhere, I think, to the Amendment which I have moved, which is—
  "Provided also that land held on trust to be preserved as an open space, or on trust which prohibit building thereon, shall not be
  1014
  granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I should have been very glad if I could have accepted the noble Earl's Amendment, sympathising as I do with his object—
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I would point out that the Amendment before the House is the insertion of "or" before "charitable."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend behind me has requested me to move an Amendment in the 18th line. You will there find the words—
  "And the said Board and Commissioners respectively may provide for the application of the moneys which may be derived from the sale of any land."
  It seems to me the money ought to be held for the purposes of the charity. I think, as suggested, the words should be—
  "The moneys arising from any sale or exchange of such land shall be applied for the same purposes as the land exchanged or sold."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I think I have some right to complain that a considerable number of Amendments should have been brought forward upon this clause, of which I have received no notice. However, as they all come from this side of the House I suppose I cannot say very much about them. I think it is quite obvious that the sense of the House is with the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I, therefore, do not know that there would be any great object in my attempting to evade the proposal. Still I was anxious on other grounds that the Bill might have passed without any Amendment at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon that appeal for some addition in the way of amendment from this side of the House I rise to gratify the noble Lord, and I think the best amendment is that we should say "No" to the question that this clause stand part of the Bill. It really requires very careful looking into. I want to know who "any person holding land for public purposes" is? Does that mean Ministers of the Crown? Does it mean every person who has a fiduciary interest of a limited and temporary character in land applied for public purposes? I think, considering

  1015
  the enormous importance of the interests involved, these words need to be very fully considered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The unfortunate thing is that this was not observed when the Bill was under consideration before. This is eminently a matter which should have been considered in Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I will accept, the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I need not say I am hardly, at this moment, prepared to argue intricate questions of the kind raised, and I reserve to myself liberty to bring the matter forward at a later stage of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I withdraw my Amendment.
  Clause 8 omitted.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Friday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 215.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have to propose an Amendment at the end of the 1st clause, which transfers the hearing of Motions for new trials from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. My attention has been called to the fact that when this Bill comes into operation there will be a certain number of cases standing for hearing in the Divisional Court, and that those ought to be transferred for hearing to the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls has called my attention to that circumstance, and I think it is desirable it should be provided for. Therefore, I propose to add—
  "This section shall extend to every Motion of which notice may have been given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, but which has not been heard before the commencement of this Act."
  Amendment agreed to,
  Other Amendments made; Bill to be read 3ª to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 231.)

  SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL. (No. 218.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
    THE EARL OF POWIS: Your Lordships: may remember a day or two ago when I brought forward the question whether provision should be made as to whether the Sheriffs should appear in uniform or not, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack considered it was too trifling a question for legislation- I am well aware that there is a legal maxim de minimis non curat lex, but I have again to urge that I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think this too small a, matter to take notice of, because I then mentioned that, on that account, a Judge had actually threatened to heavily fine a Sheriff for not appearing in uniform, and since that Debate, I have received a copy of a letter in which a learned Judge, in 1873, distinctly ordered all the Sheriffs on the Oxford Circuit to appear in uniform. I mentioned that in former years no such custom had prevailed in Shropshire or Montgomeryshire. This custom was not introduced into Shropshire until 1873, when the Judge of Assize directed the Clerk of Assize to write to all the Under Sheriffs on the Oxford Circuit in. these words—
    "I am directed by Mr. Justice Quain to inform the Sheriff through you that the Judge will expect that high official to appear either in full dress or in uniform, the proper costume of a High Sheriff in attendance on Her Majesty's Judges, being, in his Lordship's opinion, such as would be justifiable and admissible only at one of Her Majesty's levees."
    Now, that is a very distinct order, upon the subject, although it is a subject upon which the Committee over which my hon. and learned Friend presided, and the two noble and learned Lords who spoke the other day, agreed that it was not within the province of the Judge to give such an order. I think this letter shows there was quite sufficient justification for me in bringing the matter forward, and in the circumstances I do not suppose your Lordships, or my noble and learned Friend, will now think the matter too small to be considered.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will only say a few words further upon this point. I do not blame the noble Lord in the least for bringing it forward. I only protested against this House being engaged in legislation as to the particular form of garment to be worn by an official in the position of a High Sheriff. I think the House will still consider there is scarcely a necessity for an Act of Parliament to be passed in regard to the kind of coat the Sheriff should wear. I said so on the last occasion, and I am still of that opinion. I would merely now observe that the only case brought forward by the noble Lord is as old as 1873, and I am not quite certain that I do not take the same view of the orders issued on that occasion as the noble Lord. There may have been requests at one time relating to matters of etiquette issued by learned Judges which were certainly not conformable to the law. But that learned Judge only stated what he expected as to the form of dress as a matter of etiquette; the learned Judge may have been right or wrong in his opinion, but he certainly did not threaten to fine the Sheriff £500 on that account, as was stated the other night. I then said that, in my opinion, it would have been exceeding his power for him to do so, and I ventured then to express my incredulity as to such an occurrence ever having taken place. I cannot find that the noble Lord has now obtained, as he supposes, the particulars of that circumstance, and I can only call his attention to the fact that I have received a letter referring to that particular case. As I pointed out the other night, no such rule as my noble Friend imagines was laid down, but the matter to which the threat to fine the Sheriff £500 applied was one of gross contempt of one of Her Majesty's Judges, an intentional deliberate act of contempt, and it was punished accordingly. The matter had no reference whatever to the question of the dress of the High Sheriff. I still entertain the view that, whatever may be done in this matter, it would be undignified for Parliament, and I hope Parliament will not be asked, to prescribe what particular kind of dress any public official shall wear.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, at the previous stage of this Bill, I alluded to one of its provisions, and intimated
    1018
    that on the present occasion I should propose an Amendment, namely, to substitute the Home Secretary for the County Councils acting with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of framing regulations in relation to the accommodation of and reception of Her Majesty's Judges. Since I made that statement, I have considered the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that in reality my objection goes deeper, and would not be met completely by the alteration of that proviso; that, in truth, my objection is to this Bill altogether, and, therefore, I shall move the rejection of the Bill; but inasmuch as I have given no notice of my intention to do so, I shall, of course, not press it to a Division, but merely make that Motion for the purpose of explaining the position which I take in regard to it. The object of this Bill is simply to relieve the gentleman who will hereafter be called upon to fill the office of High Sheriff from expenses to which the High Sheriffs have hitherto been put. To that I have no kind of objection Whatever. But that is the only object which will be attained by the Bill. It is only a public object in the sense that it is a right thing to enact that public officials shall not be put to expense which ought not properly to fall upon them. As regards the public, the Only effect of the Bill will be to transfer certain expenses from the shoulders of the Sheriffs hereafter to the County Councils, and thus to put upon the rates the expenses which have hitherto been borne by those individuals. I think this is really a step in the right direction, but that evil ought to be met in another way. I will shortly tell your Lordships the way in which I think it ought to be met. Let me say at once that I am not desirous of putting any obstacle in the way of removing this burden from individual shoulders. I certainly do not intend to cast any reflections upon the County Councils in the observations which I make. I have no doubt, and I thoroughly believe, they are admirable bodies, doing good work. At the same time, like some of my noble Friends, not being myself a County Councillor, it is not a necessary part of my creed to believe that all County Councils, under all circumstances, and at all times, will act with unimpeachable wis-

    1019
    dom, and I cannot think it an expedient thing to initiate in every County Council in England and Wales, as this measure would do, a discussion as to the proper mode in which Her Majesty's Judges should be received and accommodated, and to make regulations differing, perhaps, in all the counties in that respect. Now, this is really only part of a far larger subject. The view which I take is this, that the Sheriff's expenses are part of the expenses of the administration of Justice, which is not really a local matter at all, and ought not to be treated as a local matter. The truth is, that a large portion of these charges is now met by the Treasury. Another large portion of the expenses is met by fees. If you add together the fees and the proportion paid by the Treasury it will be found that the larger portion of the expenses of this department of the administration of justice is met now, and will in future be met without any call upon the rates. The view which I venture to submit to your Lordships is this, that the whole of those expenses ought to be dealt with as part of the expenses of the administration of justice, in the same way as the greater portion of them are now met, and that the provision made with regard to this matter should not be dependent upon the view taken in this county or in that county, but that it should be a uniform system applicable to the whole country which, therefore, should be provided for by the same Central Authority. I quite feel that if you put the burden of this upon the several counties, it is only natural they should desire to have a voice in the matter; this Bill gives them the exclusive voice, although the burden only falls partially upon them. That is natural enough, and it is, in my view, extremely undesirable that the matter should be thus dealt with piecemeal in the different counties throughout the country. What appears to me to have been lost sight of is this, that at the present time the great part of the expense of enforcing judgments and the other duties of the Sheriffs is covered by fees, and the practice has been for each Sheriff to agree with his Under-Sheriff to receive the fees, and out of the fees to bear what I may call the ordinary expenses of this part or the administration of justice, leaving to the Sheriff himself certain of
    1020
    the expenses connected with his attendance upon the Judges. The agreements thus made vary, even as between county and county; that is to say, in some counties it has been the practice for the Sheriff to receive in relief of the expenses, or as a portion of the expenditure, some of the money coming from the Treasury which is not received in other counties. My belief is this, that if you had the whole of this matter placed in the hands of a central authority, so that you had a permanent official in each county appointed by the Crown, and if you had the whole of the fees which are now received by the Under-Sheriff, received by the Crown, it would be found that all the legitimate and proper expenses of the Shrievalty, including those proposed to be transferred to the County Council, might be met without any demand being made either upon the County Rates or any further demand than that which is now made upon the Treasury. If that were done, and I may say that I have gone to a considerable extent into the matter, my strong conviction is that that would be the result. The expenses are now larger than they would be if a permanent official had been appointed to act. For instance, in the county of Durham, the total average of the Sheriff's expenses is now about £400. I have made some little investigation into the question of what it would be likely to be if the thing were put on a permanent basis, and I do not think it would exceed a half—I doubt if it would be much more than £200. I might illustrate the matter in the same way as regards other counties in England. My belief is that, if the whole matter were gone into throughout the counties of England, it would be possible to initiate a new system by which, without any additional burden being cast upon either the Treasury or the rates, you might have the whole matter put on a satisfactory basis, and uniformly dealt with throughout England and Wales. I do not think anybody can doubt that that would be a much more satisfactory system than the scheme which is proposed by the present Bill. My Lords, it is not likely that this Bill will pass the other House in the present Session. I do not understand that even its promoters anticipate that, but I would urge that Her Majesty's Government should in the Recess in-

    1021
    quire into this matter, with the view of ascertaining the facts—which certainly were not fully ascertained by the Committee of this House which inquired into the subject—as to the fees which are received in the different counties, and the surplus over expenditure which remains in the hands of those who now receive the fees. I think if that were done it would be found that, very likely, without any additional payment by the Treasury, or, at all events, with a very trifling addition, you would be able to deal with this important department of the administration of justice throughout the country on a uniform and satisfactory footing. If that is true it certainly would be inexpedient to commence by throwing this burden upon the rates in the way proposed by the present Bill. It is because I so believe that I have felt it necessary to explain] my views, and I, therefore, formally move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
    Amendment moved, To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Herschell.)
    LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I cannot help expressing my regret at what I suppose I must call the necessity for this Bill. I do not agree with my noble and learned Friend. I think the system in this country is, that public duties are to be performed gratuitously by those who are fit for them. No Member of either House of Parliament is paid as such; Magistrates are not paid; jurymen are not paid; they perform their duties gratuitously, as also do Guardians of the Poor, Churchwardens, and Constables, who are all unpaid. But I am afraid it is a necessity that these gentlemen upon whom the duty of filling the office of High Sheriff ordinarily falls should be relieved from the expense of it. I do object to the clause which makes a special provision for the arrangement being made by the County Councils, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, as to the way in which the Judges shall be received. I believe the proceedings at County Councils are attended by reporters, and a very pretty discussion will occasionally take place as to the mode in which his Lordship shall be received. I cannot think that it will contribute very
    1022
    much to the respect which is at present paid to the learned Judges when people read the uncivil remarks which many people will, undoubtedly, take the opportunity of making. The majority of the County Councils may think otherwise, but those who are for cutting down the observances which have always been shown to the Judges will be sure to give expression to their opinions, and to express their reasons in a very unsatisfactory way. I would infinitely prefer that there should be no provision in the Bill as to the County Councils making any arrangements, either with or without the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor for the time being, as to the way in which the Judges shall be received, or that it should be simply left in the condition in which it is now, because I protest again, as I told your Lordships on the last occasion, that there is no power for any Judge to do what it has been stated was done by the learned Judge whom the noble Lord referred to. He was a popular man among his brother Judges, but he had a peculiar sobriquet among us on account of his liability to do just such a singular thing as he did on this occasion. When you come to consider it, the very fact of his issuing this general notice is a proof that it was an entirely original proceeding on his part, because, if it had not been the practice to do otherwise, why should he have given this special notice on the Oxford Circuit? For my own part, I most heartily wish that any High Sheriff who should be treated in this very erroneous way would try the question, for I am sure he would get the best of it. It seems to me it would be very much better, indeed, if there were not this provision, which would give rise to discussions of a most unpleasant character, as I have had an intimation from one who is not at all hostile to the Bill, but, on the contrary, friendly to it, would be the case. There is just one clause in the Bill to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. It is that
    "The expenses of the High Sheriff of a county in receiving and protecting the Judges and so forth, and in keeping order within the precincts of the Court of Assize shall so far as they are not expenses which had before the passing of this Act been customarily defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate."
    Well, it may possibly be said that by implication what was formerly paid

    1023
    out of the County Rata shall not in future be so paid. I do not know whether my noble and learned Friend sees the point; but I have no doubt how the Judges would construe it, because when Judges have to construe an Act of Parliament they make sense of it, and they make sense of it by interpreting it to say what it ought to say, and very often they have no other reason for their construction. I have no doubt they would hold that what was formerly paid out of the County Rate should continue to be so paid, and that it should not be otherwise paid; although, of course, a question might be raised about it under this clause. As I have often said in the Standing Committee on Law that when we have to construe an Act of Parliament, "We must do oar best with it as it stands; but in making one, we should take care there is no ambiguity about it." I do not know whether the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill thinks that worth his attention in any way, but I can assure him it is not a captious objection on my part at all.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with regard to the objection which has been taken to the words in the 2nd clause of the Bill, I think the noble Lord will see, at all events I think myself, there is not really any force in his objection. The words are that—
    "The expenses so far as they have hitherto been defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate shall be defrayed out of the County Rate."
    Of course, the meaning of that is, that the Treasury will continue to pay any portion that it has hitherto paid, and the County Rate will continue to pay any portion that it has hitherto paid, and the surplus, if any, shall be provided out of the County Rate. I think that seems pretty clear; at all events, it is so to me. I am very glad, at the same time, to hear that whether that be accurately expressed in the Bill or not there is no possibility of the Act going wrong, because, when it is placed in the hands of the Judges, they will interpret it in the way it should be interpreted. As this Motion, which is nominally hostile to the Bill, is not going to be pressed, I do not think I need detain your Lordships by making any lengthened remarks upon the Bill itself. It is perfectly true that
    1024
    the Bill is a small Bill, and deals with a small portion of the question only; I mentioned that to your Lordships when I introduced the Bill. The reason why it is a partial measure is because it would have been impossible for me, a private Member of your Lordships' House, to deal with the whole question; and, as the Government have not found themselves able to introduce a measure dealing with the whole subject, I thought it was better, at all events, to treat a portion of the question than not to do anything with it at all. For this reason: because the Committee upon this subject sat two years ago, and I have myself received a great many letters with regard to the matter, which is felt to be a very great hardship in many parts of the country. I have been asked frequently whether Parliament was going to do anything with regard to the Report of this Committee. It is quite possible, as has been said, I have begun at the wrong end. Perhaps I did; but it is better to begin at the wrong end than not to begin at all, and I think your Lordships will see that if this Bill passes into law, on which point I am a little more sanguine than the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, it will at all events, relieve the persons, who are in future to be appointed as High Sheriffs, to a not inconsiderable degree. If in a future Session of Parliament it may be found possible to go a great deal further I shall be glad. The proposal made by the noble and learned Lord is a proposal which I think deserves serious consideration. The proposal, as I understand it, is this: that in future the fees received by the Under Sheriffs shall be received by the Treasury; that the whole legal business for which the High Sheriff is at present nominally responsible, but of which he knows nothing, and can know nothing, and with regard to the carrying out of which he is perfectly unable himself to act, shall be dealt with by the Treasury also. Of course, the Sheriff has to leave everything to his Under Sheriff. Now, in future, the proposal is that those fees shall be transferred to the Treasury, and that the whole of this large legal business shall be carried on as a matter of I national concern, and through the agency of the Treasury; and then that all the expenses of the Shrievalty shall be borne

    1025
    by the Treasury. No doubt the noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that if the fees received by the Under Sheriff at present were received by the Treasury, and if they were calculated on a proper scale, the whole expenses of the Shrievalty could be borne by the county, without any cost to the High Sheriff or charge upon the County Rate. If any proposal is brought forward hereafter, I shall give it the best support I can, and I think, in all probability, it is the very best way of dealing with this question. But up to the present time we have found that the Treasury has not shown any particular desire to move in this direction, and of course in the present Session of Parliament it would have been quite impossible to carry out such a proposal. However, I hope the Government will bear in mind what the noble and learned Lord has said, and will give it their best consideration.
    On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3ª accordingly: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE OFFICES OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to results which have followed the connection of the duties belonging to the First Minister with those belonging to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and move for precedents upon it, said: My Lords, the notice has been put upon the Paper only to repeat or follow up what I have urged before upon the subject both in Parliament and elsewhere. The last time I addressed your Lordships I alluded to it briefly. Recent circumstances have, however, given a fresh importance to the topic. Embarrassments have happened attributable fairly to the union of two functions I have indicated, but which, unless their origin is traced, may lead to violent conclusions. In the few remarks I have to make nothing will fall from me—at least intentionally—which is opposed to the general idea of Lord Hartington and his supporters, in whom alone I recognise a guarantee of national security. So far am I from being alone among
  1026
  men friendly to the Government that only on the Thursday before last, the 17th of July, one of their organs anticipated nearly all that has occurred, to me. On that account, I am more inclined to abridge or hurry over what I wish to bring before your Lordships. To specify that organ might produce misapprehension, or be against the usages of Parliament. It showed, however, clearly that the regular supporters of the Government are far from easy at the situation which exists. The journal went even beyond the view I have arrived at. I hold that in two cases the union of the functions is desirable; one when a particular emergency requires unusual concentration; the other when, at the beginning of a Government, the First Minister has never been conversant with the Foreign Office and feels the want of being conversant with it. Such a rule would have applied to Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and others. But it is obvious to the House that neither of these cases is before us. There is no great international emergency to traverse at this moment. The noble Marquess opposite was enabled to learn the business of the Foreign Office between 1878 and 1880. My Lords, it may appear presumptuous in anyone to enter on a problem of this nature unless he has a long experience at Downing Street to back him or instruct him. But during the past autumn much light has been thrown on the mechanism of government, and distribution of employment by the Papers of Lord Melbourne, by the life of Lord John Russell, by the correspondence of the late Earl Grey with Princess Lieven, which are accessible to everyone. The first result of the connection—as it now subsists, at least—is that the Treasury is violently dislocated or divided from the power which for many generations has supported it. The experience of two centuries has led to the convention, or one might say, the conviction that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Minister of the Crown ought to be identified. Since the time of Lord Chatham, who formed a Government in 1766 and took the post of Privy Seal, the practice I refer to seems to have been constant. However scattered in the House, there may be noble Lords who know that kind of history much

  1027
  better than I do. The system, so long matured and suddenly renounced, had grounds which are intelligible. The Treasury is constantly refusing money. To-night an instance was alluded to. Refusal to be tolerable must be based on policy, and no one but the head of the Government can urge with prudence and authority that such and such demands ought not to be complied with. The Treasury is also like the Supreme Court of the United States, enabled from time to time to keep Acts of Parliament suspended by withholding funds, without which they are unexecuted. There is a late example in the Public Offices Site Act. Now, such a power of revising Acts of Parliament can hardly be entrusted to an ordinary Member of the Cabinet, although it may be to the Leader, who reflects its general sagacity. But I attach no great degree of weight to the consideration of the Treasury. It is far more serious to recollect that the First Minister, according to all antecedent probability, must be overburdened, when he unites the general direction of affairs with the minute, far-reaching, and inexorable labours of the Foreign Office. I will not dwell on antecedent probability, although the topic is a fertile one. But what has been, my Lords, the recent observation of the country? Departments have appeared to reach a perilous autonomy. Bills have been improvised which might have been retarded with advantage. Things urgent and required have seemed to be obstructed or blocked up by things uncalled for and superfluous. Schemes based on prudence and necessity have been thought to yield to schemes whose parentage is doubtful, but which have been often traced to fanciful ambition and to impetuous philanthropy. Confusion must arise in Parliament when the First Minister, absorbed by diplomatic correspondence, has neither time nor energy to obviate it. The country has next observed the foundations of society impaired; the Constabulary and the military power shaken in allegiance. No doubt the danger is exaggerated, and must be till its latent cause is properly appreciated. But it might be thought at first that while the First Minister is decidedly a loser, the Secretary of State may be a gainer in proportion; that while at home there is
  1028
  a semblance of anarchy, there may be abroad a growth in energy or in efficiency. It is against all reason that it should be so. Foreign policy demands a great deal more, but yet I venture to submit that it demands in limine and as an indispensable preliminary strength in the Executive. It cannot flourish when all the world remark that the Executive is crumbling or weakened. Foreign policy, when ably conducted, is no doubt a bar to war, but the ability to go to war must yet be its foundation. No country is prepared for war when its police is undermined, and when the garrison of its metropolis, even to a limited extent, partakes of the infection. But on a general position of this kind men often differ in opinion. I am more inclined to look to circumstances which surround us. When there is a controversy with the United States as to the Behring Sea, with France as to Newfoundland, each tending to the chance of possible hostilities; when it is necessary to give up Heligo land, which could not but enhance our negotiating influence at Berlin; when nothing has been done to remove the danger long inherent in Bulgaria, or to revive the Ottoman assemblies, or to repair the Treaties of 1856, so vital to the Eastern Question, although we may acquit the Foreign Office of any strong reproach, although deficiency, much more than error, is imputable, although these difficulties may all have a happy settlement, it is impossible to urge that the union of the functions has led in that Department to any visible advantages. But if my estimate or survey is disputed, I retire from a strong to an impregnable position. The present union has one inevitable consequence, which, duly weighed, at least suffices as a reason for avoiding it as permanent or final. If anyone has meditated long enough on foreign policy he will arrive at the conclusion that two spheres of operation are related to it. One evidently is that of arrangement and adjustment in order to compose the differences, minute or large, which have sprung up between Great Britain and other independent Powers, such as a question on an Afghan frontier, or a parallel of latitude in Africa, or how far lobsters fall under the provisions of a celebrated Treaty. In that sphere —if I could judge at all—the noble

  1029
  Marquess is a considerable master. But even there he cannot do so much as if the general direction of affairs was not absorbing and distracting him. The other sphere appears to be that of prosecuting, after deep reflection, changes, combinations which are good both for the honour of Great Britain and the tranquillity of Europe. Such was the Quadruple Alliance of Lord Palmerston, which required originating faculty to plan and to effect it. It would be easy, although it would not be desirable, to point out a series of measures not entirely dissimilar which merit grave consideration at this moment. In that higher sphere a Secretary of State, who, as First Minister, is responsible for every Department, every proposal, every appointment, it might, indeed, be said for every event, must be, no matter what his talent, helpless and incapable. It would be folly—with a mind so harassed and divided—to approach it. The utmost he can aim at is to put an end to complications of to-day, and to prepare for complications of to-morrow. He may be a plasterer, but he can never be an architect in Europe. However, granting, for a time, that arrangement and adjustment are the only business of the Foreign Office, that it ought not to aim at any objects more enduring, there is a practical objection to the present union which seems to me to be unanswerable. In these days it is essential that the Secretary of State should be at liberty, when an occasion calls for it, to visit capitals in which his influence is wanted. Since 1870, the Government would probably admit it, foreign policy has been to a great extent a struggle at Berlin between the counsels of St. Petersburg on one side, the influence of London on the other. Although to carry on that struggle we have had, in Lord Ampthill and Sir Edward Malet, two invaluable agents, it is important that the Secretary of State should throw his weight sometimes into the balance. M. de Giers, on the part of Russia, often does so. But it is not only at Berlin that the Secretary of State, in rare conjunctures, might exert a critical authority. Now, if he is first Minister, his duty to the Sovereign, the Cabinet, and public must retain him in this country, except when need for rest induces him to quit it. He cannot ever
  1030
  do so for exertion and activity. On the whole, therefore, it seems to be apparent that either function suffers by the union, when it is protracted. It is quite consistent with our general experience of human effort that it should be so. The sound direction of the whole, and the exact manipulation of a part, are seldom found together. The man who guides a helm can hardly labour as a stoker in the engine room. A general, directing armies, can seldom lead a charge of cavalry with profit. The bandmaster, who by the movement of a wand gives harmony to an orchestra would not succeed in doing so if he performed himself upon the kettledrum or trombone. At the same time I readily admit that the first Minister is bound to exercise a great control over the Foreign Office, although not technically leading it. We know from Mr. Lecky, the historian, who has investigated records, that Mr. Pitt composed a number of Despatches for the Foreign Office when his Ministry began. We know from the private secretary of Mr. Canning—and the fact is most impressive—that the last production of his mind was a State Paper upon Portugal, which he drew up while First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unless I have been much deceived by statements current in political society, Lord Palmerston was ready as First Minister at given times to labour for the Foreign Office as he had done when connected with it. The noble Marquess has, indeed, sometimes, in a few words, defended the new system by pointing to inconveniencies which showed themselves under the normal one. I readily admit them. They are patent to all who have been ever versed in the career and correspondence of the very statesmen I have mentioned. But it does not follow that because one method is imperfect, another may not be attended with hazards less to be endured. It might also be pointed out that the deficiencies of the established form admit of mitigation by safeguards easy to advert to. If the first Minister and Secretary of State approximate in views to one another; if they deliberately settle how to act in every probable contingency; if the First Minister is accessible at all times to any difficulties which the Foreign Office may present to him; if

  1031
  the Foreign Office never enter upon any new departure until the Sovereign and first Minister have previously endorsed it, the former system may do well—as it has under many Governments—down to the period when some transition in the country leads us to improve upon it. On the other hand, it would be difficult to mention any safeguards or conditions by which the [lasting union of the offices would not continue, as it is at present, weakening to both of them. I have proposed to move for precedents, but doubt much whether any can be found since 1688 for such a combination. When Mr. Pitt came back to power in 1804 he may be thought to have united the two functions down to 1806, under the pressure of the war, although nominally First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, With what deplorable results and tragic fate he did so, the pages of Lord Stanhope have explained, and it would well become the friends or colleagues of the noble Marquess to remember. Nothing which comes from me, nothing which transpires in the House, is likely to have much influence upon the Government. It ought not to be assumed that, because the present union has worked badly, a prompt or a precipitate correction of it would be useful. The good which I may partially effect, or have been led at least to contemplate, is that of drawing some attention, either here or out of doors, to the real origin of much which causes general disquietude. If men perceive that what has lately happened may be traced to a political experiment which ought not to be deeply blamed, however unsuccessful, they may recover equanimity and firmness, instead of looking to subversive remedies and revolutionary antidotes. The illustrious Duke, who often sits on the cross Benches, has frequently explained, in reference to military projects that "everything is tentative." We are familiar with the maxim. The noble Marquess may have been fully justified in initiating such a change as he has hazarded, although it has not borne the fruit which he anticipated. An eminent authority, while leading in the other House of Parliament, once stated—
  "The misfortunes of individuals and of kingdoms that are laid open and examined
  1032
  with true wisdom are more than half redressed, and to this great point should he directed all the virtue and all the talent of the House."
  Although the phrase may go too far, although the task it recommends may be too difficult, or little suited to, the lassitude which marks the Session as it closes, we ought, I think, in some degree, to act upon the lesson it conveys to us. I, therefore, move according to the notice on the Paper.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before the House any precedents that there may have been for the connection of the duties belonging to the First Minister with those belonging to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has undertaken a task which in itself is rather difficult. He obviously does not approve of the course which the Government has followed, and he has little confidence in us. That is a very proper and constitutional position, and I have no wish to complain of it. He thinks that I am guilty of many things: I am guilty of the mutiny of the Grenadier Guards or their insubordination; I am guilty of the fact that lobsters are not recognised as fish under the Treaty of Utrecht; and I am also guilty of not going circuit among the capitals of Europe in order to influence the various statesmen at the head of affairs in those countries. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite, my predecessor, did any better in that respect; but the noble Lord, while blaming me for those faults—and I have not enumerated one-tenth part of those which he has detailed—was kind enough to provide an excuse, and said that if only I had been Prime Minister without being Foreign Minister, or Foreign Minister without being Prime Minister, I should have committed none of these blunders. Well, it is very difficult for him to prove that. It is very difficult for him to prove that my blunders are not the result of my own innate incapacity and folly. And especially will he find it difficult when he finds that I am on the other side, and when I assure the noble Lord that, however difficult I find the two offices, if the two offices had been separated I should have done just as badly as I have done. That is the result of my own introspection, and I

  1033
  must entreat the noble Lord to abandon that kind effort to cloak my shortcomings which he has been good enough to invent. The consequence I quite admit, though I entirely demur to his mode of proving it. I say it is quite impossible for the noble Lord to indicate how much of my failings come from one cause, and how much from another. Still the question raised by the noble Lord is one of considerable constitutional interest, and I observed that it was raised in the other House by no less a person than the leader of the Opposition. I think Mr. Gladstone was equally in error. He stated that it was impossible for anybody to do the duties of the two offices unless he was possessed of almost superhuman energy and skill. I think he did what is very natural to do; he contemplated the situation from the position which he himself occupied. If he had said that it was impossible for any man to be Prime Minister, leader of the House of Commons, and Foreign Minister as well, I should have absolutely agreed with him. There is no doubt that it would be too much for any man; it would crush even a Napoleon or an Oliver Cromwell. But the matter is very different when the Minister sits in the House of Lords. I am not prescribing the arrangement as one for universal adoption, but it seems to me a very fair thing to do when it is convenient to do it. But the noble Lord appeals for precedents in the matter. It is not for me to decry Conservatism wherever I find it; but I confess that, while I have a deep respect for Conservatism in matters of substance, my respect for Conservatism in matters of form is very small indeed; and if a thing is more convenient now it does not matter two straws whether or not it was found more convenient to Prime Ministers 20, 30, or 40 years ago. In considering it I think a mistake is made in talking of the offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary being united as though that was an extraordinary combination of offices. The office of Prime Minister is never held alone; it is always united with some additional office or another. The question is, what office should be united with it; whether it is more convenient to unite with it the office of First Lord of the Treasury or some other office? My Lords, that seems
  1034
  to me to depend very much upon the question whether the Prime Minister is in this House or the other. I am not disputing that there are many reasons why it is more convenient that the Prime Ministership should be held by a Member of the House of Commons; but, on the other hand, the labour of that House is increasing so enormously that I have my doubts whether, unless some change which we cannot forecast takes place, it will be always easy to find a man of that surprising vigour of body and intellect, combined the great knowledge of which Mr. Gladstone speaks and of which he has been an example. For an ordinary man I think the labour of leading the House of Commons and being Prime Minister at the same time is a very overwhelming task. But if you pass by that question, and assume that it is settled by events whether the Prime Minister is to be in this House or the other, I should say that, on the whole, it is less convenient that he should hold here the office of First Lord of the Treasury. If he takes no part in the duties of the Treasury, then he has really very little as First Lord to do; if he does take part in them, he divides the Treasury into two halves, and is probably a serious impediment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, so much has it been found a matter of difficulty to work those two offices separately, if the holders of them both take part in Treasury business, that it has constantly been the practice, as noble Lords will recollect, to unite the two offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. I confess from the little insight I had into the work that I do not think the tenure of the office of First Lord of the Treasury by a Member of your Lordships' House is very convenient; it is much better that the office should be held by a Member of that House in which Treasury questions constantly come up for discussion and are principally dealt with. Then as to the question, what advantage is derived with respect to foreign affairs from the Prime Minister not being Foreign Minister, I had the honour to serve under Lord Beaconsfield as Foreign Minister, and I occupied the inverse position towards my lamented Friend Lord Iddesleigh when he was Foreign Minister. My experience of that relation is, having been at both ends of it, that

  1035
  the Prime Minister interferes extremely-little in the conduct of foreign affairs. Of course, he has to deal with those great questions which come before the Cabinet and are decided by it; but outside the class of Cabinet questions he has not that daily familiarity with what is said and done which enables him to interfere with advantage in the conduct of foreign affairs. I can imagine a Prime Minister—I have heard rumours of such—interfering a great deal in the conduct of foreign affairs, but, if it has ever been so, I am quite sure that whatever the ability of that Prime Minister may have been, he could have done nothing but harm, because no good can be done in the management of complicated affairs when the same string is pulled by two people who are differently qualified for the duty of pulling it by the amount of experience, knowledge, and daily information which they possess. I can quite imagine that if a Prime Minister thought it his duty to interfere too much with foreign affairs, it would cause confusion rather than advantage. These things must be matters of estimate rather than of judgment. My impression is, that the shortcomings which the noble Lord finds, and which I do not wish to deny, are shortcomings personal to myself and in no degree arising from the combination of the two offices; and that if it is otherwise convenient for the Government, it is a combination which may be wisely permitted, and which affects injuriously neither the general conduct of the business of the Government nor the conduct of foreign affairs in particular.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have grave doubts whether any practical advantage would result from continuing this discussion, but, at the same time, I am the last person who would have the right to complain of the noble Lord's bringing it forward, because some years ago I dwelt upon the subject at considerable length, and gave a good many reasons, and went into considerable detail. My complaint at that time, I am bound to say, fell absolutely flat, but that complaint has now become more general; it is not confined to the noble Lord, but has taken a considerable hold of the public mind. There was one thing in which I was perfectly wrong, though I deemed it very likely at the time; my
  1036
  own conviction was that it would be impossible for the noble Marquess's physical strength to stand the great strain which filling the two offices would entail upon him. I am happy to say that I was completely wrong in that conviction, and nobody is more pleased that it is so than I am myself. With regard to the answer of the noble Marquess as to precedents, he said that he was not much of a Conservative as regards matter of form. Now, I must confess that, although I think that he is in some ways a strong Conservative, I have always thought there was a slight flavour of Radicalism about him. I have never concealed that from myself, and I rather think there is a disposition on the part of the present Government to throw aside, as matters of form, matters which have very often a great deal of substance in them. But when the noble Marquess says he doubts the usefulness, as a rule, of Prime Ministers taking a very great part in foreign policy, I am obliged to say, partly from my own experience and partly from what I have read, that Mr. Canning, Lord John Russell, LordPalmerston, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Gladstone, all took the deepest and most constant interest in the supervision of foreign affairs when they were Prime Ministers, so that my experience and what I have heard is entirely opposed to that of the noble Marquess. I really cannot see the strength of the argument of the noble Marquess with regard to the position of the First Lord of the Treasury when he talks of the inconveniences of uniting the two offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, because really the work of the First Lord of the Treasury is very little more than a sinecure. He is the head of the hierarchy with regard to the national expenditure; he is in a position in which appeals are necessarily made to him. But as to the daily working of it really the office of First Lord of the Treasury is one which would not interfere in the slighest degree either with the other duties of the Prime Minister or with the duties of leading in the other House of Parliament. I quite admit that there is a great distinction between the offices being held by the Prime Minister in this House and being held by one who, at the same time, is leading in the House of

  1037
  Commons. I do not mean in the slightest degree to diminish the enormous difference; but I think there is so much that requires constant attention, and that the drudgery of the Foreign Office is so great, that there are great objections to this union of offices. Quite beyond the important questions to be settled, there are many things in -which the Foreign Minister must take part, and with which he must show acquaintance when addressing Ambassadors and Ministers of Foreign Powers. He must be able to talk on the subjects of which they talk, though they may not be of vital importance, and the numbers of hours constantly occupied by any Foreign Minister in his work is enough to incapacitate him from undertaking the heavy duties of another office, too. I am unwilling to prolong this discussion, because, as I have said, I think it can lead to no practical result; but I do differ from the noble Marquess, and I adhere to my former opinion, not only with regard to the strength and powers of the individual who holds both offices, but I believe there is a very grave objection to having the two offices in one, because there is no longer the advantage of having a certain amount of check from one to the other.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I have no wish, my Lords, to prolong discussion by an answer, but am contented to leave to the general arbitrament what has fallen from myself, the noble Marquess, and the noble Earl who has just spoken. As the Government appear to be unable to furnish any precedents such as the Motion would require, I feel entitled to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 203.)
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps, with regard to these Amendments, I may be allowed to say that I see no very great difference exhibited between those proposed in the other House and those to which I ask your Lordships to agree to. Mainly, the question has been with regard to the omission of Preambles of certain Acts of Parliament, and wherever it has
  1038
  been considered undesirable to omit the Preambles from the Acts of Parliament by reason of showing their purpose and object, I must advise your Lordships' House to disagree with the Commons Amendments; but in the greater proportion of the cases, I think we may safely agree to the Commons Amendments as made. One great distinction has been made, and I think wisely, by those who have had the consideration of these matters, that instead of an actual repeal of those portions of the Acts of Parliament consisting of Preambles and so on, there has been a reference made to them for the purposes of the authorised version of the Statutes. The effect will be that, should any question arise as to the existence or non-existence of those Preambles, or should any question arise as to the real meaning of those Acts of Parliament, they will still remain for purposes of reference, and they need not be printed again in the Revised Statutes. With that short explanation, I think it will not be necessary to do more than take the Amendments seriatim.
  LORD THRING: It is a very great satisfaction to the Committee, of which I happened to be Chairman, that the House of Commons have taken up the question of the revision of the Statutes as they have done. That Committee recommended that the Statute Law Revision Bill should go further than my Committee ventured to propose without the authority of the other House. They have gone even further: they have made omissions of some very valuable Preambles. They have also, as stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Wool-sack, recommended the course of cutting out the Preambles; not that they should be repealed, but that a provision should be inserted in the Bill stating that in future editions those parts might be excised. A Committee consisting of Lord Herschell, the Solicitor General, Mr. Price, and several Members of my own old Committee, including myself, have gone carefully through the Commons Amendments, and we have acceded to all of them, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated. If your Lordships will accept that statement on my authority, I believe the preparation of the revised edition will progress very quickly.

  1039
  Some of the Commons Amendments agreed to; some agreed to with Amendments; and consequential Amendments made to the Bill; some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of the said Amendments: The Committte to meet forthwith.

  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1886 AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be read 3ª to-morrow.
  ELECTIONS SCOTLAND (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 158)
  Read 3ª (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee for General Bills the Lord Chancellor and the Marquess of Salisbury for the consideration of the Marriages in British Embassies, &c., Bill, and to the Standing Committee for Bill relating to Law, &c., the Lord Ashford (V. Bury) for the consideration of the Directors' Liability Bill, and the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [No. 203.]
  Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with Amendments and reasons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL.
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be lead 2ª to-morrow.—[No. 230.]
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.