Sitting of 22 May 1890

QUESTIONS.

  THE EXTENSION OF THE MALL.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the extension of the Mall of to Charing Cross, as designed on the plans for the new Admiralty buildings, will be proceeded with?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The extension of the Mall to Charing Cross will be proceeded with as soon as the new Admiralty buildings are ready to receive the officials, who now occupy houses which will have to be pulled down in order to continue the line of the Mall.

  THE BURIAL SERVICE IN WALES.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a statement contained in Truth of May the l5th, to the effect that the Rev. Thomas Ellis, Rector of Gyffin, near Conway, objected to the burial of a deceased person in the churchyard, in which his wife was interred, unless he were allowed to perform the burial' service, the deceased being a non-parishioner; that the rector endeavoured to conduct the service which he desired, while a Dissenting Minister was conducting that which the relatives desired; and that the grave was filled up without either service being completed: whether the contention of the Rector of Gyffin that the law as it now stands authorises a clergyman of the Church of England to act as he did is well founded; and whether, if that is the case, the Government will give facilities for the passing of a measure which will effectually prevent the recurrence of such a scene?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE. HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the rector that he objected to the burial on the ground that the deceased was not a parishioner and that the churchyard was not too large for the requirements of the parish. He subsequently gave permission and was distinctly authorised by the relatives of the deceased to conduct the funeral. He received no notice of burial such as the Act of 1880 requires when the relatives wish to dispense with the Church service. He was therefore justified in assuming that he was to conduct the service, and is in no way answerable for the subsequent proceedings, which are much to be regretted, and which might have been avoided if the existing law had been duly observed.

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will procure from the several colonies in Australia and New Zealand Reports on the various methods of regulating the liquor traffic in those colonies

1561
similar to the Foreign Office Reports Nos. 78 and 154 on Liquor Traffic Legislation in the United States?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The Secretary of State called for this information in August last from Canada, the Australian Colonies, and New Zealand, and reminded the Colonial Governments last March. So far, Queensland is the only colony from which a reply has been received.

SUBALTERN OFFICERS OF THE DRAGOON GUARDS.
MR. JENNINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that three subaltern officers of the 2nd Dragoon Guards were rejected in their A and B examination, at Rawul Pindi, in November last, although the Board and President agreed that they were well qualified to pass, and exceptionally fitted for their work; whether their rejection arose from the fact that the President refused to sign a clause certifying that the candidates were qualified to command a regiment in the field, it being his opinion that no subaltern officer, however able and industrious, could possibly be so qualified; and why the President of an Examining Board is required to sign such a clause, seeing that no subaltern officer can be expected to comply with its conditions?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): All the examinations, both at home and abroad, are intended to be under the rules laid down in the Queen's Regulations, and they do not require that a subaltern officer should be qualified to command a regiment in the field. No Report has been received from India on the subject, but I will make inquiry about it.

CONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN RAILWAYS.
MR. LAWRENCE: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any new policy regarding the raising of funds for the construction of Indian railways has been brought before the Government of India by the Secretary of State; and whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence connected therewith?
SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I should like to ask him another arising out of it, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is aware that representations have been made to the Government of India by local Chambers of Commerce and other Representative Bodies, strongly urging the paramount importance, in the interests alike of the native population and of the English merchants, manufacturers, and workmen, of the opening up of the country by the extension of railway communication, and that the desire of these Bodies is for that policy, whether new or old, which will most rapidly and effectually attain that end?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In reply to the question of the hon. Member which appears upon the Paper I can only say that communications as to the policy regarding the raising of funds for the construction of Indian Railways have passed between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, but the correspondence is not yet complete; and, therefore, I cannot make any statement on the subject. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir R. Lethbridge), I can only state that the Secretary of State is aware that representations of the character mentioned have been made, and that he will adhere to the policy so often advocated of promoting the extension of Indian Railways as fast as the circumstances will permit.

THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE—AGE OF CANDIDATES.
SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in consequence of the regulations which will presently come into action in regard to the limits of age for candidates for the higher branch of the Indian Civil Service, there have been strong expressions of opinion in the scientific Press and at the Universities that the conditions of the examinations for this Service ought no longer to continue to be relatively so unfavourable to candidates whose studies have been chiefly in science as has hitherto been the case; whether he is aware that a Memorial,

1563
signed by 50 distinguished graduates of the University of Cambridge, including several heads of houses, many professors, and a large number of fellows of colleges, has been presented to the Civil Service Commissioners, in which it is pointed out that the position of the science tripos in their University is now practically on an equal footing with the classical or the mathematical tripos, both from its numbers and from the awards assigned by the colleges to those of their members who distinguish themselves therein; and whether he will endeavour to secure that changes shall be made for admission to the Indian Civil Service such as shall secure more equal prospects of success for those whose chief studies have been in science than are at present accorded in these competitions?
SIR J. GORST: I have to thank the hon. Member for postponing this question the other day. The answer to paragraph I and 2 of the question is in the affirmative. Such opinions have been expressed, and such a Memorial addressed to the Civil Service Commissioners, although not to the Secretary of State. The answer to the third paragraph is that the new regulations will shortly be issued, and the Secretary of State believes they will satisfy the object which the hon. Member desires.

THE SALT REVENUE IN ORISSA.
MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he can explain why the control of the Salt Revenue in Orissa has been made over to the Government of Madras, which differs in essential points from that of Bengal, which rules in Orissa; whether he is aware that although the manufacture of salt in Orissa was till recent years one of the staple industries of the districts of Cuttack and Balasore, the possession of salt earth, its manufacture or use has been made a criminal offence in those districts, even though the people wishing to use or manufacture it are willing to pay the duty; and whether, in view of the fact that this prohibition has thrown some 20,000 parsons out of employment, and left large tracts of land teeming with salt earth utterly valueless, and that the price of salt has since the introduction of the Madras system increased in Orissa, the whole of
1564
what is used being now imported from Liverpool and elsewhere, he will consider the advisability of re-introducing the system under which the salt industry flourished in Orissa, and again allowing-the manufacture of Punga salt, subject to the usual duties?
SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the first paragraph of the question. The control of the Salt Revenue in Orissa has not been made over to the Government of Madras—only the administration. The control continues under the Government of Bengal. The manufacture of salt from salt earth has been prohibited, because it cannot be carried on without a great amount of smuggling. It is expected that the introduction of the Madras system will make salt cheaper and more plentiful, as it has done in Madras; and until the new system has been fully tried the Government will not revert to the old one.

MATMAKTNG IN PRISONS.
MR. QUILTBR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in how m any prisons in England and Wales is the labour of prisoners let out to tender for matmaking, and will he state the names of the prisons and of the firms who hire such labour?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that there are 23 prisons in which the mats made are sold at a contract price to the person who furnishes the material and carriage. The list is too long to read in reply to a question, but I will show it to the hon. Member if he will confer with me. With regard to the rest of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given on the 24th of February last.
MR. QUILTER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that there is one firm (Messrs. Goodacre & Co.) who contract for the labour of six of Her Majesty's Prisons?
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I think the hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consent to furnish a Return showing the various grades of Civil employes under the Ordnance Survey, with the number in each grade, the rate or rates of pay as at present allowed, and the terms or conditions and periods of increase of pay in each grade?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): There are no grades of Civil employe's on the Ordnance Survey. The men are engaged on day wages and employed upon a variety of duties in much the same manner as the men employed in the Arsenal and other Government factories. The employes are observers, surveyors, clerks, draughtsmen, photographers, engravers, smiths, carpenters, bookbinders, type and lithographic printers, colourists, and others, who could not well be graded. As there are no grades, it is not possible to give the number in each grade, the rate or rates of pay at present allowed, and the terms or conditions and periods of increase of pay in each grade. A Return could be prepared showing the numbers employed on each of the several duties of the Survey, with their present rates of pay, and the maximum rate for highly-skilled labour in each of those duties. It would, however, involve much clerical labour, and I doubt if it would be of much practical value.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a statement showing the different ranks or classes of the men employed under the Ordnance Survey, whether the employment is permanent or temporary, and the rates of pay?
MR. CHAPLIN: I will consider the question.

THE SWEATING SYSTEM IN MANCHESTER.
MR, BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is true that a builder, who had a Government contract for building repairs in Manchester, is an absconding bankrupt, and had been paying a lower rate of wages to the workmen engaged than was customary
1566
in Manchester; and what steps are taken to ascertain the respectability of firms before giving them contracts?
MR. PLUNKET: It is true that the builder, who held the contract for the Board's ordinary works and repairs in Manchester, has become a bankrupt and is understood to have absconded. The rates of wages paid by him to his workmen did not come under the cognisance of the Board. No representation on the subject was ever made to the Board by the men. Full inquiries are made locally by the Board's officers as to the position of firms before any tender is accepted. In this case such inquiries were made two years ago, and the result appeared at the time satisfactory.
*MR. C. GRAHAM: Am I to infer that the Government allow their contractors to occupy the position of sweaters?
MR. PLUNKET: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has a right to infer anything of the kind.
*MR. C.GRAHAM: Did I not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no inquiry is made as to the rate of wages, but only as to the respectability of the firm?
MR. PLUNKET: The contractor sends in a tender for certain work as a whole.
*MR. C. GRAHAM: Is the tender the sole thing looked to, and not the position of the men who do the work for the Government?
MR. PLUNKET: The whole question of contracts has been referred to a Departmental Committee.
*MR. C. GRAHAM: When are we likely to have the Report of the Committee?
MR. PLUNKET: I cannot say exactly.

THE PONTEFRACT HIGHWAY BOARD,
MR. AUSTIN (York, W.R, Osgold-cross): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a recent election of Way-Wardens to the Pontefract Highway Board, when two ratepayers were duly-elected for the Ackworth district; whether it is true, as stated, that they can lawfully sit, but are not entitled to exercise voting power; and whether he will take steps to rectify this anomaly in the constitution of these Boards by a Bill to abolish any property qualification that may exist?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have no information as to the facts with regard to the election of Way-Wardens in the case of the highway district to which reference is made in the question. I communicated with the clerk to the Highway Board when notice of the question was given, but have not as yet received any reply. I infer from the question that the two ratepayers alluded to were not qualified for election, as required by the Statute. Any person living in the parish, or any adjoining-parish, and having an estate in houses or lands within the parish, in his own right, or in right of his wife, of the annual value of £10, or a personal estate of the value of £100, or being the occupying tenant of houses or lands of the annual value of £20, whether resident within the parish or in any adjoining parish, is eligible for election. I cannot hold out any expectation that the Government will be able to introduce a Bill during the present Session dealing with the property qualification in these cases.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.
COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that, in view of the proposed abolition of the duties in the?United States on sugar below No. 16, Dutch standard, considerable opposition on the part of the sugar refiners of that country has arisen, because the intended protective duty of nearly £2 per ton against refined sugar imported from abroad would probably be insufficient to allow the American refiners to compete on equal terms with such imported refined sugar from European countries where State bounties are granted; and whether, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government would again invite the Government of the United States to join the Sugar Convention?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No Reports relative to this alleged opposition have been received at the Foreign Office. It is not by any means certain in what
1568
shape the provisions of the Tariff Bill now under discussion will finally be settled by Congress. We have no ground for thinking that a renewed invitation to the United States Government to join in a Convention on this subject would be successful.

THE IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE.
MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Immigration Committee of 1889; and what measures have been taken to ensure the Return by the masters of incoming vessels of the number of aliens on board, as provided by the Act 6 Will. 4, c. 11, s. 2?
MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member is aware that a somewhat similar question was answered on the 16th inst. by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who explained what steps were being taken to procure statistical information at the ports, both at home and abroad, under the powers given by the Alien Act. The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs have given instructions to their officers at all ports where alien steerage and deck passengers are likely to arrive to require from the masters of vessels declarations of aliens, as provided by the Act. The officers of Customs have also been instructed to send monthly to the Board of Trade a Return of the number of aliens arriving here, as shown by the Ships' Reports. The Foreign Office has also been requested to instruct Her Majesty's Consuls resident on the Continent to report any information they may obtain as to the emigration of destitute persons to the United Kingdom.
*MR. BRADLAUGH: Do they send in Reports?
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; I believe they do.
*MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether any steps are being taken to enforce the other provisions of the Alien Act in reference to steerage and deck passengers?
MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir.
*MR. BRADLAUGH: Why do the Government enforce one part of the Statute, and dispense with the rest?
MR. MATTHEWS: There is no dispensation that I am aware of. The information which the House and the public desire is being collected.

MINING RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. WEBB (Waterford, W): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the mining rights, with easements of wood, water, and grazing-, west of the Limpopo River, from the Transvaal border to a boundary five miles west of the Notwane, its tributary, over an area extending 20 miles north and south, have been conceded by Sechele, Chief of the Bakwenas and Barkatlas, to a Mr. James Arthur Nicolls, a British subject; and whether such concession was registered in the office of the Administrator of British Bechuanaland in March or April, 1888?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: Sechele, the Chief of the Bakwenas, gave a concession to Mr. Nicolls in the country of his neighbour Lenchwe, the Chief of the Bakhatla. The latter refused to recognise the concession, or allow any work to be done under it. Sir Sidney Shippard intimated to the concessionaires that no pressure would be brought to bear on Lenchwe in their favour, and that, if the Chief persisted in his refusal to allow gold-prospecting in his county, the concessionaires would have no alternative but to abandon their enterprise. A copy of the concession may be in Sir S. Shippard's office, but it has not been "registered" there, if that phrase is intended to imply any recognition of it. Sir S. Shippard's action has been approved by the Secretary of State.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Has such a concession been registered?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; it could not be registered if it was not granted by a person who had a right to grant it.

CONCESSION IN BECHUANALAND.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a concession of mineral rights over an area of 20 miles square, adjoining the Southern boundary of and within his territory adjacent to Reitfontein, South-West of Lake Ngami, was made by Moremi, Chief of the Western Bamangwelos, at De Nokane, Tonke River, to certain British subjects in August,
1570
1888; whether the said concession was notified in September, 1888, to Sir Sydney Shippard, Administrator of British Bechuanaland, or to any other British officer; whether the Colonial Office recognise the said concession; and whether any negotiations already completed or now pending with the German Government will directly or indirectly affect this and similar concessions by Moremi or other African Chiefs North of Bechuanaland?
BARON H. DE WORMS: It is believed that some concession of this nature was obtained in 1888, but, if such be the case, it has not been communicated to the Colonial Office, or, so far as is known, to the Bechuanaland Government, and it follows that no recognition has been given by the Colonial Office. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I am unable to give the hon. Member any further answer than that given on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Do the Government adhere to the answer given in this House on the 9th of June, 1888, that the sphere of British influence in that latitude extends to 20 deg. East longitude?
BARON H. DE WORMS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.

POOR RATE DEFAULTERS IN GOVAN.
MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state how many poor rate defaulters there were in the combination of Govan, Scotland, on the 20th June, 1889; how many of them subsequently paid their rates; what was the amount due on the said date; and what was the amount ultimately lost to the funds of the combination through defaulters during the year; and also the same particulars with regard to the barony and city parishes of Glasgow respectively?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have already given the hon. Member this information, as regards the combination of Govan. In the barony parishes the number of defaulters was 12,621, of whom G26 subsequently paid. The amount due was £1,155 2s. 5½d., and the amount ultimately lost was £1,059 13s. 4½d. In the city parish the figures are respectively 8,780, 228, £879 0s. 3d. and £857 7s. 6d.

THE POSTAL SERVICE.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any rule in the Postal Service prohibiting a postmaster from being a member of a Town Council?
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Baronet I have to state that there is no rule prohibiting a postmaster from being a member of a Town Council in a borough in which he resides, provided his official duties are not interfered with thereby.
SIR J SWINBURNE: Does the same rule apply to Town Councils that have become County Councils under the Local Government Act?
*MR. RAIKES: There is a general rule prohibiting all Civil servants from becoming members of County Councils.

MILITIA DRILL.
DR.EARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted preference of the great majority of Militia commanding officers for the old system of preliminary drill, he will consider the question of allowing the Regulations to be elastic, so thatbattalions which are unable to obtain recruits under present arrangements may resort to the former plan?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: In February last I presented to this House a very valuable Report on the Militia, and at pages 17 to 19 my hon. Friend will find the question of preliminary drill fully discussed. The Regulations allow of preliminary drill when a minimum number of recruits elect to be so drilled; but it is held to be of great importance for recruiting that the option should rest with the men, and from the Report it appears that 80 per cent. of them prefer to drill at the depôt at a time when work is slack and their wage-earning power at its lowest.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to give notice that, as this question affects very much the interests of recruiting for the Militia in my county, I will direct attention to the question upon the Vote.

SMUGGLING.
MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many seizures of smuggled goods were made by Customs officials in the year 1879 and the year 1889; also the number of seizures made by the Excise officials in the latter year after the smuggled goods had run the gauntlet of the Customs; and what steps he proposes to take to check smuggling, in the interests of legitimate trade and the revenues of the country?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The number of seizures of smuggled goods made by Customs officials in 1879 and 1889 were 1,307 and 4,756 respectively, while 157 seizures were further effected by the Excise officials in the latter year, consisting principally of small quantities of tobacco taken from sailors in Liverpool public houses. The increase in the number of seizures is due chiefly to the introduction of new arrangements in 1888 for checking petty smuggling, and it does not appear necessary to add to the measures which have produced so satisfactory a result.

H.M.S. ICARUS.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet received any Report from Admiral Sir W. Dowell, K.C.B., as to the inquiry held into the conduct of Commander Annesley on board the Icarus; and whether he can state the result of such inquiry?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Report of the Court of Inquiry has been carefully considered by the Admiralty. The investigation was a full one, and both officers and men had every opportunity of giving evidence upon the charges formulated in a letter written by the hon. Gentleman, which placed in a tangible and compact form the various allegations made by certain newspapers against Commander Annesley. Evidence was produced in support of the charge, that a punishment not recognised in the Service had been inflicted upon a writer named Cecil Dean, though it was asserted that the writer had been guilty of grossly insubordinate

1573
and mutinous conduct. I have therefore directed a charge to be made on this count against Commander Annesley, to he tried by Court Martial, in order that the whole facts of the case may be elicited. The other charges were either not supported by reliable evidence or were of such a trivial character as not to call for further action.

ZULU AFFAIRS.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the two telegrams of 23rd January and 1st February, 1889, referred to in Sir A. E. Havelock's Despatch of 11th February of that year, on Zulu affairs; and whether he can state exactly what proposal is referred to in the following paragraph of Lord Knutsford's telegram to Sir A. Havelock of 5th February, 1889, which paragraph has been omitted from that telegram as printed in the Blue Book, but appears incidentally elsewhere:—
"In answer to your telegram of the 1st February proposed removal of Dinizulu, by force or surreptitiously undesirable,"
and by whom such a proposal was made?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: Dinizulu had appealed to the Privy Council against the validity of the Warrant by which, under Colonial Law, he had been removed for trial in Znlnland from Natal, where he was in legal custody. The Secretary of State, by the telegram of January 23, suggested that, under the circumstances, he should be sent back to the custody of the Natal Police. The Governor, in reply, stated in the telegram of February 1st that there "was no way of sending him back except by force or surreptitiously, and asked whether it was wished that that course should be taken. It is fair to the Governor to state that he did not advocate this step; and the answer to his question was given in the negative, as quoted by my hon. Friend. The telegrams contained other confidential matters, and were not intended for publication. No action was taken upon the suggestion I have mentioned, which was in any event unnecessary; for as Her Majesty's Government were subsequently advised a Warrant, in substance the same asthat under which Dinizulu was removed, might lawfully have been made under
1574
Section 35 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, so that his grievance was technical and his injury (if any) only nominal. I shall be happy to show the telegrams to my hon. Friend, but it seems unnecessary to publish them.

FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since Her Majesty's Government has decided that Admiral Colomb's claims in respect of his invention of Hashing signals were barred by a document in the following terms which he signed in January, 1870, and gave to the then Under Secretary of State for War, Lord Northbrook, in receipt for £500 paid him—
"In discharge of all claims on account of signal arrangements for land service and for joint Naval and Military use,"
the First Lord has had submitted to him a letter from Lord Northbrook stating that the document was. not intended to have the effect attributed to it, and a copy of a legal opinion of Sir H. James, dated February, 1890, in the following terms:—
"Admiral Colomb had not, in either letter or spirit, accepted the sums received by him in full satisfaction of all his claims;"
and whether the question referred to the Treasury for consideration is still the validity of Admiral Colomb's claim for compensation, or solely the amount of such compensation?
LORD G.HAMILTON: AdmiralColomb has submitted to the Admiralty the Papers referred to; but, as the question of this officer's claims is still under consideration, I must decline to make any statement as to the action taken by the Admiralty in the matter.

BETTING TELEGRAMS.
MR. S. SMITHI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the New York Herald, London edition, of 13th May, on "The Post Office and Betting;" whether he could have a Return prepared showing the proportion of betting telegrams to the rest of the messages conveyed through the Post Office telegraphs; whether it is true that at a great many offices more than half the business done is betting busi-

1575
ness, and on the days of great races the more legitimate messages are greatly delayed by the mass of telegrams which come pouring into and from betting agencies; and whether he sees his way to prevent this use of the Telegraph Department?
*MR. RAIKES: I do not think it would be desirable or proper for me to discriminate between the different classes of telegrams intrusted to the Post Office for transmission, and I could not, therefore, undertake to prepare such a Return as that asked for. I have no reason to think that what the hon. Member terms "legitimate messages" are delayed by "betting telegrams." Every endeavour is made by the Telegraph Department to meet any pressure of business; but I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which the hon. Member may wish to make to the Department in connection with this subject.
MR. S. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third paragraph of the question, as to the character of the business at many of the offices, and the delay of the more legitimate business.
*MR. RAIKES: I am not in a position to answer the question. I have already pointed out that it is not in accordance with the duties of the Department to discriminate between business of one kind and another.

THE ALKALI ACT.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the recent establishment in Lancashire, and elsewhere, of an important manufacturing process for the extraction of sulphur from the tank-waste of alkali works, steps will be taken to include this and similar operations involving the production of noxious gases under the provisions of the Alkali Act?
*MR. RITCHIE: This matter has been receiving my attention, and I have given directions for the preparation of a Bill on the subject.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if any stops have as yet been
1576
taken to create the body of 43 by which the new and much enlarged Christ's Hospital will in future be administered; and whether it has been arranged that the two Members, each representing the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London respectively, shall be named before the commencement of their long vacations?
THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DIKE,): My right hon. Friend will see that, until the scheme has received Her Majesty's assent in Council, it would be premature to take any such steps or to make any such arrangements as those suggested by the question.

TELEGRAMS AT RAILWAY STATIONS.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will give his consent to the issue of a Return of the names of all Railway Stations in the United Kingdom at which the Railway Companies undertake to receive telegrams for transmission from the public; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that a list of all such Railway Stations shall be published in future editions of the Postal Guide?
*MR. RAIKES: I do not think such a Return as that asked for by the hon. Member would be of public utility; but I shall be happy to consider whether the information already given in pages 33 to 122 of the Post Office Guide cannot be made more complete in this respect. I may mention that the Index to Brad-shaw's Guide shows all the stations at which public telegraph business is transacted on behalf of the Postmaster General.

MISSION STATIONS ON LAKE NYASSA.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether information has reached him that the Mission Stations of the Free Church of Scotland and the London Missionary Society at Bandawe and other stations northward on Lake Nyassa have received no mails or letters since October 1889; whether those mails have been detained by the Portuguese Authorities at Quilimane; and whether representations will be made to the Portuguese Government to prevent the detention of mails in the future?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: Owing to the recent disturbed condition of certain portions of territory in the regions mentioned postal irregularities must have occurred; but Her Majesty's Government have no information directly bearing out the statement made in the hon. Member's question. The matter will, however, be inquired into.

GREECE—NEW TARIFF.
MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the fiscal changes which have been arranged for in the Convention with the Kingdom of Greece will come into operation; and whether the reductions in the tariff on imported articles, conceded by the Greek Government, as explained in the Budget speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be limited to British productions, or whether the like advantages will be enjoyed by any other countries under the "most favoured nation" conditions?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: The British duty on currants was reduced on May I. I believe that the reciprocal reductions in the Greek tariff came into force a day or two later. Those reductions will apply also to the importations from other countries which have a right under Treaty to the privileges of the most favoured nation, and which do not enjoy similar terms by separate Conventions. But the articles in the Greek tariff selected for reduction were those which are imported in the largest measure from this country, and upon which, according to those best informed, the greatest benefit would be conferred on British trade.

WESTMINSTER HALL.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been brought to his notice that, last Monday night, a heavy piece of a stone heraldic animal suddenly fell from the exterior of this building close to the entrance to Westminster Hall, in Old Palace Yard; that, not many days ago, a portion of the ornamental stonework fell close to the Members' Entrance; and that another portion of the stonework was detached in New Palace Yard; and whether, in view of the danger to the lives and limbs of Members and others from such accidents, he will cause an
1578
investigation to be made into the condition of the exterior ornamental stonework?
MR, PLUNKET: It is true that a piece of stone which formed the shoulder of the Unicorn at St. Stephen's Entrance fell on Monday night last. An examination shows that there had been a, defect (technically called a "vent") in the stone which would not be easily seen when in position. This portion of the building was examined and repaired from top to bottom in 1878, and is in good condition with the exception of the two heraldic figures, which have a weather-worn appearance and have evidently been carved out of soft stone. These figures will be renewed within the present year. It is also the fact that a piece of the ornamental stonework at the entrance of the Star Chamber Court fell a few days since. Steps have already been taken for an examination and repair of these portions of the building during the Whitsuntide Recess. A complete examination and repair of the whole of the stone work of the Palace is in progress, and upwards of three-fourths-of it has been finished, the workmen being at present engaged on the Victoria Tower. I may, however, observe that in a highly ornamental structure, such as the Houses of Parliament, it is impossible to discover every defect that may exist in the carved stonework, however carefully the examination may be made.
DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the architect of this extremely ugly new building has been retained for the science and art building in Dublin?
[No reply was given.]

THE NAVAL RESERVE.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there have been complaints of the annoyance caused by the firing, by the Naval Reserve, of heavy guns on the shore at New Brighton, Liverpool; whether he is aware that as the result of the firing serious damage has been done to property in the neighbourhood; and whether, if on inquiry ho finds these complaints to be well founded, he will take steps to have the firing carried on further westward on the coast, where no annoyance would result?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: The Royal Naval Reserve are in the habit of practising from a nine pounder field gun from the beach at New Brighton, but no complaints on the subject have reached the Admiralty. It seems improbable that the firing of a gun of this size, whoso maximum charge of powder is under 2 lbs., could inflict serious damage to property in the vicinity, but I have directed an inquiry to be made into the circumstances.

THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the evidence of the Chairman of the Board of Customs before the Commission on Civil Establishments, that three Surveyor Generals of Customs were necessary to carry out the duties of that Department, and provision for this number is made in the Estimates, in filling up the vacant office, due regard will be given to the practical experience in Custom House work of the officers in the out-door department of that Service?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): My hon. Friend may rely that if it be found necessary to make an appointment to the post mentioned the Commissioners of Customs will give due regard to all the qualifications necessary to ensure the selection of the most efficient officers.

BREACHES OF THE FACTORY ACTS.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries into alleged breaches of the Factory Acts in the West Drayton and Tver brickfields, whereby men are compelled to work without meal hours?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Factories that no complaints have reached him. If the matter complained of relates to the employment of men only, it would not be within the scope of the Factory Act, which in no way interferes with the labour of men, and their hours of meals.

TUBERCULOSIS.
MR. J. P. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that during the last few months, in the
1580
greater number of the cities and towns in the country, the carcasses of animals found to have been affected, however slightly, with tuberculosis are now condemned as unfit for human food, although the scientific inquiry which the Government is now instituting will probably occupy many months; and whether, in view of the fact that under this system the loss to the butchers is the same as if it had been already determined that such meat is harmful as food, the Government will consider the question of compensating the butchers whose carcasses are destroyed before the inquiry has been completed?
DR. FARQUHARSON: Has the inquiry mentioned in the question yet been held, and on what lines is it to be carried on?
*MR, RITCHIE: I am aware that it has been stated that carcasses of animals affected by tuberculosis are condemned as unfit for human food, although I have no official information on the subject. I am afraid I cannot come under any engagement such as that asked for in the latter portion of the question. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Government are not empowered to award compensation in such cases.

IRELAND—MR. GEORGE SANDES.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. George Sandes, late J.P. for the County of Kerry, is Receiver, under an order of Judges Monro and Boyd, for the estates of The Fitz-Maurice, G. E. Collis, esquire, The O'Donohue, and of other gentlemen; and whether it is contemplated to remove him from these Receiverships, in view of the fact that he has been removed from the Magistracy?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The appointment and removal of Receivers under the Land Judges' Court is vested in the Court, and the Executive Government have no right to make any communication to the Judges with regard to the exercise of their judicial functions.

THE LAND COMMISSION.
MR. BYRNE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

1581
aware that on the 24th April last the Land Commissioners (No. 6 Sub-Commission), whilst inspecting holdings on the Greaves Cathrew Estate at Dunard, Baltinglass Union, County Wicklow, drove the landlord and his bailiff from holding to holding on the Commissioners' car, although they were visiting the lands in their judicial and official capacity; that, although the tenant gave evidence as to value and produced an experienced valuer, the landlord elected not to do so; whether the judicial rents fixed by Land Commissioners on the holdings of Francis and Thomas Redding were 22½ and 47½ per cent. over the Government valuation; whether the rents on the Bookey estate, adjoining Reddings' land, were reduced to from 35 to 50 per cent. below the Government valuation; and, if he can explain this difference in the judicial rents on adjoining estates?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Land Commissioners report that the Assistant Commissioners who inspected the holdings on Mr. Graves Cathrew's property at Donard state that as Mr. Cathrew had no conveyance they, after inspecting one holding, asked him to accept a seat on their car to the other holdings, which were some distance off. They did so it order to save the time which would have been lost by driving on and waiting for Mr. Cathrew. It was getting' late' and they' had other holdings to inspect. The Commissioners think that the Assistant Commissioners, under the circumstances, acted properly in giving Mr. Cathrew a seat on the car. The Assistant Commissioners, having heard the evidence in Court, and inspected the holdings, and considered all the circumstances of the case, fixed what they considered fair rents. The Commissioners cannot enter into any statement concerning the judicial rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners or by themselves in Court in the exercise of judicial functions.
MR. BYRNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proceeding of the Commissioners was a proper one?Acting as they were as Judges, was it right that they should favour either one side or the other?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is asking for an expression
1582
of opinion which is not within the limits of a question.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not usual on such occasions for the landlord to provide himself with a car?Is it upon record that the Sub-Commissioners ever gave a tenant such a ride upon a car?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that such questions are made a matter of record.

LIGHT RAILWAYS IN DONEGAL.
MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commission appointed by the Board of Works to inquire into schemes for light railways in County Donegal agreed to a unanimous Report; and, if not, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the minority Report?
MR. JACKSON: I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question until tomorrow.

NEW TIPPERARY.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that, on the 21st April last, when Father Humphry stood talking to Mr. Gill, of Nenagh (in streets of New Tipperary), the policeman, who is alleged to have told them rudely to "move on," and was asked his name, gave the name of Moran, though his true name is Leonard; did he refuse to say where he was stationed, and why; what are the regulations of the Force as to giving their name and address when asked; is it the fact that, on the 22nd April, a policeman followed Father Humphry and whistled after him in an insulting manner, and refused to give his name, but on another occasion gave it as Wilson Williams, though in a prosecution in Court swore his name was William Welsh; has the duty been especially assigned to this constable, William Welsh, to walk by Father Humphry's side and keep step with him, whilst another constable walks a few feet behind keeping step with them; and, what is the name of the second constable?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On April 22nd Constable Leonard told the rev. gentleman to move away, he having spoken to the constable in an insulting manner

1583
when he was in the discharge of his duty. The clergyman did not ask the constable for his name, nor did the latter give a false name, nor refuse to state where he was stationed. There is no rule requiring a constable to give his name and address when asked, but it is customary to do so when a reasonable request is made for it. The statement in paragraph 4 of the question is not a fact. On the 21st April Constable Wilson was spoken to by Father Humphry for, as alleged, whistling after him, and on that occasion when the rev. gentleman asked him for his name he declined to give it, stating that the allegation was not the case. On that occasion the constable was engaged on duty unconnected with the rev. gentleman. On another occasion when he was on engaged on duty connected with the rev. gentleman he gave his proper name. He never swore in any Court that his name was Walsh. The rev. gentleman was watched by the police because he was believed to be engaged in promoting the illegal practice of boycotting in Tipperary. The constable referred to in the last paragraph appeared to be Dempsey.
MR. SCHWANN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to assert that Father Humphry is taking active steps to incite the tenants against the payment of rent in Ireland?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rev. gentleman has written a letter to the papers admitting it.
*MR. H. J. WILSON (York, W.R,): If a constable refuses to give his name, will steps be taken to require him to do so?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that if a case were brought before the Police Authorities, in which a constable refused to give his name when asked to do so, under reasonable circumstances, they would deal with it.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to the Irish Constabulary being numbered as they are in Belfast and Dublin?MB. A. J. BALFOUR: A similar question was put to me the other day, and I said the matter had often come on for discussion in this House without a decision being arrived at. It is impossible to discuss it now at question time.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: If Father Humphry is engaged in illegal proceedings, why has he not been prosecuted?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Father Humphry will, no doubt, be prosecuted if sufficient evidence is laid before the Attorney General.
MR. SCHWANN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first para-praph of my question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that on the 22nd, not 21st, April, the constable concerned was Constable Leonard, who, as I have already stated, was not asked his name. On 24th April Constable Moran was asked his name and gave it. He does not appear to have been asked his name on the 21st or 22nd April.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to give notice that in the course of the evening I will call attsntion to the whole of these proceedings.

THE ATHY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Local Government Board in sanctioning the appointment made, so far back as the 26th of March last, by the Athy Board of Guardians, of a sub-sanitary officer for Castledermot?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The delay arose owing to a subsequent proposal from the Board of Guardians to constitute Castledermot a relief district, in which case, according to the usual practice, the relief officer would probably have become the sanitary sub-officer. The Local Government Board having decided that the proposed change in the relief districts should not be made, the question of the appointment of the sanitary sub-officer for Castledermot is now being proceeded with.

STATUE OF THOMAS DAVIES.
MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to procure and place in the new Science and Art Buildings in Dublin a work of national and historical interest, namely, the statute in white marble of Thomas Davis, executed by Foley, formerly in the custody of the Royal Dublin Society, and at present suffering great injury from exposure to

1585
the weather in the grounds of the Mount Jerome Cemetery, Dublin?
MR. JACKSON: I understand that this statue is at present in the charge of the authorities of Mount Jerome Cemetery; if they are willing to hand it over to the Science and Art Museum, my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education informs me that he will be glad to provide a place for it.
MR. MAHONY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence in endeavouring to obtain this statue in order to preserve it?
MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that I have no influence with the authorities of the cemetery.

THE BANN DRAINAGE.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland when the Bann Drainage Bill will be introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that, in the present state of public business, I am not in a position to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the information he asks for.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Did not this Bill form part of the remedial policy of the Government?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government certainly believed it to be part of a remedial policy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to know why it has not already been passed I think he had batter ask his friends.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why has it not been introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Experience has shown that there is very little use in introducing Bills unless there is some prospect of passing them. The opposition they meet with usually renders that result impossible.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This Bill was introduced two years ago. Why have the Government brought in later Bills, such as the Land Purchase Bill?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

GRIEVANCES IN TOBAGO.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Petition has been received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies from landowners and others in the Island
1586
of Tobago, praying that an independent Commission of Judges should inquire into grievances which they allege to have arisen in Tobago in consequence of recent judicial decisions in that island, some of which, they complain, are in direct contravention of the Metayer Ordinance of 1888; and, if so, whether any action will be taken in consequence of that Petition; and whether a Copy of the Petition will be laid upon the Table of the House?
BARON H. DE WORMS: No such Petition has been received, but the Secretary of State has received from persons in England connected with Tobago a copy of a Petition from planters and other persons in Tobago to the Queen in Council, complaining of recent judicial decisions in that island, which has not yet been received from the colony. The attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the great amount of recent litigation in Tobago, in connection with the Metayer system, and he has instructed the Governor of the colony to appoint a Commission to inquire into the working of the system. Until a Petition is received it would be premature to say whether any action will be taken upon it, or whether it will be laid before the House.

THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.
MR. S. EVANS: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Select Committee which he undertook on Tuesday should be appointed to inquire into the comparative incidence of taxation in Ireland and Scotland will also be empowered to inquire into such incidence in Wales, so as to have a complete comparison of the incidence of taxation in the four countries which constitute the United Kingdom?
MR. GOSCHEN: I do not propose to refer any questions to the Committee as to Wales separately from the rest of the Kingdom.
MR. S. EVANS: May I ask whether there are any reasons why Wales should not be treated separately?
MR. GOSCHEN: Wales has never been treated in that manner. But if Wales were, for fiscal purposes, treated as not being a part of England, I should think that Welshmen would very much regret it.

SOUTH AFRICA.
EARL COMPTON (York, W.R.): May I ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under existing arrangements, the country of Bamangwato, in South Africa, is within the sphere of British influence; whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of information that Moremi, the ruler of that country, has granted concessions to British subjects owing to that fact; and whether Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from Mr. Arthur James Nicolls on the subject; and, if so, what answer have they sent to him?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: The country of the Bamangwato, Khama's tribe, is under British protection and influence. Moremi, chief of the Batawana, residing near Lake Ngami, has granted concessions to British subjects. There is no official information as to whether Moremi was influenced by the belief that his country was under British influence when he gave these concessions. Mr. Nicolls and his partners have communicated through their attorneys in South Africa with the High Commissioner on the subject, but no answer has yet been returned to them.

NOTIFICATION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
MR. BRUNNER: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many Sanitary Authorities have adopted "The Notification of Infectious Diseases Act, 1889;"and what is the total number of Sanitary Authorities?
*MR. RITCHIE: The Board have been informed that 469 Urban Sanitary Authorities, 331 Rural Sanitary Authorities, and 18 Port Sanitary Authorities have adopted the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act, 1889. This makes a total of 818 Authorities who have adopted the Act. The total number of urban, rural, and port sanitary districts is 1,624. The population, according to the Census of 1881, of the districts in which the Act is in force, exclusive of the Metropolis, is 15,463,000. There are also 56 towns, with a population of 3,751,000, where, under the provisions of local Acts, the system of notification is in operation. The result is that out of a total population, according to the
1588
Census of 1881, of 25,970,000 the population subject to a system of notification is now 19,214,000.
MR. BRUNNER: May I ask whether there is any hope that the Act will be made compulsory throughout the country next Session?
*MR. RITCHIE: No doubt the time-will arrive when it must be considered whether the Act ought not to be made compulsory; but I doubt whether we should be justified in making the system compulsory so soon after the passing of the Act.

CAPTAIN PLUNKETT'S CIRCULAR.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a Circular issued by the late Captain Plunkett, Divisional Commissioner for Munster, to District Inspectors Royal Irish Constabulary, of which the following is an extract, as regards publicans:—
"D.I.
Boycotting.
In any prominent case of boycotting in your district, especially in a case where the person boycotted is under police protection, the proper steps to take are:—

I. Get person boycotted to consent to go with police and demand supplies from those who have refused or are likely to refuse him, and more especially if such person refusing is a publican:

II. If he consents send with him one or two intelligent policemen with in. structions to note carefully anything said and done;"

will he inquire from the Irish Office why "publicans" were directed to be singled out for prosecution; and will the special directions as regards licensed traders now be withdrawn?
*MR. RITCHIE: The hon. and learned Member will realise that the matters referred to in the question are not such as in any way come within the jurisdiction of my Department, and therefore I cannot give him any information with regard to them.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask the right hon. Gentleman the question, because of its bearing on the Licensing Bill. Publicans in Ireland are to be singled out for prosecution, according to this circular, and may lose all right to compensation.
*MR. RITCHIE: As I have frequently said, the Bill makes no alteration what-

1589
ever in the position of holders of licences. They may lose their licences under the existing law for offences such as the hon. Member refers to.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to use his influence with the Irish Government to get a stop put to the special prosecution of publicans referred to in this circular, in view of the introduction of this Bill, which, at any rate, favours the publicans of England and Scotland?Why should publicans in Ireland be singled out for prosecution any more than they are in England?
*MR. RITCHIE: The Irish publicans will be in no way worse off than the English publicans. In each case, if there was cause of complaint, there would have to be a representation made against renewal of licence.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY STAFF.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, can he now give, as regards the pay of Ordnance Survey Staff, the percentage of increases to staff employed, and average rate of increase, during the past three years, i.e., 1887, 1888, and 1889, and the same information for 1884, 1885, and 1886?
MR. CHAPLIN: I have inquired further into this matter, but the headquarters of the Ordnance Survey Office being in Southampton, I have not yet been able to procure the information the hon. Member desires. I have asked, however, for a Return, which I expect to receive shortly, and which I hope will contain all the information he asks for.

EMBOSSED STAMPS ON ENVELOPES.
VISCOUNT GRIMSTON (Herts, St. Alban's): I wish to ask the Postmaster General if he can (with the view of saving hon. Members the trouble of affixing postage stamps to the large number of letters which they write in the House of Commons) see his way to authorise the issue, from the Post Office in the House, of envelopes embossed with stamps of the more generally employed values, to be purchaseable by them at the face value of the stamp, the envelope being included without charge?
*MR. RAIKES: I am already in communication with the authorities of the House with a view, if possible, to the
1590
adoption of some arrangement which would practically meet the wishes of my noble Friend.

RAILWAY BOYCOTTING IN IRELAND.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, now that the station-master at Carrickmacross has surrendered the evicted house, and the boycott has in consequence been removed from the Great Northern Local Railway, the Government will mark their sense of the restoration of peace in the town by releasing the three gentlemen sentenced to six months' imprisonment for boycotting the line?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the case that the railway company having completed the building of the house for their station master he has removed into it from the house which he had temporarily occupied during its construction. The Lord Lieutenant is not aware of anything in the circumstances of the case of the prisoners referred to which would suggest any interference with the course of the law.

ALLOTMENTS.
MR. GUST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of Section 211 (1.) (b.), and Section 230 of "The Public Health Act, 1875,"whereby it is enacted that the
"Occupier of any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, or as woodlands, market gardens, or nursery grounds,"
shall be assessed to the general district rate in an urban district, or to a separate rate levied in respect of special expenses within the meaning of the said Act in a rural district, in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value or rateable value of such land, whether allotments are or are not included among the lands to which the aforesaid exemptions apply?
*MR. RITCHIE: The question whether an allotment should be assessed on a reduced assessment is one of law, and one which can only be determined with reference to the actual circumstances with regard to the particular allotment. Any claim to exemption must depend on whether or not the land is so used as to bring it within the terms of the sections alluded to in the

1591
Public Health Act, which confers the exemption on the occupier of any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, or as woodlands, market gardens, or nursery grounds.

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose, &c.): I desire to ask the Lord Advocate when the Secretary for Scotland expects to be able to give an answer to the deputation of Scottish Members who waited on him on 28th March on the subject of the School Board Elections (Scotland) Bill?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Shortly after Whitsuntide.

THE WHITSUNTIDE MANŒUVRES.
MR. GOURLEY: I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct that there are to be combined naval and military manoeuvres off Dover during Whitsuntide; if so, will he state how many ships and troops are to be employed, and the intended nature of the tactics; and whether it is true that the Channel and reserve squadrons are to take part in the combined German naval and military manoeuvres which it is reported are to be held in the Baltic in the autumn?LORD G. HAMILTON: Arrangements have been made for carrying out certain manoeuvres in the neighbourhood of Dover at Whitsuntide, in which the Navy will take part; and four of Her Majesty's ships have been ordered to be at Dover on the 26th inst. I am unable to say what the exact nature of the combined operations will be, but the senior naval officer has received directions to communicate with the officer commanding the South-Eastern District as to the part the Navy are to take on the occasion. There is no truth in the rumours alluded to in the second part of the question.

REFUSAL OF BAIL IN IRELAND.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was on the ground of apprehended flight that Colonel Long bourne, R.M., refused bail to Mr. Rice and Mr. Kent at Fermoy, pending the hearing at Petty Sessions of a charge of intimidating an emergency man; and whether Resident
1592
Magistrates will be instructed not to refuse bail, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, except on this ground, especially when the Queen's Bench is not sitting?
MR, MADDEN: The facts are, I am informed, as follows:—The Resident Magistrate offered to accept bail in regard to both the defendants named if they would give an undertaking, pending their trial, not to interfere with the men who were working on certain lands; on their refusing to give this undertaking bail was refused. The Executive Government cannot interfere with the discretion of Magistrates in the manner suggested in the concluding portion of the question.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why were summonses not issued against these gentlemen, one of whom was a brother of the Local Crown Prosecutor?
MR. MADDEN: That does not arise out of my answer. If the hon. Member desires information on this matter I will obtain it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I will call attention to this matter on the Vote on Account.

THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as Article 11 of the Sugar Convention provides that—
"The Convention shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged in London on the 1st of August, 1890, or sooner, if possible,"
there is any intention of ratification without the consent of Parliament, as an implied condition in the earlier part of the same. article; and whether the Convention ceases to exist if the ratifications are not interchanged at the specified date?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): It is always open to Powers to ratify a Treaty they have made, even though the day fixed for ratification shall have passed by.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to ratify the Convention without the consent of Parliament?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I think liberty must be reserved by Her Majesty's Government to act as they may think

1593
necessary in the event of other Powers ratifying the Convention.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: Am I to infer from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government consider themselves at liberty to ratify the Convention without the consent of Parliament?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I must have notice of that question.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: It is on the Paper.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I will look into the matter.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I will put the question down for to-morrow.

WALES AND PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
MR. S. EVANS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Parliament has legislated separately for the Principality in various cases, and also of the importance of obtaining accurate statistical information for such legislation and for other purposes, the Government will take steps to secure that all Returns made to Parliament shall in future, so far as is practicable, give statistics for Wales and Monmouthshire under distinct and separate heads from those for England, as is now done in the cases of Scotland and Ireland?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of the statistical information the hon. Member refers to, nor am I aware of any occasion for making a change in the form in which Returns are presented to the House. It is our desire to give the fullest information to the House as to every part of the United Kingdom.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. LABOUCHEEE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state in what order, and when, the different Classes of Votes will be taken?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Class V. will be taken first after the Recess—that is to say, if there be a Recess. I cannot say more now.
MR. J. MORLEY: When will the Committee stage of the Local Taxation Bill be taken?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: It will not be taken before the Thursday after the House meets—that is, if there should be a holiday.

REPORTED OUTRAGE IN CRETE.
MR. SCHWANN: I would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the telegram of the 8th of May on the case of Hassan Bey, who outraged a Greek girl, which said,
"That as the Russian Consul has made a protest against the action taken by the Magistrate in the matter, it is highly probable that the Magistrate has dealt with the case in an unsatisfactory manner;"
and whether he will ascertain whether the case has been tried already and judgment given, what that judgment was, and what was the ten our of the protest of the Russian Consul?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member has already called my attention to the telegram in question. I must say that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to investigate the truth of the Daily News telegrams. Her Majesty's Consul received special instructions to watch the proceedings in the case referred to, and had there been an apparent intention to evade its just examination he would have reported accordingly.

FREE POSTAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
MR. LENG: I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing that the income of the Post Office, according to the Official Statement for the year ended:51st March, 1890, was £9,450,000, and the expenditure only £5,463,204, showing a surplus of £3,986,796, he will, in view of the desirableness of disseminating amongst the constituencies accurate political information, arrange for Members of Parliament sending to their constituents Parliamentary Papers, not exceeding 4oz. weight, without payment of postage?
*MR. RAIKES: I have no power to grant any hon. Member the privilege of franking Parliamentary Papers or any other correspondence, the franking privilege having been abrogated by the Penny Postage Act, 3 and 4 Vic, cap. 96. But I shall be willing to consider if any additional facilities can be given for the dissemination of Parliamentary Papers.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE.
MR. BARTLEY (for Mr. HANBURY): I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether, under Article 9 of the Australasian agreement as to the completion for sea of certain men-of-war, it is provided that—
"This agreement shall he considered to become actually binding between the Imperial and the several Colonial Governments so soon as the Colonial Legislatures shall have passed Acts appropriating the necessary funds;"
and whether all, or which, of the Colonial Governments concerned have passed such Acts?
BARON H. DE WORMS: My hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the terms of the article in question. All the Colonial Governments concerned— Queensland excepted—have passed the necessary Acts.

THE PROPOSED MEETING AT NEW TIPPERARY.
Mr. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether there is any truth in the report that a meeting which is proposed to be held next Sunday at Tipperary, and which is to be addressed by the hon. Members for Cork and East Mayo, is to be proclaimed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no very full details of the objects of the meeting before me yet, but certainly if an open air meeting is to be held in Tipperary in its present condition, and inflammatory speeches are likely to be made, it will, undoubtedly, lead to intimidation, and any such meeting must be stopped.
MR. J. MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the difference between a meeting addressed by Irish Members and a meeting addressed by English Members?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what meeting the hon. Gentleman alludes to. If he alludes, as perhaps he does, to the banquet at New Tipperary, I may remind him that that banquet did not take place in the open air. [An hon. MEMBER: There was a meeting outside.] Two meetings which were to have been addressed by the hon. Member for North-East Cork were stopped for the reason I have just indicated to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman asks me generally what is the difference between meetings addressed by Irish Members and meetings addressed by English Members, I
1596
should say that the result in the one case is to produce intimidation, and that in the other the result is nil.
MR. J. MORLEY: Are we to understand that the deciding consideration is whether a meeting is held in the open air or not?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Undoubtedly that is one of the considerations. The difference between these mass meetings in the open air, at which inflammatory speeches are delivered, and a meeting held in a building is, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, vital.
MR. PICTON: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that before the banquet at New Tipperary a very large open air meeting was held, at which speeches of the usual character were made.
DR. TANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I should like to ask him whether detectives were sent from Dublin to attend the open air meeting by orders from the Castle?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. My recollection is that the promoters of the new Tipperary demonstration were informed that there was not to be an open air meeting, and that as far as their programme consisted of a banquet, it would not be interfered with.
MR. GILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the open air meeting took place in the public square of New Tipperary, that an address was presented by the people of that town to the English visitors, and to the Irish Members of Parliament there attending,. and that this address was replied to, amongst others, by the hon. Member for Leicester, the hon. Member for North-East Cork, the hon. Member for Mid Tipperary, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and several mayors from other parts of Ireland; and whether, that being the case, the right hon. Gentlemen still persists in denying that a public meeting took place in the open-air in new Tipperary on April 12th?
*MR. C. GRAHAM: Before that is answered may I ask whether the same laws apply to public meetings in Ireland as well as England, because, if they do, there will be no difficulty in suppressing the meeting, as we shall have the Front Bench on this side in accord with the Government.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not the case that it is only a short time since this meeting took place, and that since then there has been nothing dangerous in the state of New Tipperary; and is it just to declare that the effect of speeches made there by English ladies and gentlemen was nil?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for thinking that the speeches referred to ought to be described by a more complimentary term than that which fell from me. So far as I can recollect the meeting referred to was very subsidiary to the main feature of the demonstration, which was the banquet.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am to be allowed to address my constituents on Sunday or not?
MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet said whether the proclamation of the meeting has, or has not, been determined upon. I may say that not only my hon. Friend below me, but the four Members for Tipperary County intend to use this meeting for the purpose of discussing public affairs with their constituents.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman must be well aware that there is no objection whatever to hon. Members addressing their constituents on public affairs. There is an objection, however, to large open air demonstrations in a town where intimidation has existed, and does exist to a large extent, where vile crimes are constantly perpetrated, and where there is reasonable ground for supposing that such a meeting would add to the evils I have indicated. I am afraid that an open air meeting held at the time mentioned, even though it might be addressed by the hon. Member for Tipperary, could not be permitted.
MR. SEXTON: One more question. Did the great open air meeting held lately have any bad consequences?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that what he describes as an open air meeting was not represented to me as such at all. The authorities distinctly gave notice that if the programme of the demonstration, the chief item of which was a banquet, was adhered to it would not be interfered with.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether the intimidation to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes consists of a peaceable surrender to the Member for Hunts of his property, and a peaceable taking possession of property which had been legally acquired?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The surrender-referred to was not necessarily an act of intimidation, but may have been the result of an act of intimidation.

THE GOVERNMENT LICENSING PROPOSALS.
MR. CAMERON CORBETT: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question, of which I have given him private notice, Can he give us any further particulars as to the public meeting at Bridgeton, Glasgow, at which he yesterday informed the House, a Resolution in favour of his proposals was passed, as no Report of such meeting appears in any of the Glasgow newspapers, and as inquiries at the police offices and the public halls have failed to elicit any information regarding it?
*MR. RITCHIE: I received a telegram in the House shortly before I rose. I have no information beyond that which was conveyed to me in that telegram, which is as follows:—
"At public meeting in Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, held in Mechanics' Hall to day, it was unanimously resolved that this meeting heartily support the Government proposals as contained in Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill as it now stands.
WILLIAM BROWN,
88, John Street,
Bridgeton."

ORDER OF BUSINESS.
MR. J. MORLEY: I suppose we can understand that no business will be taken to-morrow, except the adjournment?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I must ask the House to do some business. We must take the Inland Revenue Bill and the Report of the Committee on the Vote on Account, and in the event of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill not having been passed, and the Allotments Bill not having been completed, we shall ask the House to take those measures before we proceed with further business. We shall

1599
also have to ask the House to consent to a Motion for giving up the whole of Tuesdays and Fridays after Whitsuntide for Government business.
MR. J. MORLEY: Assuming that all this be got through, the right hon. Gentleman's apprehensions as to our not having a holiday, I suppose, will fall through.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope I may not be supposed to be seeking to impose conditions on the House; I am rather seeking to further business, and to meet the convenience of the House. In the event of the Motion of which I have given notice being accepted, I shall move for an adjournment until Monday, the 2nd of June.
MR, T. M. HEALY: With regard to the Contagious Diseases Bill I would appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman not to take it before Whitsuntide.
MR. CHAPLIN: I am sanguine enough to hope that a very few minutes' discussion will be enough for that Bill, and I must ask the House, if possible, to take it. It cannot come into operation for a considerable time, and it is of great importance that we should get it passed.
MR. HOWELL: Is it intended to take the Savings Banks Bill to-night?
MR. GOSCHEN: I hope it may be possible to take the Second Reading, and to refer the Bill to a Committee; but, of course, I will not ask the House to read it a second time unless there is a general disposition to do so.
MR. WOODALL: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has given consideration, as promised, to the application I made to him to exempt from the rule respecting morning sittings the First Tuesday after the Holidays?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I have given great consideration to that request, and I feel great sympathy with hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in the question which is to be considered on that day; but I would point out that it is an abstract Resolution, and my advice to the hon. Gentleman will be to use the facilities the House gives for bringing in a Bill.
MR. WOODALL: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties that attend private Members' Bills after
1600
Whitsuntide. Will he afford facilities for the discussion of the Bill?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not; but I would advise the hon. Member to procure a good position for a Bill of the kind next Session.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: In the event of the Government taking all the time of private Members after Whitsuntide will the right hon. Gentleman revert to the ordinary hours of meeting on Tuesdays and Fridays?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that would be for the convenience of the House, and we will do our best to meet the convenience of the House.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman promised some days ago that he would make inquiries as to whether he would be able to bring influence to bear on his supporters to allow the Second Reading of the School Board for London Super an nations Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in doing so?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to say I have not been able to communicate with my hon. Friends.

DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL—ATTACK ON THE POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS COMMITTEE.
MR. G. W. HASTINGS: Mr. Speaker, I wish, if the House will allow me, to occupy a short portion of its time. As Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee of this House it is, I may say, and at the wish and with the support of that Committee, that I am about to make a a few remarks. I have, Sir, brought up to your Table the Report of that Committee on the Bill which has been promoted by the Dublin Corporation, and in that Report we have endeavoured to give good reasons for all we have done with regard to that Bill and the recommendations we have made; but, Sir, it is necessary for me, as Chairman of the Committee, unfortunately, to say something on one portion of that Bill. One of the clauses of the Bill related to a road called the Blackrock Road, which runs from the city of Dublin to the Harbour of Kingstown. In former days that was the only means of communication between Dublin and Kings-

1601
town, and Parliament then, no doubt with good reason, thought fit to require the Corporation of the City of Dublin to pay one-third of the cost of the maintenance of that road. The Bill purported to relieve the Corporation from that obligation. The Committee went most carefully into the whole case. They heard a number of witnesses. They considered the evidence most carefully, and, finally, looking to the altered circumstances of the case, that a railway is now running from Dublin to Kingstown, and also a tramway, that the passenger traffic, instead of going along the road, is now carried by the tramway and the railway, both of which contribute materially to the rates of the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock, through which the road passes, they came to the conclusion that it was no longer equitable to require the City of Dublin to contribute to the maintenance of the road, and they passed a clause through Committee relieving the City of Dublin from that obligation. Well, now, the House must allow me just to say that the Police and the Sanitary Regulation Bills Committee is not an ordinary Private Bill Committee. It consists of 11 members nominated by the Committee of Selection, and these 11 members have been drawn impartially by the Committee of Selection from all the Parties in this House. Many of its members have had considerable experience in the work. I may say that I have served continuously on the Committee since the Session of 1882, and have now for four Sessions been its Chairman. We may, therefore, venture to claim some knowledge of the subject with which we deal and some experience in dealing with it. We arrived at the conclusion we did as to the Brackrock Road, of only after a long investigation— the Committee sat more than a month on the Bill—but with a most earnest desire to do justice, and only justice, between the parties whose interests were involved in the case. It was, therefore, with great surprise the Committee had laid before them by one of its members, the hon Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) a report in the Irish Times of a meeting of the Blackrock Commissioners, in which the statements I will read to the House were made. I may observe that at the meeting of the Commissioners the chair was occupied by
1602
Mr. Wigham, who was one of the witnesses before the Committee, who had the fullest opportunity of stating everything he knew, and of explaining his views, and who was treated with every possible courtesy by the members of the Committee. I find at this meeting of the Blackrock Commissioners, amongst other things, this was stated—
"The Committee—that is, the Committee of the Commissioners in opposition to the Bill— reported that they had pointed out this hardship and injustice towards the township of Blackrock to the Committee of the House of Commons, hut without success, mainly, as they believe, through the action of one of that Committee, Mr. Thomas Sexton, M.P., who, although a promoter of the Bill, did not scruple to sit on the Committee, acting, in fact, as judge in his own case, and cross-examining the witnesses in a hostile manner, and even interfering with counsel as to their manner of conducting the case."
The Commissioners 'then proceeded to pass two Resolutions upon it, which were these:—
"That the Commissioners hereby accord their emphatic protest against the action taken by one of the members of the Committee, Mr. Thomas Sexton, M.P., who although one of the promoters of the Bill, sat on the Committee, and used his influence as a member of the Committee in inducing them to pass the clauses which he himself approved, and acted, in fact, as an advocate for the promoters of the Bill, cross-examining the witnesses for the opposition in a hostile manner."
And it was further resolved—
"That the Commissioners are of opinion that such conduct on the part of Mr. Sexton having unfairly prejudiced the minds of the Committee the Bill should not be allowed to become law with the several clauses against which the Commissioners petitioned standing in the form passed by the Committee, and that petitions to this effect be prepared and presented to both Houses of Parliament, and that copies of this Besolution be sent to Her Majesty's Government."
I will relieve the House from any fear, if they have any, that any Question of Privilege is raised. I beg to say on behalf of the Committee that we should not trouble ourselves to raise any Question of Privilege on such statements as these. We believe the Committee, which has now been in existence some seven or eight years, commands the confidence of the House, and the House knows that the Members of the Committee only do their best to deal justly with all the interests concerned, and to pass Bills which are likely to be for the public

1603
good. The Committee wish me to lay-before the House what are the real facts of the case. I am anxious to say at once that if there is anyone responsible for the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) sitting upon the Committee while the Dublin Corporation Bill was before it, I am ready to plead guilty to being that person, for the hon. Member, who was nominated to the Committee by the Committee of Selection, came to me before the Dublin Corporation Bill was called on, and said that if I objected in any way to his sitting on the Committee he was ready and willing to retire. I told him I was not aware of any objection, according to the Rules of the House, to his sitting on the Committee, and I have fortified myself on that point by taking the opinion of those who are the best authorities on the question, the Officials of this House, and I believe the hon. Member for West Belfast had also consulted the Chairman of Committees of the House (Mr. Courtney), who, Mr. Speaker, during your lamented indisposition, was at the time acting as Deputy Speaker, and he also consulted your counsel, and received from both authorities the statement that there was nothing to prevent him acting on the Committee. I would wish to add this, and. I add it in the presence and hearing of the other Members of the Committee, that, in my opinion, the conduct of the hon. Member for West Belfast on our Committee during the whole progress of the Bill was such as to do him honour and to raise him in the estimation of the Committee. There was not one word said by him to which it was possible to take any objection, and with regard to the statement as to his hostilely cross-examining witnesses, and, in fact, imputing to him the taking of some violent course in the matter, I give it the most emphatic contradiction. If the hon. Member had acted thus, it would have been my duty, as Chairman of the Committee, to have called him to order, and I should have done so. I never had any other feeling with regard to his conduct throughout the whole progress of the Bill than that he was rendering most material service to the Committee by the course which he took on the various clauses of the Bill. But with regard to the imputation on the Committee, that they passed these clauses because they
1604
were influenced by the hon. Member for West Belfast, I would ask the House to consider what it means. We are a Committee of 11, and it means that 10 men of honour, and I hope of some reputation, Members of this House, did what they ought not to do, and were in some way led. aside from the path of duty by the representations of one single Member of the Committee. On this question of the Blackrock Road, as on others, I think the House ought to know that the room having been cleared at the conclusion of the evidence, and the matter having been considered, that no opinion whatever was expressed by the hon. Member for West Belfast until I and the other Members of the Committee had given our own opinions upon it. I was, in fact, asked by the Committee to say, as their Chairman, what I thought would be a right decision on the question, and I gave that opinion, and in that opinion the Committee unanimously agreed. It was a unanimous opinion on the part of that Committee, and then we are told— I have no doubt by very respectable gentlemen acting as Commissioners for the Blackrock township—that we passed this clause only because we were unduly influenced by the hon. Member for West Belfast. I hope the House will understand that there is not one word of truth in any of these assertions, which may or may not be made for a purpose as to the ulterior fate of the Bill. The whole of the Committee were unanimous on the point. We are entirely of opinion we did what was right in the matter, and we hope, so far as we are concerned, that the Bill as it stands may pass into law.
MR. SEXTON: I want to thank the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and the Committee, for the references to myself which, acting as their spokesman, he has made. I wish to inform the House that, before the Dublin Corporation Bill came to be dealt with by the Select Committee, I learned, to my surprise, of the rumour that some Petitioners against the Bill intended to object to my presence on the Committee upon the ground that, in my capacity as Lord Mayor of Dublin, I had acted as a promoter of the Bill. I regarded the objection as unsubstantial—oven fanciful —because everyone, friend as well as opponent, was well aware I had no per-

1605
sonal interest whatever in the Bill or in any proposal in the Bill. In fact, I had no interest except such as an Irish Representative should feel in a Bill concerning the welfare of a Municipality in Ireland, and although acting as promoter, in point of fact, I had acted as moderator between the several parties to the Bill, and had promoted the progress of the Bill by making concessions for the benefits of those parties. However, Sir, I determined there should be no doubt on the matter. I was unable to consult the highest authority in the House, because at the time the question arose you, Sir, happened to be absent through illness. I submitted the case to the Deputy Chairman of the House. I had also the advantage of the opinion of the highest legal authority, the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chandos Leigh. I further consulted the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, by which the Committee was nominated to serve, and, finally, I laid the question before the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee with a view of directing my action by any expression of the hon. Gentleman or any section of the Committee. Now, Sir, all these authorities agreed that there was no rule and no arrangement of this House adverse to my acting on the Committee in question, and that there was no reason why I should not serve. Some of these authorities pointed out to me that my local knowledge would be of use to that Committee, and they also directed my attention to the fact that this Select Committee, like every other Select Committee of the House, is deliberately constituted for the purpose of affording representation to all parties. Now, Sir, the Bill in question is an Irish Bill, opposed in regard to its main proposals by the Irish Government. I was the only Irish Member upon the Committee of 11. I could not ascertain upon inquiry that any of my Colleagues acquainted with Municipal affairs could spare the requisite time for giving attention to this Bill, which occupied in the result more than a dozen sittings of the Committee; and, although it would have been more convenient and more agreeable to me to retire from the Committee, heavily pressed as I was by other and more
1606
imperative Parliamentary duties, I felt that I had no option in the public interest but to serve. Now, Sir, in regard to my action on the Committee the House has heard the Chairman. I have only to add that I acted throughout for the public interest according to my sense of duty, precisely as I should act, I hope, in the case of any other private Bill in the case of any proceedings in the House. If there be one Assembly in the world more competent than any other to judge of the ignorance and of the foolish character of the suggestion that I could exert any special influence upon a Committee composed of men of all Parties in this House, that Assembly is the House of Commons itself. But, Sir, as a matter of fact, I never for a moment—and this concludes the case—I never for a moment was under any inducement to attempt to exert any influence whatever. Let me impress upon the House that every decision of the Committee in regard to every point in which these Commissioners were concerned, and in regard to every other point of the least importance whatever—that every decision of the Committee was unanimous. The Committee was composed of six supporters of the Government, four Members of the Liberal Opposition, and myself, a solitary Irish Nationalist. Every decision, as I have said, was absolutely unanimous. When the room was cleared, each discussion was initiated by the declaration of the Chairman's views. Every decision confirmed the view put forward by the Chairman. My humble share in the Judicial work of the Committee was limited to concurrence in the judgment agreed upon by every other Member without exception. With regard to the personal attack upon myself, it is so manifestly inspired by motives entitled to no respect, by mere irrational vexation and spite of disappointed Petitioners, that it does not cause me the least concern. For my part, I should not ask or wish the House to give the slightest trouble on the personal aspect of the case, but I have to say that the case has another and a graver aspect which cannot be so easily ignored. A Committee of this House has been wantonly attacked for the patient and impartial discharge of a Judicial function. The House itself, through its Committee, has been attacked, and in my humble judgment

1607
there has been a gross contempt of the High Court of Parliament—a contempt committed, Sir, not by ignorant or irresponsible individuals, not committed by inadvertence of mere spoken words, but contempt committed by a Public Body in formal and deliberate resolution. I also consider that the resolution of these Commissioners, in which they determined to continue their attack by false aspersions on the judgment of the Committee, to continue that attack in the form of the Petition to the House of Lords, is as gross and wanton an attack on the privileges of this House as was ever known. However, it is not for me, it is for Members of this House of more experience and of greater authority, Members not personally concerned in this case, to say what steps, if any, this House should take to mark its sense of a most impudent attempt to discredit the judgment of a Committee of this House in the exercise of a Judicial function, and to prejudice the proceedings on this Bill when it goes before the House of Lords.
SIR JOHN MOWBRAY: I desire to add a few words to what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I wish to assure the House that the Member for West Belfast came to me in the most straightforward way and said he wished to know from me, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, whether he would be at liberty to take part in the Committee on this Bill. I told him that I considered that this Committee, consisting as it did of 11 Members elected from all parts of the House, differed entirely from an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and that I, for one, could see no objection to the hon. Member acting on it. But I went further. I said that I would consult the Committee of Selection and take their opinion. I did take their opinion. We had a large number present, and the Members were unanimously of opinion that there could be no objection to the hon. Member sitting. I communicated the opinion to him, and said I was sure from my knowledge of his character that the hon. Gentleman would not take part in any question if he was interested in it personally. The hon. Member was placed on the Committee three Parlia-
1608
ments ago, when I was sitting opposite. He has been an experienced Member of the Committee, and we thought it was quite right that he should sit on the Committee.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the House will kindly allow me to say only a few words on this question. I am sure the House will feel, whatever political differences divide Members in this House, when they are engaged in political struggles, that we are always anxious to maintain the honour and reputation of any Member of this House when he is unjustly attacked. I am sure the House will see from the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that the latter hon. Member has acted with the most scrupulous sense of honour, and entirely in the public interest all through this matter. I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman as to the view and opinions he has expressed with regard to the contempt of Parliament to which he refers. No doubt a contempt of Parliament has been committed by the Commissioners in question. But I think we gain more by treating such observations with the indifference which a consciousness of having done our duty in this House enables us to maintain. If I may express my own judgment on the matter it is that a great mistake has been committed by the Commissioners themselves. But they certainly will not prejudice the passage of the Bill in the other House by the course they have taken. I trust the incident will now be permitted to close with the assurance that the whole House considers that the hon. Member for West Belfast did nothing more than his duty.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commis-missioners;—
The House went; — and being returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—
1. Commissioners for Oaths Amendment Act, 1890.

DIRECTORS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 60.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 188.]
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday, 9th June, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]

POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' MEETINGS.
Copy ordered—
"Of any Order or Regulation with respect to the meetings of those in the employment of the Post Office which preceded the Order now in force."—(Mr. Arthur Williams.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
MOTION.

  POSTAGE BATES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Raikes, Bill to amend and regulate certain Inland Postage Rates, and to Amend the Post Office Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raikes and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. (Bill 302.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 231.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to commend to the kind notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Amendment which stands in my name. The object is to secure a more equitable distribution of the Liquor Tax, by securing that it is divided among the three countries proportionately to the yield. Such a proposal as this ought to have been made by the Government rather than by a private Member. The only reason given for this distribution of the tax is, that it is on the same lines as the distribution of the Probate Duties proceeded with two years ago. But had the course proposed in regard to this Spirit Duty been adopted in relation to the Probate Duty it would have been violently opposed. There are funda-
  1610
  mental differences between the two cases. The Probate Duty was strictly an Imperial subvention, while we are now discussing a purely local Budget. Although the fresh burden imposed forms part of an Imperial tax, collected for convenience by Imperial officers, it is in reality a local impost, intended to be devoted to local purposes by a Local Authority. Again, so far as Ireland and Scotland are concerned the charge upon them in connection with this duty is an excessive one and, indeed, an oppressive one. I admit that if the Scotch and Irish contribution to the Imperial Revenue were no more than it ought to be the question would be far more difficult, and I would not feel entitled to move this Amendment. But the condition is not satisfied. Scotland's contribution is excessive, and Ireland's grievously burdensome, and, therefore, I contend that the re-distribution of the proceeds of the additional tax should be in proportion to the yield from each. By the plan proposed under this Bill you are putting a burden on the poorer countries for the benefit of the richer one. Then the local uses of the three countries do not correspond; each country has its own independent local uses, and it is just, therefore, that the money raised by special taxation in one country should be devoted in unimpaired proportions to the local uses of that country. Ireland and Scotland are entitled to liberal treatment in this matter, because not only is their contribution to the Imperial Revenue already excessive, but the new Spirit Tax will be especially burdensome in their case. The Government ought not to forget that Scotland and Ireland are being made victims in consequence of local wants felt in England. If it had not been for the complaints and demands of the English County Councils the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have found it necessary to propose this tax at all. Therefore, England having been the cause of the imposition of the tax, she ought to be satisfied if she receives what England yields and no more. How will the proposed division work?The Returns which have been presented by the Secretary to the Treasury, whom I congratulate upon his new dignity—for I think the dignities of the State have not been often so well earned—show how

  1611
  England, Scotland, and Ireland will fare if the proceeds of the duties are divided as the Government propose. England will pay £953,000 towards the duty, and will receive £1,043,000. That is to say, as a result of the imposition of a tax particularly burdensome on Scotland and Ireland—a tax imposed, too, for the convenience of England, that country will gain £90,000 at the expense of Scotland and Ireland. Scotland will pay £196,000 and receive back only£142,000, thus losing £53,000; and Ireland will pay £154,000, and receive back nearly £117,000, losing £37,000 by the trans-section. This matter ought, I contend, to be considered separately from the question of the duty of two years ago. Scotland is only moderately wealthy as compared with England, and Ireland is by far the poorest of the three countries; yet they are to los3 by this transaction. I may frankly say that I do not view these Returns with unqualified confidence, for, according to another calculation, which appears to be very exact, Ireland will pay £195,000 and lose £77,000.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): What figures does the hon. Member refer to?
  MR. SEXTON: They are contained in a Report in a wine and spirit paper, and evidently are the result of very careful calculations.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I have not seen that article, but the author may possibly have fallen into the error of not distinguishing between duty paid on spirits manufactured and the duty on spirits consumed in each country.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall be happy to send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the article. I think, on examining it, he will find that this distinction is drawn, and that the conclusion arrived at is that Ireland, as a consumer, will pay £195,000 towards this tax. Now, if the Government give a favourable reception to the Amendment I have to propose, I shall be disposed to accept the basis of incidence stated in the first page of the Return pending the inquiry which, I am glad to say, we are to have regarding the financial relations of the three countries. I may, however, point out that the basis of incidence according to notes in this Return, is founded on principles favour-
  1612
  able to the English and unfavourable to the Irish account. For example, the incidence of taxation in regard to foreign spirits is calculated upon the basis of collection, which is not a sound basis. Consumption is the sound basis, and the calculation according to collection is favourable to England and unfavourable to Ireland. Then the calculation in the case of beer is based on the consumption which is favourable to England. I think we ought to have further statistics upon which to form an opinion. If, as has been suggested in the article I have referred to, Ireland will contribute £190,000 in the shape of the new Spirit Duty, her loss will be £155,000, and that is not a sum which ought to be jauntily disposed of. I am not pressing this Amendment on purely technical grounds; I do so rather upon the large principles of liberal and equitable dealing towards Ireland. These are facts which constitute a special hardship in the Irish case, and which justify an appeal to the liberality of the Government. The incidence of this liquor tax is particularly hard. You are going to hypothecate the whole of Ireland's share for the purposes of a guarantee, which we entirely disapprove, and you are going to lock up and render completely useless a sum of £40,000 for a period the duration of which we cannot limit. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a favourable consideration to the subject-matter of my Amendment, I will not press it; and if the Government will make that concession it will probably facilitate the progress of business, while it will tend to greatly moderate that feeling of indignation felt in Ireland because you are increasing the burden of the most inequitable tax in your system of finance. If the right hon. Gentleman will go on the principle of giving back to each country what it pays, he will avert conflicts which otherwise will wage around this Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from the word "proportions," to the end of the clause, and insert the words "in which they are raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member has temperately moved this Amendment, but the Government cannot accept it in the form in which it stands; nor can I see any possible modification of the Amendment which would remove the objections to it. As the Amendment stands it would appropriate this revenue, not according to consumption, but according to collection. That would work gross unfairness, because large quantities of spirits which are made in Scotland and Ireland are consumed in England.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman will have judged from my remarks that I am willing to accept any fair basis.
  MR. JACKSON: The difficulty is that it is not possible to get at the exact amount of spirits manufactured in Scotland and Ireland and consumed in England. Some calculations have been made, and the effect, so far as has been ascertained, is that at least £63,000 would be paid in Scotland and £76,000 in Ireland for spirits consumed in England. The hon. Member has sought to separate the proposed tax from the Probate and the Beer Duties on the ground that it is a new tax. But the Beer Tax of last year was also a new tax, and of that Ireland has had the benefit.
  MR. SEXTON: How?
  MR. JACKSON: It was a tax raised upon an article of ordinary consumption in England, and which was devoted to Imperial purposes. The hon. Member has suggested that Ireland was unfairly treated in the matter of the Beer Duty, but he is mistaken in that. We have taken the best figures at our disposal. In 1886 the quantity of beer exported from Dublin was 390,000 hogsheads, equal to 585,000 barrels; in 1887 it was 105,000 hogsheads, or 608,000 barrels; in 1888 424,000 hogsheads, or 636,000 barrels. On the other hand, it is difficult to estimate the export of beer from England to Ireland, but we have every reason to believe that the figures contained in the Report may be taken as accurate. My right hon. Friend has assented to an inquiry, and that inquiry will show what are the real facts of the case. My right hon. Friend has also said that should it be shown that the basis of distribution adopted is unfavourable to
  1614
  Scotland and Ireland, it will be the duty of the Government to endeavour to meet the justice of the case. If the result of the inquiry is to show that the general system of taxation and finance as between the three countries is unfair towards Scotland and Ireland, it will be the duty of the Government to rectify the system. This my right hon. Friend has undertaken, and in this I really think hon. Members will admit that my right hon. Friend has gone as far as he could be expected to go.
  MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman has not touched that part of the speech of my hon. Friend in which he spoke of the basis of the division; he has evaded the whole kernel of my hon. Friend's Amendment. Of course, we receive with satisfaction the explanation of Table 3, relating to the Beer Duty, and I have no doubt, as regards exportation of beer from Ireland to England, the table is correct. But, with regard to the other item in the column—the export of beer from England to Ireland—I think we have reason to question the correctness of the information supplied to the Government, and I hope some more satisfactory information may be forthcoming when next this question comes before us for discussion. It does not lie within my competence to closely follow the figures given from time to time as to the incidence of trade between the two countries, and I should like to have them set forth in a form more easily to follow; but I take the Return of the incidence of taxation supplied to us within the last few days, and I will undertake to prove, as briefly as possible, that on the division based upon the Probate Duty, the allocation of the grant will be most unfair to Scotland and Ireland. I take the figures of collection and consumption, as set forth, without comment or query, from the Return of 1888–9, and, basing the proportion upon these figures, the result works out upon the new tax as follows: England, £891,137; Scotland, £182,371; and Ireland, £146,007. The right hon. Gentleman contends that the new duty should be apportioned on the basis of the division of the Probate Duty; but we contend that this new 6d. tax on an already over-taxed commodity is regarded in Ireland and Scotland with the greatest possible distrust

  1615
  and dislike, and that if it is imposed at all, you are bound, on the principles of justice and equitable treatment, to divide the revenue so raised in the proportions in which it is raised in the three countries, and I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend ought to commend itself to the sense of fair dealing in the House. I do hope that before we proceed to a Division, or press this matter further, we shall have some more satisfactory answer than we have had from the Secretary to the Treasury. These figures I have taken from this Return can be proved by any hon. Member who will employ his industry for half an hour over it, and the figures cannot be controverted, and they show conclusively that England's proportion of the new duty upon the basis of the Return of 1888–9 should be 73, Scotland's 14·9, and Ireland's 12·1; but you are going to divide the money so raised in the proportion of 80, 11, and 9 respectively, so that the loss to Scotland will be 3·1, and to Ireland 3·9, while England gains 7 per cent. We are promised a Committee to inquire into the incidence of taxation and revenue in the three countries, and we welcome that inquiry, believing it will show there has been great fiscal injustice to Ireland; but, pending the result of that inquiry, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the proceeds should be divisible in the manner proposed by my hon. Friend.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I regret that this most reasonable proposition is refused by the Government. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for the appointment of the Committee, but this Committee cannot touch this money which will be raised. The only influence of the Amendment of my hon. Friend will be that Ireland will get a sum of £70,000, which, taking the Government Return, we are clearly entitled to. The Secretary to the Treasury was well advised in gliding over the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced on a previous occasion, that we are getting more than our share of the Probate Duty. The Government contended in former debate that the reason Ireland does not get her proper share in the new duty is that she has the benefit of the over plus in the Probate Duty; but the Secretary to the Treasury has now
  1616
  only alluded to that by saying it has already been discussed. Now, I would reply to that argument, "Take away your Probate Duty and only tax Ireland on the basis upon which you say the Probate Duty should be given to us; that is, 4½ per cent." But, of course, the Government will not do that.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I do not quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand the contention is that Ireland contributes 4· per cent. to the Probate Duty and to the Imperial Revenue, and I say, if that is so, then take this 4½ per cent. as the basis generally of Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue. We should then be saved something like £3,500,000 a year.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: We do not make it the basis.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very difficult to fix you to your basis—very difficult to say under which thimble is the pea. My hon. Friend deserves great credit for the skill with which he has brought the matter forward. For myself, I have no financial ability of any kind, and find great difficulty in even adding up the figures, and will not venture to discuss the matter in the manner my hon. Friend has; but, looking at the arguments like a juror, I am quite capable of appreciating the points, and I say my hon. Friend's argument has not been met. We base ourselves on your own Return; we build on your found adation, and we find this difference between what you raise in Ireland upon spirits and beer and the proportion you return;. and when we ask for this difference, you meet us with a reference to the over plus paid on the Probate Duty. Then, I say, withdraw the Probate, and recognise the 4½ per cent. which you say should be the basis of Irelands contribution to the Imperial Revenue; but still you decline. Now, though I am not capable of undertaking a scientific examination of the figures, I can see that my hon. Friend's argument has not been met. It is some alleviation to our complaints that these financial arrangements will be subjected to examination by a Committee, but that does not deal with our grievance in 1890. Furthermore, let me point out that here, as in many former instances, the injustice that is inflicted upon Ireland arises

  1617
  out of circumstances founded upon the exigencies of England without any reference to the wants of the Sister Country. Because you failed in your Van and Wheel Tax we pay 6d. more per gallon on our whisky in 1890. But we did not get a County Council Bill. Because you have set up County Councils in England and Scotland and need to erect a fiscal system for them, Ireland is called upon to pay this extra taxation ! I can quite appreciate your difficulties in attempting to govern Ireland; you cannot do it, and you meet our arguments as to equitable treatment by saying that the whole fiscal arrangements of the three Kingdoms cannot be disarranged, and, sometimes, in an unguarded moment, you advert to the difficulties in setting up a fiscal zone for Ireland. Now, if you simply take the argument of the sword, and impose your taxation upon us, that is intelligible; but if you desert that, and talk about general convenience, we ask how is it that we are always to suffer in the business?While England and Scotland are gainers by a large and generous extension of Local Government, the fact is Ireland, while having no Local Government, has suffered from the extension to the other countries. If the English and Scotch Local Government Acts had not passed, we should not have heard of this extra 6d. upon whisky. We are deprived of Local Government, and we suffer because you get Local Government. I say in all this Budget— I do not accuse the Government of any intention and desire to make it unjust to Ireland, it almost arises out of the necessities of tyranny and under the necessities of the Union—you make your arrangements according to the interests of England, caring nothing about those of Ireland. If ever there was a case to prove the way in which a conquered country can be robbed it is this Budget. We have gained nothing under this Budget except upon tea. I challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give in a compendious form the comparative benefits of his Budget proposals to the people of the three countries. He had a surplus, and we ask for £70,000 from that surplus as the proportion of Ireland's contribution towards it. You give us 2d. on tea, but you put 6d. on whisky. We do not get the benefit of the Inhabited House Duty or any
  1618
  other remission under the Budget. It is a fair challenge. Show us in a Return the figures giving in each country the creation and distribution of the surplus. I say the past financial history of England and Ireland since the Debt was consolidated, which I take to be the true point of departure in the matter, should come under the consideration of the Financial Committee, and I am sure it will disclose a long course of fraud and plunder.
  MR. KNOX: I do not think the argument in the beginning of the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury had that force he seemed to think it possessed. No doubt a certain amount of duty is paid on whisky in Ireland, which whisky is consumed in England; but that does not necessarily prove the unfairness of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I should say consumer and produce)' have both to be considered; but the interest of the producers is as important as that of the consumer. By the producer, I do not mean merely the distiller, but every man engaged in the trade, who will suffer from the additional taxation on the article produced. Consider these arrangements for a moment as about to be embodied in a Treaty between two nations, two separate Governments. Suppose we were entering into a Treaty of Commerce; do the Government suppose that any Independent State would consent to such terms as they seek to impose upon Ireland?Many English manufacturers come into Ireland, but there is no considerable Excise Duty on any of them. There is an enormous Excise Duty on goods made in Ireland for the purpose of export to England. If Ireland were in the position of Greece, and able to make a bargain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, she would obtain very different terms. Greece would not take off the duty on English goods until the duty was taken off goods sent here by Greece; and if Ireland were in the same position, she would maintain a duty on English goods until a similar advantage was given by England to goods of her manufacture. Ireland, however, is not in that position, and the Government propose to put an enormous tax on one of the chief articles of Irish manufacture imported into England, although there is practically no tax upon goods exported from England to

  1619
  Ireland. Looking at this matter from an international point of view, as I am entitled to do for the sake of argument, the distribution of the taxation is grossly unfair. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has said that £76,000 of the extra duty will be paid in Ireland on exports exported to England; that is, l-20th of the duty now paid on whisky exported to England. If we take the amount at 20 times £76,000, we find that £1,520,000 worth is paid in Ireland in the shape of duty on the article manufactured in Ireland and exported to this country. That is a very considerable sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that it is not by any means the whole of the tax put upon Irish manufactures in this respect, because there is also a large amount of Irish whisky bonded in England on which duty is paid in England, but nevertheless the duty is put upon an article of Irish manufacture. It is difficult to ascertain what the real proportions are; but, broadly speaking, I think the greater part of the whisky manufactured in the North of Ireland has duty paid upon it on the spot, while the greater portion of that which is manufactured in the South of Ireland is exported in bond. We may assume that this £1,520,000 at present paid on whisky exported to England is only one-half the tax which England puts on the main staple of Irish manufactures imported by this country, and I think that this is sufficient to show the great unfairness with which Ireland is treated. I am glad the Government has consented to the appointment of a Committee to arrange, as it were, a Treaty of Commerce between Ireland and England, and we trust that that arrangement will lead to a settlement on more equitable terms than the Government seems willing to consent to adopt. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will press this matter to a Division, for, as I have already said, it does seem grossly unfair that Irish manufactures should be taxed to so enormous an extent when goods manufactured in England and exported to Ireland are not taxed at all.
  SIR J. M'KENNA: I desire to point out to the House that if the Irish people were only taxed for Imperial purposes in proportion to the amount levied by the Income
  1620
  Tax, the incidence of taxation in that country would be much fairer than it is at present. For if an arrangement were made at the present moment under which Ireland were obliged to raise her present quota of Imperial taxation by a charge under the Income Tax, she would have to raise as much as 5s. 3d. in the £1. This, I venture to say, can be proved to the hilt, that 2s. 6d. in the £1 would suffice for Great Britain; which fact affords a sufficient illustration of the unjust taxation under which the people of Ireland are labouring.
  MR. PARNELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies I desire to say that I think some consideration is due to Ireland in regard to the distribution of this money. It is not a sufficient answer to say that the right hon. Gentleman takes as the proportion of the distribution of this extra tax the proportionate amount which Ireland pays to the Imperial Revenue from all sources of taxation. That is not a sufficient answer to us, because we dispute the justice of the proportion we pay to the Imperial Revenue, for, so long as I can remember, Motions have been annually brought forward by Irish Members, in reference to this question, and they have conclusively proved that we in Ireland are paying at least double as much as we ought to pay in proportion to our wealth, a large amount of this extensive contribution being derived from the duty imposed upon spirits. But, Sir, the claim we make to-day is still stronger than our old claim, because this is a tax which is voted, not for Imperial purposes, but for local purposes, and of the total amount Ireland contributes 16·4 per cent. For this contribution the right hon. Gentleman only purposes to give us 5 percent., and he justifies the wrong he has done because successive Governments have succeeded for years past in wringing from us a taxation utterly disproportioned to our means, and double the amount we ought to pay as compared with England, and "because we have robbed you in the past we have a right to rob you in the future." This proposal is a fresh injustice, added to the already great injustice under which Ireland was suffering. But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to allow

  1621
  the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that Ireland is not being unjustly dealt with in the contributions she makes to the Imperial and general expenditure, we can at least show by the right hon. Gentleman's own figures that we shall only receive one-half of the proceeds of the new tax as compared with the amount we ought to receive. In addition to this, we have to submit to the further outrage that our proportion of the subvention intended for local purposes is to be locked up and not used for any purpose during an indefinite period. I think the figures show for themselves that this is a question on which the Government ought to yield to the claims of Ireland and Scotland. It is an evident injustice that you should use the tax obtained from alcoholic products in Ireland for the relief of local burdens in England, while no portion of it is to be applied to the relief of local burdens in Ireland. Why, I ask, should Ireland not have a fair proportion of this money?Why should you not adjust the relative proportions among the three countries, namely, 61·3 to England, 22·3 to Scotland, and 16·1 to Ireland?I think the claim which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford is a reasonable one. Surely at a time when you are boasting of your policy of justice and equality to Ireland—nay, more than justice, generosity to Ireland—you cannot, with any face, come to this House and ask us to support you in taxing the Irish people to an unfair extent on a special article of Irish manufacture, while at the same time you only propose to give back to Ireland one half of the proceeds of that taxation as compared with what you give to England. I say you have no right to ask this House to support you in this unjust and unequal treatment, which deprives us of our fair share of the tax raised in such large proportions from the chief article of Irish manufacture.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Longford that he acquits the Government of an intention of doing injustice to Ireland in this matter. If there is an injustice to Ireland through the manner in which she is taxed, it would have to be redressed by other means than by drawing a fiscal zone. Hon. Members
  1622
  have spoken of the injustice of the taxation of Ireland, but that subject is too large a matter to be entered upon in a Bill of this kind. In reference to the Committee which I have promised, I do not see what purpose would be served by extending the inquiry as far back as 1817, and, in my opinion, it would be sufficient to inquire into the relative financial position of the three countries as it now exists. The hon. and learned Member for Longford admits, as has always been admitted, that a much larger contribution from the Imperial Revenue goes to Ireland than is proportionately her due. If Ireland contributes more to the Common Fund than she ought to, that is balanced by the fact that she draws more contributions from it in proportion than any other portion of the United Kingdom.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What are they? We never heard of them.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I have already given the particulars of those contributions, and shown in respect of education how much per child is paid to Ireland, in comparison with population, as compared with the sums paid to the other portions of the United Kingdom.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why do you not let us manage our own affairs?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Speaking individually, I am in favour of the Irish nation receiving the whole of the grants, and managing education in their own way. Personally, I do not see any objection to that. Coming to the Amendment that has been moved, the hon. and learned Member for Longford has said that, instead of taking 4½ per cent, as the amount of the Probate Duty which Ireland contributes, the Government ought to take as a basis for distribution the whole of the taxation of Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What I said was that the Government have selected an unfair basis.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The basis taken by the Government is 80 per cent. for England, 11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland. The hon. and learned Member has challenged me to show that Ireland has obtained any benefit whatever under the Budget except under the Tea Duty. Well. there is the Currant Duty
  MR. SEXTON: Ireland does not pay more than £5 a year in respect of the Currant Duty.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I expected the hon. Member would say that. The Government has credited Ireland with so much having been paid as its share of the Customs Duty, and is it now to be understood that the whole of the Currant Duty is paid by England and Scotland?If that be the case, I might withdraw the sum of £500,000 from the account, and say that Ireland contributed nothing under that head to the Imperial Revenue. The hon. Member for Belfast questioned the accuracy of the figures of the Government relating to beer and foreign spirits He maintained that foreign spirits were more consumed in England than in Scotland or Ireland, because in those countries they produced their own spirits. I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. To show hon. Members opposite that I wish to deal fairly with them, I will undertake to have this question of the Beer Duty and the duty on foreign spirits carefully examined into, and if it can be found that our figures are wrong in any respect, and that Ireland has been prejudiced by the distribution we propose, I will move a Supplementary Estimate, the proceeds of which shall be paid to the National School Teachers in Ireland. I propose this in order to rectify any injustice which any error in our figures may have occasioned to Ireland. I must say, however, that I believe our figures are correct. I took the best means I could to have the details prepared with accuracy, but they may be wrong, and therefore it is that I tender this promise to hon. Members opposite. I am unable to accept the Amendment because, in the view of the Government at the present time, the distribution must be made as we propose. But, as I say, if there are any mistakes in our Estimates as to the consumption of foreign spirits or beer I undertake that they shall be remedied, not by striking off anything given to England or Scotland, which would have the effect of disarranging our finance, but by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate in favour of Ireland. This, I think, if not entirely satisfactory to hon. Members opposite, will show them that we have an earnest desire to be fair.
  DR. CAMERON: The so-called concession that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced is the most illogical and absurd proposition that ever came before this House. The Irish Members tell him, as they have been telling him during the course of the last week, that Ireland has been unjustly treated.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have not made a concession. I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House during the major portion of my remarks. If not, I will inform him that hon. Members opposite complain that certain figures which we have given are wrong, and whilst I make no concession on the general question, as we maintain our argument so far as the Probate Duties are concerned, what I say is that if the figures should be found to be erroneous we will rectify them, and will do so in the case of Scotland as well as in the case of Ireland.
  DR. CAMERON: The illogical and absurd nature of that proposition springs from the fact that these figures were never the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal at all. Many days after the Budget proposals had been laid before the House the Secretary to the Treasury, replying to attacks which had boon made on this particular portion of it, quoted certain figures to show that, on the whole, Scotland and Ireland would receive more than their share of the taxes allocated in aid of local taxation. When challenged for particulars, the Secretary to the Treasury promised us that the figures should be more carefully considered, and given in the form of a Return, and that is the history of the document to which reference has been made, but it was not submitted until some time after the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget speech. The right hon. Gentleman understands logical consequences as well as any one in the House, but I must say that in these Debates he has shown much more power of evasion and ability to drag red herring's across the trail of the argument than desire to meet plain arguments by germain and sufficient answers.
  MR. WEBB: For my part, in any final settlement of these matters between England and Ireland, I trust there will not be a fiscal zone established between us. What we

  1625
  desire is simply to remedy defects in the present abnormal condition of affairs. I would point out that there would be no difficulty whatever in making a separate estimate of the Revenue from spirits in Ireland, because during the past 25 years we have had a most careful examination instituted there with regard to the importation of arms and ammunition. There would bo nothing in the examination of vessels for spirits carried between the two countries which could not be covered by the present system of examination. To show the thorough nature of the search instituted in Irish ports, I may say that, in my own case, after having been on a visit to America, and having brought away with me a few relics from the scene of the battle of Gettysburgh, I had the greatest difficulty in getting them into Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says we enjoy certain advantages in regard to taxation. Well, we enjoy nothing whatever in the matter of grants we receive. The money we receive for education is given us for a system which is altogether out of accord with the wishes of the people. That for the Constabulary is for a military system, which we hate and abhor. It is necessary, as far as the Government are concerned, that we should have those grants in order to keep up an appearance of fairness; but the Irish people certainly do not "enjoy" them, and we claim to be put upon a footing similar to Scotland.
  (7.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 87.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
  (7.20.) Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 5, at the end of Clause 9, to insert the words "but nothing in this section shall prevent a person from holding more than one such excise licence in his own name."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It seems to me that these words render the original objects of the clause entirely nugatory.
  MR. JACKSON: Exception was taken to the clause as it stood. I did not think the objection was a sound one, because I believe the clause really carried out what was intended, but it was thought the words used might be read as preventing an individual taking out more than one licence, and the
  1626
  object of the present Amendment is to make it clear that a person can hold more than one excise licence in his own name. Unless that is made clear the clause would be unworkable in such cases as that of Messrs. Spiers & Pond, and those of Railway Companies. There are excise licences for the sale of Patent medicines, and for the manufacture of playing cards, and the Amendment will make it clear that future licences shall specify upon their faces the premises in which the business is to be carried on.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is it not the case that Judges have recently made very strong statements from the Bench about the great evil that arises from one person having a number of licences for the sale of drink. It seems very extraordinary that the Government now come forward to give an official sanction to that which is understood to be a grave abuse.
  MR. WADDY: This Amendment, if passed, would allow a publican to have any number of licensed houses in his own name, and to obtain compensation for licensed houses in different parts of the country whenever he might choose to give them up. It has over and over again been held in Courts of Justice that one of the great securities we have under the present very faulty system for the decent management and proper government of licensed houses is the actual personal supervision of the man to whom the licence is granted. This will be done away with if one man may have a number of licences in different places. The Government are establishing an entirely new principle.
  MR. JACKSON: It leaves the law exactly as it stands.
  MR. WADDY: Then all the Judges I have ever heard speak about it have been entirely in the wrong.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I apprehend that the answer of the Government will be that the words "excise licences" cover the clause, and that the publican's licence is not an Excise licence, but a Magistrate's licence. If, however, the Government really intend by the Amendment to allow public house licences to be given in any number to one person, I hope the Amendment will be opposed, not only by every

  1627
  man on this side of the House, but by every Licensing Justice opposite. I would point out that even as regards Excise licences they are granted to grocers for spirits, and the Amendment would allow a big grocer to take out half a dozen spirit licences in half a dozen branch establishments in the same town. I hope such a proposal will be resisted on all sides of the House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: All the Amendment says is, "Nothing in this section shall prevent" &c, and I do not see that it alters the law at all. It really does not authorise a person to hold more than one Excise licence. The Amendment, however, appears to excite some apprehension, and we will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JACKSON: I desire now to move in Clause 14 to omit the words "payment of the allowance is made," and to insert "the certificate is granted." When the Bill was in Committee the question was raised whether it was necessary for the Inland Revenue Officers to have power to enter premises up to the time when payment of the allowance was made. It was suggested that the power should be limited to the time when the certificate was granted, and this Amendment is brought forward with the object of carrying out that suggestion.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 6, line 19, to omit the words "payment of allowance is made," and to insert the words "the certificate is granted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to complain that the Government have given no consideration whatever to the arguments that were put forward respecting Clause 24. I see the English Solicitor General in his place, and I challenge him to define the word "assessment" as used in this section. I say an assessment is a personal assessment, and implies personal responsibilities and liabilities. I raise this question simply in my Imperial capacity. It is not a National question. The clause may produce possible injustice to the executors and administrators of poor persons. It is a remarkable thing that though we have had the Income Tax for the last 50 years it has never hitherto struck anybody that such a clause was necessary.
  1628
  I think it is a pity that, for the sake of stopping some twopenny-halfpenny leakage which may have accrued to the Treasury, such a clause should be inserted. It would be some mitigation of the section if it were confined to estates of over £1,000 a year. I would point out that Income Tax is collected sometimes at Petty Sessions, sometimes at Quarter Sessions, sometimes in the High Court. You might, however, almost have a Chancery suit arising under this clause, which has been drawn in the most unscientific and hasty manner. Of course, the Crown debt, which is here referred to, will take precedence of all other debts; but notwithstanding that the Government wish to come down upon the poor widow, perhaps, or the orphan, and make them personally liable, the assessment might be an assessment made at a time when the man was prosperous, and his circumstances at the date of his death might be very different. I can really see that there are endless objections to this clause—it is thorny with objections. The Government seem to be in a needless hurry in this matter. We have been half a century without this clause; surely, therefore, it can wait until the next Budget. The clause is inadequately drawn—it is drawn without regard to what are really the facts and problems of life. It is drawn without regard to the difficulties of the situation, and I certainly think it might very easily be dropped out of the Bill. How is it going to work?You surely would not follow a man into his grave, and make a poor woman pay a few pounds which might have been due in the man's lifetime. I can see the difficulties in this clause are endless, but in this House nothing small receives consideration. There is no way of getting-anything little attended to. I do not suppose the Government will give this matter the smallest attention, but I beg to move the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, "to omit Clause 24."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 24 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no hurry in this matter. This clause has been before the public and the House, in which there are a great many legal Gen

  1629
  tlemen, and they have had plenty of time to look at it. With the exception of the hon. and learned Gentleman, no one has taken exception to the clause. The hon. Member seems to think that no attention has been given to it and that it is simply the drafting of the Department. A very high authority on law, perhaps equally as high as the hon. and learned Member for Longford, namely, the Attorney General for Ireland, has expressed himself satisfied with the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Because he is satisfied with getting the money for the Government.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend whether he saw any objection to the clause. The hon. Gentleman must not presume that he is the only person in the House who has any anxiety as regards administrators, Trustees, and others. Depend upon it, if there had been all the dangers surrounding the clause which the hon. Gentleman fears, we should have heard a great deal more about it from solicitors and others. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to agree with other Gentlemen equally as conscientious as himself in the passing of this clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You did not answer my arguments though.
  MR. HUNTER: There is one blot in the clause which] think the Government might put right. In the last two lines it is said that the assessment shall be made upon the executors and administrators, and then that the amount shall be payable out of the estate. There is an ambiguity which it would be well to remove. As the clause now stands, it is possible that a claim might be made againstthe executors personally. That doubt, however, can be removed by the insertion of a single word—namely,"only"after"due,"so that the clause would read "due only from and payable out of the estate."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): Really the Amendment is not necessary. It is perfectly clear as it now stands. The amount has to be paid out of the estate. No claim can be made against the executors or administrators apart from the estate.
  MR. P. POWER: I wish the Government would explain what has made this clause necessary. If it is necessary now, I suppose it was equally necessary years ago. A gentleman of high authority told me only the other day that the leakage has been comparatively little. Why the Government should endeavour to make the position of executors or administrators more difficult than it is already I fail to see. So far from making the position more troublesome I think the Government should do what they can to facilitate the duties of the executors. My own experience goes to-prove that the position of an executor is not an enviable one. Of course, I regard it as an honour that the late Mr. Biggar should have shown his confidence in me by appointing me as one of his executors? but even in the case of his estate, which was fairly well managed, the trouble is considerable. I hope my hon and learned Friend will press this matter to a Division.
  MR. WEBB: I am very glad this matter has been brought up again by my hon. and learned Friend. There are few men of my age who have had to do with more small executorships than myself, and, therefore, I am in a position to urge that the trouble and annoyance is very great. Executors are not paid, and I consider it rather too bad of the Government to throw additional trouble upon them. I can imagine that endless litigation will result from the adoption of this clause, and I must earnestly point out that the remedy is entirely in the hands of the Government. Income assessments are sent out in the early part of the year. I always feel bound to make my return within the time specified, but the Government are very apt to allow people to dally in making their returns. It is hardly fair that they should throw additional work on executors in order to make up for their own laches. Legislation ought rather to proceed in the way of lightening the duties of executors than of adding to them. It is because I believe this clause will add to their trouble that I mean to-oppose it.
  (7.53.) The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
  (8.0.) Amendment proposed, in Clause 26, page 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out all after "shall certify the same accordingly," and insert —
  "Provided that the authority, if they are of opinion that the duties which would devolve on the medical officer of health under this section could not be performed by him without interference with the due performance of his ordinary duties may appoint some other legally qualified medical practitioner having the qualification required for office of medical officer of health of the district to make such examinations and give such certificates as aforesaid, and may pay him reasonable remuneration for his services. As respects Scotland the expression 'Medical Officer of Health' means a medical officer within the meaning of 'The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1–67.'"—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: This Amendment is entirely in accordance with the wishes we expressed, and I desire to acknowledge our indebt-ness to those who assisted us in obtaining this concession.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: In Committee on Clause 32 I draw attention to the fact that the clause enabled the Customs Authorities to render illegal the use of any substances in methylating spirits used under the Spirit Act of 1880, and I asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was the intention, and I understood his reply to be that it was not; but as there appeared to be some doubt about the effect of the words, he undertook to look into the matter. I am sure he does not wish to do anything unfair, but it would be unfair for the authorities to frivolously, or without sufficient cause, take from a trade the right to use substances they have legally used since 1880. It is to meet this that I propose to substitute the words "addition to" for the words "lieu of."
  Amendment proposed, Clause 32, line 13, to omit the words "in lieu of," and insert the words "in addition to."
  Question proposed, "That the words in lieu of stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JACKSON: I have considered this question with the officers of Inland Revenue. The hon. Member is correct in saying that the intention is not to limit what has hitherto been done; it is intended to take further powers in
  1632
  reference to making more nasty, if I may say so, this spirit, and so to prevent, as far as possible, the spirit being consumed as drink. The Inland Revenue Commissioners are given the power of approving of the mixing of more nauseous materials in certain cases. I understand there is a difficulty about the use of certain materials in certain trades, and this is to give the Commissioners more power to authorise the use of other substances in addition to those now used. As the result of my discussion with the Commissioners, it appears that the present words fit the meaning and intention of the clause and that the Amendment is not necessary.
  MR. CHANCE: I am ready to withdraw the Amendment, though I confess I am not convinced that it is not desirable.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  FURTHER VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,929,500, he granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, viz.: —

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.

  £

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  10,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  10,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  16,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  15,000

  Colonial Office

  8,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  25,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  —

  Board of Agriculture

  14,000

  Charity Commission

  7,000

  Civil Service Commission

  7,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  10,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  28,000

  Lunacy Commission

  3,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  15,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5,000

  National Debt Office

  2,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  3,000

  Registrar General's Office

  7,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  130,000

  Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

  2,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Secres Service

  9,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  2,000

  Fishery Board

  4,000

  Lunacy Commission

  800

  Registrar General's Office

  1,000

  Board of Supervision

  1,500

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary

  7,000

  Chari'able Donations and Bequests Office

  300

  Local Government Board

  15,000

  Public Works Office

  3,000

  Record Office

  700

  Registrar General's Office

  3,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  5,500

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  12,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  8,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry

  65,000

  County Courts

  20,000

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  3,000

  Police, England and Wales

  8,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  90,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  80,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  Scotland:—

  Lord Advocate, and Law Charges and Courts of Law

  25,000

  Register House

  6,000

  Crofters' Commission

  1,500

  Prisons, Scotland

  15,000

  Ireland: —

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  15,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  16,000

  Land Commission

  15,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  17,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

  12,000

  Constabulary

  250,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  15,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  25,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  1,000

  CLASS IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Public Education, England and Wales

  800,000

  Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

  75,000

  British Museum

  35,000

  National Gallery

  3,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  400

  Learned Societies, United Kingdom

  5,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

  20,000

  London University

  2,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  150,000

  National Gallery

  400

  Ireland: —

  Public Education

  200,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  100

  National Gallery.

  500

  Queen's Colleges

  3,000

  CLASS V.

  Colonial Services, including South Africa

  14,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  —

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

  11,000

  CLASS VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  100,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  5,000

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  —

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  800

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  40,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.

  5,000

  CLASS VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  5,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  2,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £2,609,500

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs

  100,000

  Inland Revenue

  100,000

  Post Office

  600.000

  Post Office Packet Service

  160.000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  360,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £1,320,000

  Grand Total

  £3,929,500

  MR. SEXTON: Before the general discussion proceeds, I wish to call attention to the state of business of Supply. We have almost reached the month of June, the end of the Session cannot be considered as very-distant, and yet at the present moment not one penny of Irish Supply has been taken except by the summary and comparatively un-Constitutional method of a Vote on Account. If we look back at Supply taken in the Session we find the Government have only obtained British Votes in Class 1, and a few casual Votes in addition; while the whole business of Irish Supply remains undischarged. Two years ago the scandal in regard to the

  1635
  business of Supply reached such a height that we were obliged to protest with considerable energy. We then received from the Government the most emphatic pledges that in future the business of Supply would proceed with regularity from beginning to end of the Session, and should be taken at least one day every week. Last year, however, there was no attempt to keep those pledges, and the slovenly and most objectionable method of discharging business by Votes on Account was resorted to again and again. Five Votes on Account were taken before the regular business of Supply came to be discharged. At the opening of this Session the pledges were repeated that Supply should be taken every week, and that thus Members should have the opportunity of discussing grievances, and tin's is the more necessary since the Government have appropriated so ranch of the time of the House. I have to repeat, in the strongest possible form, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and my Colleagues our protest against the evasion and postponement of the business of Supply by repeated Votes on Account. Before we proceed further, I have to ask for an assurance that after the conclusion of the holidays the business of Supply shall be taken up, and shall go forward from week to week until the end of the Session, and that Irish Votes shall be taken in their proper order. With regard to Irish Votes, sometimes, no doubt, at the request of individual Members, but more generally for the convenience of the Government, they have been put back until the end of the Session, until the month of July, and as the result we have had a congested mass of Irish Votes heaped together, and taken at late hours of the night, when an attempt to bring forward grievances in a reasonable and systematic manner in which they can be subjected to public scrutiny becomes impossible. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, financial purist as he is, and predisposed, from the disposition of his mind, to orderly and Constitutional methods, will appreciate the force of my protest. I again ask for an assurance that, after the holidays, Supply shall be taken at least one day in each week, if not oftener, and that Irish Votes shall he taken in their order as they arise.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am under the impression that frequently, and not on one or two occasions only, Irish Votes have been postponed at the wish of Irish Members, and in order to suit their convenience.
  MR. SEXTON: I have said so. Votes have been thus deferred, but that was in consequence of the irregularity with which Supply has been taken, and Irish Members never knew when it might be necessary they should be present.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: No doubt it would be more agreeable to myself, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the House generally, if Supply could be taken to a greater extent and more regularly early in the Session; but what can the Government or the House do when the discussion of matters other than Supply is conducted by a few hon. Members at such length?It has been impossible to get Supply taken with duo regularity, because upon other questions it has been necessary sometimes to allow four nights and sometimes five nights for discussion, and naturally when Debate is prolonged to such an extent it is impossible to proceed with Supply, as otherwise we would desire. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are perfectly alive to the inconvenience of taking Supply irregularly; but I fear it will be found utterly impossible to give such a pledge as the hon. Member desires. We shall do our best in the matter, and we shall be only too glad if the hon. Member and his friends will assist us by keeping discussion within reasonable length.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not wish to interpose between my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks upon the length of discussion, I would say they are not borne out by what happened up to Easter. We have it on the highest authority that up to that time the Government and the House had nothing to complain of. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should again have made this accusation.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I was obliged, in answer to the hon. Member, to show how it was we were unable to fulfil our pledges to proceed regularly with Supply.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not wish to enter into mutual recrimination. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a possible course of meeting the difficulty. If the Government resolve to continue the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays after Whitsuntide, it would be worth their while to consider whether they could not take Bills in the Morning and Supply at the Evening Sittings. The Government might well consider the point between this time and to-morrow, and then inform the House of the conclusion they come to. My own experience is that when we get into heavy Bills and proceed with them from day to day in Committee, the Committee gets stupefied with the continuance, and that it would be a relief to Members to alternate the work. It is merely my own suggestion; I do not know how it may be consonant with the view of my hon. Friend or others.
  MR. SEXTON: I only wish to say that it was in consequence of the irregularity with which Irish Supply has been taken that the Irish Members, not knowing when it would come on, have sometimes asked for postponement. I approve of the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, and think it might be carried out. I have to repeat in the plainest possible terms that we cannot suffer the business of Supply to fall into the condition it has been in at the end of recent Sessions.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will consult with the First Lord of the Treasury, and trust that it may be possible to make some reasonable arrangement in the matter to suit general convenience.
  MR. E. BKCKETT (York, N.R.,): I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the position of affairs in South and East and Central Africa, which is undoubtedly a somewhat serious one, and though the pressure of business is considerable, I think I am justified in raising a discussion on matters of great public interest and importance. The Committee is aware that Sir Percy Anderson was recently sent to Berlin to enter into negotiations—happily, for the moment, suspended—with the German Government respecting the delimitation of the frontiers between the English and German spheres of influence and the English and German territorial possessions. It
  1638
  was obvious that some clearly-defined and generally-recognised delimitation had become necessary if the cordial relations between the two countries were to remain undisturbed. I do not, therefore, wish to say a word in censure of the Government for opening negotiations, and I hope that they may be able to show that the spirit in which they are negotiating is equally unworthy of censure. But their conduct is not free from suspicion, and they are themselves responsible for this Debate. Questions have been asked by many hon. Members as well as myself, to which no satisfactory answer has been received. None of us have desired to press the Government unduly; we have only been anxious to receive an assurance that we shall remain in possession of an uninterrupted right of way from north to south, and territory, either British or which had been declared to be within the sphere of British influence, is not to be surrendered to Germany. But the Government will give us no such assurance; therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they cannot give it, as they would surely give it if they could to save themselves from further questioning and to set the mind of the country at rest. The territories about which most anxiety is felt are the territories extending northwards from the Zambesi along Lake Nyassa, Lake Tanganyika, the Victoria Nyanza, to the Albert Nyanza—Uganda- -and in South Africa the territory lying between Bechuana-land the 20th deg. of longitude and the Zambesi. Is it correct to say that these territories "have not yet been geographically defined, and the understanding was general in its terms V It is true that no hard and fast line was drawn upon the map as regards the territory that surrounds the German sphere of influence in. East Africa, though it was understood what that sphere was to be; but in South-West Africa the British sphere of influence was precisely and geographically defined as far as it was possible to define it, and the expression of any doubt or uncertainty on the part of the Government as to the extent and limits of our spheres of influence can only proceed from a desire to have them doubtful and uncertain, so that if any concessions are made to Germany they may be able to tell the

  1639
  country that there has been no surrender. That device is a little too transparent. Let me ask them this question. Did they, on opening negotiations with Germany, state exactly what territory they considered inalienable and what territory they were prepared to throw into the melting pot?Now, I maintain that we have a right to hold that by far the larger part of the territories in question are inalienably ours. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs acknowledges that an understanding was arrived at with Germany, and this understanding was embodied in the Agreement of 1887, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith. That understanding, though in general terms is quite precise enough for our purpose, and on their own initiative excludes the Germans from the territory in the centre of Africa, which was expressly reserved for British influence, but which they now wish to occupy so as to place them selves across our highway to the Great Lakes to the North, which is absolutely indispensable to the successful and profitable issue of our undertakings. Though the Germans are full of friendly expressions their aim and object seems to be the limitation of our expansion, and the expansion of their limitations. Starting from the East Coast and the West, they want to join hands in the centre of Africa, and thus cut us off for ever from realising our ambition to own a continuous and unbroken strip of territory stretching from Cape Colony to the sources of the Nile. I do not blame the Germans from entertaining this design; but any English Government would be greatly to blame which allowed them to accomplish it. This design is still more apparent if we examine the demand we have reason to believe they are making in South-West Africa. There was something more than an understanding arrived at as to our sphere of influence in this region. It was proclaimed generally in December, 1884, and clearly defined by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1888. Writing in December, 1888, Sir H. Robinson says—
  "Looking to the interval that has elapsed, as well as to the fact that the Protectorate has been explained to the Chiefs concerned, the question can no longer be considered as open to discussion"—
  1640
  and was authorised to declare on 4th February, 1889, that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the peace and prosperity of the vast and important country peopled by Bechuana tribes, and extending from Cape Colony to the Zambesi. One would think that Her Majesty's Government, as well as Sir H. Robinson, considered the question as no longer open to discussion, but the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies told me on 16th May that the "boundaries still remained undefined." You can hardly call the course of a river or a degree of longitude an undefined boundary, but it seems that even the laws of geography must give way to the exigencies of Secretaries of State. The Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs tried to escape on the ground that the Zambesi and the 20th degree of longitude do not intersect each other. As a matter of fact, two tributaries of the Zambesi do intersect the 20th longitude, and if no surrender were contemplated we should never have been put off with an answer of this kind. Fortunately, I have been informed, not by rumours in the newspapers, which those who remember the disclosures of the Globe will not be always disposed to discredit entirely, but from a private source of unimpeachable accuracy, exactly what it is that the Germans are asking for. Taking advantage of the admission, equally unnecessary and incorrect, that the North-West corner of the British sphere of influence has not been geographically defined, they wish to draw a line in a North-Easterly direction from the intersection of the 20o of longitude and the 22o of latitude to the Victoria Falls on the Zambesi. A glance at the map will show the House that the importance of the concession thus demanded can hardly be exaggerated. It would plant the Germans on the banks of the Zambesi, make them a Zambesi Power, bring them a great stride nearer to their Eastern possessions, and give all the country surrounding, and fertilised by, the Upper Zambesi into their hands. The Zambesi overflows every year like the Nile, and "scatters plenty o'er a smiling land." The products of this rich and fertile country could be transported by the Zambesi to the East Coast, or, more probably, the Germans would prefer to tap it by a railway through

  1641
  Damaraland from the West Coast. I am speaking now of the country that the Germans would acquire to the North of our sphere of influence, but the proposed line runs through the centre of a country that has been declared to be within our sphere of influence, and is acknowledged to be so by natives, explorers, hunters, concession seekers, in fact, by everyone except Her Majesty's Government. Now I am informed that the opinion of all who know the country of the Western Bamangwatos is that in securing it we have secured the pride of Central Africa. There is abundance of water, there is a river navigable for 400 miles, there is grazing land that will carry innumerable flocks and herds, and there is reason to believe that the soil is rich in minerals. When Sir Sydney Shippard was informed that a concession had been granted to an Englishman, he is reported to have said—
  "I am delighted to hear it, for in getting that concession he has secured for England a footing in a country of the highest value to her."
  But there is another point of great importance. We have promised all the tribes of the Bechuana people our protection. Now, the Western Bamangwatos are a tribe of the Bechuana people. Four generations ago the entire Bamang-wato nation resided in the neighbourhood of Shoshong. Owing to internal dissensions the nation split into two parts, the one part staying whore they were, and where they still remain, and where they live and thrive under the firm and wise rule of Khama, the most intelligent and civilised Chief in Africa, and our very good friend; the other part, following the banks of the Botletle River finally settled down in the Lake N'Gami country, where they are ruled by their Chief, Moremi. The best relations now prevail between the two branches of the Bamangwato nations. The chiefs and head men on either side intermarry with the women on the other, and these tender ties bind them so close together that, when the Matabeles invaded N'Gamiland, Khama dispatched a force to Moremi's assistance, which largely contributed to the total rout of the Matabelc warriors. If we give the Germans what they are now asking for we shall divide a nation that is practically one, by placing one half under one 'rule and one half under another, they being
  1642
  perfectly contented with our rule, and regarding the Germans with aversion and dread. By so doing we should excite the indignation of Khama and the whole Bechuana nation, whose faith in our promises and protective power will be rudely shaken, and who will change the attitude of loyalty and fidelity they have hitherto preserved for one of suspicion and distrust. The presence of the Germans in Bechuanaland will expose us to a new danger, which, by shutting them out, we can easily avoid. A few years ago a very remarkable article was published in Berlin, which attracted a great deal of attention. The purport of the article was that the Dutch and the Germans were practically of the same race, language, and religion, and that the difference between them in these respects was so small and superficial, that, virtually they might be considered as brothers. Now why, it was asked, should not they combine to drive the English out of Africa?Of course, a few years ago such a project was absurd; would it be equally absurd if the Germans were established in Bechuanaland?They would still be a long way away from, the Transvaal, but they would be divided from it only by Bechuanaland, and if the Bechuanas grew dissatisfied with our rule, and came to regard the Germans as the conquering race, they might place themselves under German protection, and one day we might be confronted with a German Dutch Alliance, which would threaten not only our dominion but our very existence in South Africa. Such a danger is remote, but why should we not keep it remote?Why should we invite it to come nearer?My last and strongest objection to the proposed extension of German territory in this part of Africa is that it would completely bar our expansion to the North-West. There is a vast piece of territory running from Bechuanaland to the Congo Free State, at present left white on the map— I do not want it all to be painted red or painted blue. Let Germany have her share, by all means, but let us also have-ours. We do not wish to exclude Germany, but still less do we wish to be excluded ourselves; and to set a bound and limit to our own expansion northwards, while, at the same time, we hand over to Germany a large slice of our own possessions

  1643
  would put a coping stone to the vast pile of blunders we have so assiduously laboured to rear in South Africa. If I did not know for a fact that Germany had made this demand, and if I did not gather from Ministerial answers that it was being seriously entertained, I would not have believed that any English Government, certainly that no Conservative Government, could contemplate such a surrender. It is said that the Germans know how to ask. I hope Lord Salisbury will know how to refuse. We have allowed the spheres of German influence to grow at a prodigious rate. In 1883 the Germans had but Angra Pequena, a territory comprising 150 square miles; now their sphere of influence extends over territories larger than India, and it must be remembered that nearly every mile over which they rule was discovered, explored, given to the world, and opened for civilisation by Englishmen. Truly it may be said of them they reap where they have not sown, and gather where they have not planted. There are those who view the expansion of Germany almost with gratification, and who believe that she will not be able to maintain her position, and that, if we find ourselves cribbed,? cabined, and confined, we have only to step in and take what we want. That is a very comfortable theory, but it might not work very well in practice, and certainly no statesman ought to act upon it. We should like to have Delagoa Bay, but what chance is there of our getting it? Our Colonial Empire has lost some of its brightest jewels by this heedless abandonment of lands that were once ours, and might have been so still. Mr. Stanley, in his speech at the Guildhall, and again last night, drew a vivid picture of the value of the lands we had allowed to pass away from us, and in burning words rebuked our apathy and indifference. Depend upon it that now, as in 1878, and in 1884, his words are being carefully weighed in Germany, where they are fully alive to the advantages to which we so foolishly and obstinately shut our eyes. Their Government though, from time to time, it has expressed its disapproval of colonial enterprise, has invariably backed up the German African Companies, and in consequence of this backing Mr. Stanley pointed out that our English Companies
  1644
  cannot compete with the German on equal terms. He adds, ominously enough, that if there is to be any more surrender he should "advise the British East African Company to retire altogether and give it up as a bad job." He has told us that he has come back with his pocket full of Treaties. We have now a new opportunity, and perhaps the last. Shall we throw it away? Shall we back up Mr. Stanley, shall we firmly resist German encroachments, or shall we throw up the sponge, declare that the mission of England as a colonising power is ended, and sit idly looking on, while the Germans absorb territory that might, in the future, sustain and nourish millions of our race?Lord Salisbury said lately—
  "Dominion is not an unmitigated luxury; it carries with it duties, burdens, obligations, and dangers. I hope we shall not he reduced into undertaking obligations which are beyond our strength to perform."
  These words savour of surrender. They have a weary ring about them. They are the words of Hercules after he has performed his labours, and wishes to repose in the lap of Omphale. They do not breathe the spirit in which Clive and Hastings won India, in, which Wolfe drove the French out of America, in which Chatham laid the foundations of our Colonial Empire. General Caprivi recently pointed out that the Germans had neither the men of experience nor the command of money that we have, and yet he said that "Nothing is left for them to do but advance." If those words are true of Germany, still more are they true of England. Yet we do not ask the Government to send out expeditions; we only ask them not to give up what individuals have won, and to let the pioneers of English civilisation feel that they have the strong arm of the English Government behind them. And, as a set off to Lord Salisbury's words, I will conclude with a quotation from the same remarkable article I referred to before, which has exercised so much influence over the German mind—
  "A new Empire, possibly more valuable and more brilliant than even the Indian Empire, awaits—in the newly-discovered Central Africa —that Power which shall possess sufficient courage, strength, and intelligence to acquire it."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman move?
  DR. TANNER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order?
  DR. TANNER: On a point of order, Sir, should I not be precluded from speaking on public works if the hon. Member moved this Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; the hon. Member should have risen before.
  DR. TANNER: I had no opportunity, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might have intervened at the commencement of the speech of the hon. Member for the Whit by Division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £15,000 (Foreign Office) be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Ernest Beckett.)
  (9.13.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. BUCHANAN: Sir, I desire to make a few observations on the subject on which the hon. Member who has just spoken addressed the House, namely, South Africa. I cannot entirely agree with all he said. It seems to me a great misfortune that we have had so few opportunities of discussing foreign affairs, and obtaining information from Ministers with regard to them. I do not myself believe very much in the system of secrecy in regard to foreign affairs which obtains in certain quarters. I can quite understand that it is not desirable to discuss the details of pending negotiations, still there are occasions when discussions would enable Her Majesty's Government to understand the opinion of the country, and thus strengthen their hands in negotiating with foreign Powers. I think we have suffered in the past owing to the absence of discussion— particularly with regard to our interests in Africa. I think if the public had been fully aware of what was happening, we would not have had the scramble for South Africa which has been spoken of. I think with regard to the question of Laingshan, five or six years ago, that our action there would not have been taken had the country possessed full information on the subject. Again, I think we would have avoided
  1646
  many of the difficulties we have experienced with Portugal had we possessed full details of the view taken by Her Majesty's Government. We find now that all along Her Majesty's Government have taken a much clearer and more decided view with regard to our interests in Nyassaland than has ever been stated in the House of Commons. And I think the discussion we are having to-night in regard to our negotiations with Germany and England will be of service to Her Majesty's Government and to this country. I am not going to make an attack on Her Majesty's Government, such as was made by the hon. Member who introduced the Motion. I think that Lord Salisbury, in dealing with African affairs, has looked far too much to our connection with Germany as a European Power Ho has appeared too ready to sacrifice our interests in Africa to our interests in Europe. I think that to be a great fault in his conduct, and worthy of attention. I do not adopt the strong language of the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, nor could I agree with the line which he wishes Her Majesty's Government to adopt in Africa. There are three questions brought forward in this Motion—our relations with Germany with regard to Nyassaland territory, with regard to Nyanza territory, and with regard to Lake Nyanza. The discussion with regard to Lake Nyanza is, undoubtedly, caused by the rivalries of the two trading companies, and the German Company is backed up by the German Government. What. I would impress upon Her Majesty's Government is this, to take care that no limitation should be placed on the commercial development of our subjects within the control of the African Company. We should see that they have a free hand under their charter, though I do not think it is incumbent upon us to go further than that. We should see that they get the full benefit of the concessions they obtain, and that they are perfectly free to open up trade, if they can, right from Central Africa to the Coast. I should like, if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs could find it, some information with regard to Nyassaland. On a former occasion he told us that it was impossible to make a definite statement on the subject, but I think now he may be able to tell us something

  1647
  with regard to Nyassaland and the Shire River. There are impediments placed in the way of our subjects having connection between the outside world and their settlement, and I think that Her Majesty's Government should tell us whether they are endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of our position in that country on a certain and permanent footing. Lake Nyanza covers the water basin of the Zambesi and the Congo, and freedom of connection would, undoubtedly, be of importance to the inhabitants of the regions around the Lake. The Zambesi should be a free waterway to the interior of Africa from all parts of the world. I maintain the same, also, with regard to the Shire. It does seem to me very advisable that Her Majesty's Government should look towards the future development of Africa, and that, in the interests of our commerce, they should endeavour to make a clear and free route for the outside world to the interior of Africa. Not only the Zambesi, but the Shire River should be free. In 1887 there was a correspondence between Lord Salisbury and the Authorities at Barlin with regard to certain encroachments made by the Germans upon the British sphere of influence. Negotiations took place, and the result was that the 22nd degree of east latitude was taken as the line between the British Protectorate and the Protectorate of the German Government. Therefore, in our negotiations with the German Government for the maintenance of our boundary, we have this precedent to go on. That, however, is a matter of detail which I do not wish to enlarge upon. What I would urge on Her Majesty's Government is that, as to the question of ScV-"' Africa, we ought to have regard primarily to the opinions and wishes and desires of our fellow subjects of the Cape Colony and other colonists in South Africa. Our interests in this part of the world are comparatively slight and distant. They are also interests more or less individual, but to the people living in South Africa itself—to our colonists at the Cape and elsewhere in British South Africa—these matters are very much more vital. South Africa is their country and their home, and to its free expansion and development in the future they are bound to look with natural ambition and very sincere interest. I
  1648
  think we should look to carrying out what are beyond dispute the views and opinions and aspirations of our colonists in South Africa. We should take care that their commercial freedom is in no way retarded or impaired by our political arrangements with Germany; that there should be what we should all like to see, namely, a waterway, free to all the world, up the Zambesi to Tanganyika and Nyassa; that, as regards what is called South-East Africa, we should remember that our interests are small as compared with those of the colonists, and that it should be a sine qua non in any nogotiations with Germany that we should make certain that Cape Colony is with us.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It is always an uncomfortable task to urge on the House abstinence from discussion of matters of public interest, and it has been my lot more than once to be reproved for exhortations of this kind. I think, however, I may be excused if I offer to the Committee some considerations to show why a prolonged discussion on this subject at the present time is undesirable and will serve no useful purpose. I do not undervalue or deprecate the legitimate aspirations of my fellow countrymen, and I am not wanting in admiration for the sacrifices of those who have made the discoveries which have opened a Continent to civilisation and paved the way for the colonising efforts of our own and other nations. I bops that the mission of our countrymen is not yet fulfilled, but that further regions will be opened by them to civilisation and Christianity. What I say may give offence to some, but I am quite sure that the feeling I have expressed is deeply seated in this country, and that there are many who are ready to sacrifice themselves in those great efforts which in times past have conferred such honour on our nation. I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that the object of negotiations conducted by the Government of this country is best promoted by public discussion while such negotiations are in progress. It places the Government in this position — either they must subscribe to or deny propositions. If they commit themselves to those propositions it is evident that they must stand by

  1649
  them, while, on the other hand, if they deny them they may be supposed to be indifferent to objects which many are in favour of. Therefore it is manifest that we must be silent, because it is impossible we can reveal our position or defeat our own efforts by premature declarations. I presume that the hon. Member who has moved the reduction of the Vote does not blame Her Majesty's Government for having entered into negotiations for the delimitation of our sphere of influence in South Africa. It is evident that were the nations of Europe are competing for influence in the comparatively untrodden regions which offer markets for our commerce and colonisation there must be rivalries and jealousies, and it is to the highest degree important that nations which have much in common and which wish to act fairly in regard to their respective claims should desire as far as possible to avoid friction and jealousy by timely settlement of their interests, so that they can move forward on their new missions on parallel lines. It is said that no satisfactory answer has been given as to the progress of the negotiations, but it is impossible to enter into the questions involved while the matters are under discussion. This country has interests to maintain, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will not be slow to maintain them, and when the negotiations are completed every explanation will be given to the House. Reference has been made to rumours which are current as to sacrifices which have been consented to after discussion by Her Majesty's Government. Some of those mentioned have not reached me, and I am quite sure that they derive no authority from those who are engaged in confidential negotiations on behalf of the English and German Governments. As the Prime Minister said the other day, it would be very convenient, no doubt, if Parliament sat in secret Session, for then Her Majesty's Government could communicate to hon. Members, who have the interests of the country as much at heart as ourselves, the details of pending negotiations, but that cannot be done. My hon. Friend has talked about land passing out of our possession. Some people talk and write about parts of Africa through which some of our enterprising fellow-country men have travelled as if it was our inheritance. While I
  1650
  hope the Government will not be behindhand in Africa any more than elsewhere, people really must not talk as if we have an indefeasible right to the country. We must allow other nations to have similar aspirations to our own. What the Government and the House of Commons have to see to is that our interests are not neglected. Where we have acquired rights and asserted them we should not lightly give them up; but the Government are dealing with a friendly Power, and negotiations are going on on terms of mutual respect and confidence, which are engendered by past experience and by the remarkable unanimity which has attended the proceedings of Great Britain and Germany in the recent operations on the West Coast of Africa. The Government has a full sense of the claims which our fellow-countrymen possess on account of their past enterprise. They are not unmindful of the claims which our commerce has to legitimate expansion, and these objects are entirely consistent with a due respect to similar objects on the part of neighbouring States. The Government are endeavouring by the delimitation of spheres of influence to obviate causes of jealousy and friction in the time 'to come. The security that the country and the House has as against the Government is that the result of those negotiations cannot long be concealed, and if in any way the interests of the country are neglected a speedy retribution will attend those who have so neglected those interests. Having that speedy review and verdict before our eyes, the Government, hon. Members may feel sure, will not be likely to neglect the great interests which they, in common with all their fellow-countrymen, have at heart. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh has also referred to the interests of the region further south in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa, where the hon. Member's countrymen and my own have done good work in the cause of civilisation and Christianity. The Government, I think, have shown of late that they are fully alive to the rights which our fellow-county men have obtained there by being first in the field. They have maintained their right to the free navigation of the Zambesi River. They have refused to allow it to be closed against us. They have claimed that our fellow-countrymen in the Shire Highlands and

  1651
  on the shores of Lake Nyassa shall not be endangered by the invasion of any other Power, and necessarily it will be their object to obtain and secure and retain access to other regions where we have interests. I would ask the Committee to show the same reticence and forbearance the Government are so sensible of in past years, which I hope they have not been unworthy of, and I can assure the House that the confidence I now ask from the Committee will not be misplaced. In that sense I deprecate prolonging the discussion.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I am sure we all trust that nothing will be said in these discussions which will have the effect of hampering the Government in these discussions. I am sure the delicacy of the situation will be so appreciated on the Front Opposition Bench as to prevent any prolonged discussion of the subject from that quarter of the House. But there are some of us who think that an opportunity for the expression of individual opinions would by no means hamper the hands of the Government. I can quite understand that the Foreign Office is not able to throw any light on the subject at present; still, the German Foreign Office is not so reticent as our own. The present Chancellor in Germany and his illustrious predecessor have never found any difficulty in expressing their views as to the conduct of Foreign Affairs by Germany, and I believe, from what I have seen, discussions in the Reichstag and in the French Chamber, whether upon Africa or upon Newfoundland, are more frequent and prolonged than the discussion of foreign affairs have been in this House during the last few years. In my opinion, the language used on this subject by certain organs and by the great explorer who has recently returned to this country has done more to revive the doctrines of the old Manchester school than to forward the objects which they themselves have at heart. The question before us seems to be how far unoccupied land shall pass into the absolute possession of Foreign Powers and out of the sphere of the legitimate commerce and enterprise of Great Britain, and of the world in general. We desire to have some reassurance that our actual interests in Africa are not in peril. There has been a good deal of anxiety as to the expedition which has recently started,
  1652
  and which includes in its ranks Emni Pasha. We have also to consider the future of our great African possessions which, when they are one day formed into a dominion, will be disposed to ask how far the course now adopted by Her Majesty's Government has affected their prospects. The policy of the Government is watched at the Cape with no less interest than in England. I do not share the fears of my hon. Friend who moved this Motion with regard to the Cape. The Cape will hold its own by its own enterprise, and if it stood by itself it would have little to fear either from the Dutch or the Germans. We wish also to know what lines are being drawn to further confine enormous areas to the exclusive enjoyment of Foreign Powers. Those-areas have, to a largo extent, been explored and partially developed by British and especially Scottish enterprise. The other day some interesting correspondence between Lord Salisbury and the Ambassador at Berlin was published regarding the delimitation between the German and the British sphere of influence in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyanza. There is a line leading* from Lake Nyassa to the south end of Lake Tanganyika, and known as the Stephenson Road. The large region of which that road forms the centre has-been developed and, to some extent, civilised by missionaries. Our position in that district was preserved by the action taken by Lord Salisbury last spring; but if it has been preserved from Portugal in order to be handed over to Germany, I think it will be hard to justify the action of Her Majesty's Government, because in that case the deduction would certainly be that what has been got from bullying the weaker Power has been given up by knuckling down to the stronger Power. It seems to me that the question of maintaining the line of the Stephenson Road is one of the very greatest importance to our interests in that portion of Africa. Then I would ask, what is the use of a sphere of influence if that sphere is not to be maintained?The result of the spirited foreign policy of which we have heard so much seems likely to be the sacrifice of our commerce in those regions. We have a right to know whether the Government, in the course of their negotiations, intend to permit

  1653
  the exclusion of British interests from the areas I have mentioned. In any event, by making this protest we lay upon the Government the responsibility of the negotiations, and there is no doubt that the country will require from them a strict account.
  CAPTAIN BUTHELL (York, E. R., Holderness): I have been a good deal disturbed by the remarks which have been going about as to the possibility of the delimitation of the great region south of the Zambesi being re-opened in the course of the present negotiations. There is south of the Zambesi a noble Empire which will some day be, and which ought to be, an Anglo - Saxon Empire, as it is ours by right of conquest and by right of the work we have done there. It was a stupid blunder when Damaraland and Namaqualand were given up, but stupid as was that blunder, we have hitherto kept the trump card in our hands, and it will not do to commit another stupid blunder by re-opening the question of the German boundaries south of the Zambesi. I think we may reasonably expect from my right hon. Friend an assurance that there is no intention of re-opening that question. Such an assurance will remove a great deal of misapprehension on both sides of the House.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I hope, for totally different reasons from those which have been put forward, that the Government will afford the House and the country some more information than they have vouchsafed up to the present. I have listened to the discussion, and during its progress I have been forced to realise the feelings of Gil Blas when he found himself in the cave of the robbers. When they conducted him to his first exploit they exhorted him to go in for a spirited foreign policy, and when he picked up the wallet of the padre he had robbed no doubt he considered it was his by right of conquest. If the speeches which have been delivered this evening are to be taken as an indication of the views of hon. Members respecting the morality of the present position, it seems to me that this House is adopting a code of morality very different from that which is found in the Bible, and in the mouths of Christian Missionaries, whose work hon. Members are so anxious to help forward.
  1654
  In that old Book, which is much more frequently referred to than read, there is a precept that you shall not covet your neighbour's goods. Now, I should like to know whose goods these are which yon propose to divide with Germany and Portugal, and other despoilers in Africa. We were assured by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs some nights ago that all these matters were being discussed in a friendly spirit at Berlin, and that the important interests involved would not be prejudiced by abstention from discussion at the present time. Whose are the important interests involved?They are not the interests of Great Britain, or Germany, or Portugal. They are the interests of the innocent inhabitants of Africa, and I say that Germany, and Great Britain, and the other European Powers are acting the part of the bully and robber. You may talk about your "diplomatic relations;" this is only a large phrase to cover what is essentially immoral, unjust, cruel, and cowardly. This House proposes to deliver up Africa to the interests of Chartered Companies of adventurers—men who pretend to be promoting the interests of civilisation and the Bible, but who are nothing more nor less than a pack of robbers. I am very much afraid that there are Members of this House who are not altogether personally disinterested in some of these schemes. It would certainly be well if we could obtain some further information as to the intentions of the Government. I suspect, if Germany stands firm, Her Majesty's Government, instead of sending an armed expedition or a temporary message, will discover some modus vivendi, and if the robbers should fall out the Africans would get a good many goods restored to them. But I want to know, for my own satisfaction, and, as I believe, for the satisfaction of a large portion of the population of this country who have no interest and no sympathy with your robbing expeditions, what it is the Government propose to do in Africa, and what is to be the position of these unfortunate people, with regard to whom you say you have extended your sphere of influence. Suppose the inhabitants of Africa held a palaver and decided to divide this country into two portions, one tribe having the land from the English Channel to the Thames, and another tribe having

  1655
  the land from the Thames to the Humber? What would be your view of the matter? You would ridicule them, and say they had no possible right. Perhaps they would want to spread Mahomedanism. I have been rather proud to consider myself a Christian, but I am rather doubtful as to the sort of Christianity you are likely to spread in Africa. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to urge the Government to maintain the prestige of the Empire, and to secure their sphere of influence. It would be more worthy of a great Government to show some ground for the aggressive policy which has been adopted with regard to Africa, to show that they have some right to go and claim a sphere of influence and territorial possession in a country with which they have naturally nothing to do, than to come down and talk about civilising influences, when we all know that it is nothing more than empty hypocrisy.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I should like to say a few words about the bullies and robbers who, the hon. Member seems to think, are likely to get hold of Africa. I am in no way interestsd, financially or otherwise, in the matter, but I wish to deprecate both jealousy of Germany and fear of Portugal. I have been in Africa, and I always hope we shall work hand in hand with all civilised Powers, who may set about the task of reducing Africa to civilisation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I think before I sit down they will agree with me that we ought to go hand in hand with others in the work we have yet to perform in Africa. I have no wish to detain the Committee at any length, but I would merely allude to the great works in which I am convinced hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will support Her Majesty's Government, and those works are the suppression of the liquor traffic amongst the native population and the abolition of slavery. The hon. Member for East Donegal may talk of bullies and robbers, but these are the main objects the Chartered Companies have in view in Africa. I hope I may make the same remark as to the Portuguese. Certainly the Belgians are doing good work in the same direction on the West Coast of Africa. Still, I do not think we need in any way endanger the negotiations at present proceeding at Berlin. I understand our
  1656
  technical negotiator is at present in England, but is soon to return to Berlin. I hope he will go back fully assured that, as far as this House is concerned, we are determined to support the British race in co-operation with all other States in doing what is not only to our interest, but also our duty and obligation.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I have very often admitted, and I am ready to admit on this occasion, that in matters of foreign policy I have great confidence in the head of the Foreign Office. So long as he does not yield to pressure, as I am afraid he is apt to do, from Members opposite and a few so-called Liberals on this side who adopt a quasi-jingo policy, I have every confidence in Lord Salisbury. I entirely agree with the words of wisdom which recently fell from him on this subject— that, after all, Europe is more important to us than Africa. I think it is more important that we should be safe at home than that we should be safe in Africa. At the same time, I quite agree with my hon. Friends that we should work in concert and good feeling with other Powers in Africa. I cannot, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Baden-Powell) that the sole and main object of the Chartered Companies is to stop the liquor traffic and to abolish slavery. That distinguished traveller, Mr. Stanley, has told us that the people who bring noxious liquors into Africa are Europeans. As to the abolition, of slavery, I know it is a proper thing to say we are going to abolish slavery. Whenever people want to get up a company in the City, and to make a good deal of money, they always say they are going to abolish slavery. I do not think, however, that we ought to condemn the Government because they are not inclined to go so fast as Mr. Stanley wishes them to go. I think the concessionaires who ask to enter Africa with the Bible and the bullet are people Her Majesty's Government ought not only not to encourage, but ought to be very careful about. Of course, we ought to do everything to spread Christianity, but I think we ought to have at heart first of all the interest of our own country. We have to pay the piper in all these matters, and I think we ought to look to our own interests first.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: All classes of the

  1657
  community are waiting to see the action which the Government will take in regard to Africa. It is very well for hon. Members on the other side of the House to make remarks as to our position there, but each of them knows how, with an increasing population, it is necessary to have a growing trade, and therefore we must be anxious, and deliberately anxious, to extend that trade as well as the outlets for the population. We have to meet the competition of nations who are protectionists in the highest degree, and whose only anxiety is to get for themselves colonies which they may keep entirely to themselves, and in the markets of which they may shut out Great Britain. Therefore, I maintain that the question of our position in Africa is one of the greatest importance, especially since if we lost in that country the prestige and power we have asserted elsewhere, we shall have descended from the position which we boast we hold among the nations of the world, and those who come after us will say that we have failed in this day to do our duty. My right hon. Friend was quite right in deprecating discussion when negotiations are going on. Bat my right hon. Friend has kept us in suspense on many questions. Twice last year I asked questions about our British Indian subjects, and I should like to know, even now, what reparation our British Indian subjects have received from Germany. I certainly believe that if Germany had been in a similar position to that which we occupy she would have demanded and obtained reparation. My contention is, that we should show that we are a great nation by demanding reparation in cases where injury is done to people whom we are bound to protect. I wish also to touch on the subject of Swaziland, as to which the Government had some months ago a Report from Sir Francis de Win ton, and as to which we are still waiting with patience for further information. The natives of Swaziland are all in favour of having the protection of this country, and do not desire to have anything to do with the Boer population, or the so-called African Republic. Therefore, I think we should only be doing our duty by maintaining what we have a right to maintain, the sphere of influence over Swaziland, which I hope we shall never give up. There is another question. We had
  1658
  some islands that were conceded by the Sultan of Zanzibar to the British East African Company. Those islands have been taken possession of by Germany, and I should like to know what action the Government are going to take in the matter?
  *SIR J FERGUSSON: What islands?
  *SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The islands of Lamu, Mauda, and Patta. If I am wrong in my statement, then I shall be very glad to hear that the Germans have not been there, that they have not hauled down our flag, and are not in occupation. I and sure it will be a great relief to learn that such is not the case. I presume the Under Secretary is aware of the actual state of things, whether the Germans have been there, or whether the place has been visited by a filibustering expedition. It was understood that the Germans were not to interfere to the north of a certain line. This country has rigorously kept to the position allotted to it by the agreement with Germany, and it is only fair to ask that the Germans should keep to the same position as we have undertaken to maintain towards them.
  SIR J, FERGUSSON: I am glad to be able to give some satisfaction to my hon. Friend on one point. With regard to one of the islands mentioned by the hon. Member—Lamu— the Government entered into arbitration, and the award was in favour of this country. As to the other two islands—Mauda and Patta—the policy at present is one of mutual abstinence.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): May I correct my hon. Friend's error as to Swaziland'.' My hon. Friend is wrong in supposing that Swaziland is within the sphere of British influence. It is a native State that has been ad ministered by a joint European Committee, but negotiations are going on, and it is impossible while the negotiations are pending to say anything. [Several hon. MEMBERS: The negotiations are finished.]
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I think the observations we have just heard show that the House is not in possession of that correct information we ought to have. The Under Secretary deprecates discussion at the present time, and now and always we are anxious

  1659
  to yield to the wishes of the Government. But may I remind the Government that they have been four years in office, and there has not yet been a full discussion of their African policy? Not long ago Lord Salisbury said that the African question was probably the most important political question of the day. It is a little remarkable, therefore, that the House of Commons has not yet been taken into the confidence of the Government as to what their African policy is, and that there has not been any full discussion of what is going on there. I think it is of great importance to the Government itself that there should be a discussion of these questions in the House, because what could be more advantageous for the Government, which is really a Committee of the Representative House of this country, than to know what the national feeling is on a policy of this kind? Besides, the question is discussed everywhere in the Press, and Mr. Stanley is going about the country lecturing people and telling them what they ought to do, and attempting to dictate the Imperial policy of this country, and he is listened to by largo masses of our countrymen, who are under the influence of the glamour of Stanley's name. I have been astonished by some of the speeches which have been made on the other side, and which seem to indicate a return to the old principles of the Liberal Party, because from articles in the Radical Press and speeches by Radical leaders I had been led to think that what used to be called the bastard Imperialism of Lord Beaconsfield had become the accepted gospel of the Radical Party. In fact, we are rather in danger of forgetting that there are other portions of the habitable globe of some importance to the Empire besides the Dark Continent of Africa. I do not myself believe that the value of the trade and the colonisation which may be developed in Africa is so overwhelming as is sometimes represented; but, at the same time, I am strongly of opinion that England ought to have her fair share of all the expansion that is going on there. There are a good many critics who blame the too great caution of Lord Salisbury in the view of what the Government of this country ought to do in Africa, but a Conservative Government is bound to be cautious. But when it is said that Lord Salisbury is to blame for giving in so
  1660
  much to Germany, we ought to remember that it was the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian who, in the first instance, invited Germany to pursue her glorious work of colonisation in that region. In a speech made in 1885, after that little quarrel between Lord Granville and Prince Bismarck had been brought to a close by Lord Granville making his apology in the House of Lords to Prince Bismarck for having said anything to offend him—in 1885 the right hon. Gentleman in glowing sentences said that if Germany was to become a colonising power—and the right hon. Gentleman wished her God speed—she became the ally of this country and partner in the execution of the purposes of Providence in carrying the light of civilisation to the backward regions of the earth. But the House is told by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that very important and delicate negotiations are going on, and that we ought not to interfere with them. It seems to me that while those negotiations are going on Germany is advancing all along the line. This country does nothing to attack German interests, although we read of the way in which the Germans are storming one position after another along the East Coast of Africa, and are equipping new expeditions to start into the interior of the country. Now, if the Government of this country instead of promoting new colonising expeditions —which I firmly believe are bound to fail; for I do not see, although a great deal is talked by Stanley of the advantage of settling there, that there is any part of the coast, except the south, where it is possible to settle colonies of white men—if the Government would remember the interests of this country we have an important trade there which the Government is bound in honour and interest to look after. The whole trade of the East Coast of Africa has been in the hands of Indian subjects of Her Majesty. Those traders have been settled there for several generations, and have carried on a very important and flourishing trade. From time immemorial the Indian merchants and the daring sailors from the West of India have had control of all the traffic round the coasts of the Indian Ocean. But the Germans have regularly harried all the settlements of British Indian subjects; men have had their homes

  1661
  destroyed and have been despoiled of their property; and scores of families have been carried by English men-of-war to Zanzibar in consequence of German interference. Is it to the credit of Great Britain that such interference by a Foreign Power should be permitted? With some knowledge of the East, I say that no more serious blow could be struck at the political honour and authority of England in the East than has been struck by the subordination of English power to Germany in East Africa. Will the Under Secretary give the House some information as to the decay of trade in that part of Africa as the result of German interference there? It would have been far better for this country if its Governments had stood up for the interests and the honour of British Indian subjects there, and had said that, whatever Germany might choose to do, we would suffer no interference with the interests of the British Empire. What have we to gain from the concessions to Germany in Africa? Why should we bind ourselves to one nation in particular? We have interests in Europe, Egypt, and in the far East, and it is necessary that we should cultivate friendly feeling with all European Powers; but why give any particular preference to Germany? What has Germany done for us? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian spoke of civilisation as if German civilisation and English civilisation were the same thing. The civilisation of Germany is a much inferior article to the civilisation of England, and is very often quite antagonistic to it. The Germans are energetic and enterprising, and if they had some touch of magnanimity in them they might become the foremost nation in the world. But I believe that England, in the long run, will beat the Germans out of the field; and I maintain that the Government of this country is bound, in considering what they are doing in East Africa, to pay, first of all, some regard for national interests, and afterwards to keep on terms of a good understanding with other Powers. Germany will respect this country more if we stand up for our interests instead of conceding everything she demands. Now a word upon these Chartered Companies so often alluded to. Of course, these companies do not carry on their work for the sake of putting down the Slave Trade
  1662
  or stopping the drink traffic. Quite lately we had a Debate upon a subsidy to be granted to a line of steamers trading to the East African ports, and I find I have been upbraided in the newspapers for saying England is incurring responsibility by having those Chartered Companies. I am not at all afraid of responsibility, which England is now better able to undertake than she ever was before. But whether England should work with Chartered Companies is quite another question. I think that Chartered Companies are an anachronism. The Chartered Company which was established in India raised armies, collected revenues, established States, and reigned over vast provinces. But it would not have been able to do that under the direct and immediate control of the British House of Commons. As it was, it took 200 years and constant wars to establish itself in India. That is completely out of the question for the African Companies, which cannot move a step without having their actions reviewed and questioned in the House of Commons. Mr. Stanley said that if the House of Commons did not give the East Africa Company its help and support against the Germans, that company would have to give up its civilising and beneficent work. If that is the case, it becomes a question whether we ought to give the companies all the profits, while the taxpayers of England have the cost of protecting them. Surely it would be better for the State to undertake the business itself rather than trust to those Chartered Companies.
  MR. PICTON: I do not think we are quite prepared to take the view of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, we all agree we are a great nation with a noble mission; the only question is to the manner in which we should extend British dominion and carry out our noble mission. Much has been said of the East Coast of Africa. I have something to say of the West, and wish to refer to a matter which occurred near Sierra Leone, and is referred to in the Blue Book C5740. Probably some hon. Member may remember that a little while ago I called attention to the manslaughter of a native by a British subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: An Amendment has been moved to reduce the Vote on

  1663
  Account of Foreign Office policy, and this is now under Debate.
  MR. PICTON: I was not in the House, and was unaware that an Amendment had been moved.
  COLONELNOLAN(Galway,N): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham has a false idea when he blames the leader of the Opposition for encouraging the Germans to go to East Africa. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, pursued a very strong African policy, and left our position in Africa much better than he found it.
  An hon. MEMBER: The Transvaal?
  COLONEL NOLAN: But the Transvaal was annexed by a Conservative Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I do not want to talk about that, though I am quite ready to do so. The hon. Member for Oldham spoke in a deprecatory way of Mr. Stanley, who is certainly the greatest traveller who has lived in our time. [Cries of "No," "Livingstone."] Well, it is matter of opinion; I think him the greatest traveller since Marco Polo. He certainly can speak with knowledge and experience, and he has told us that there are vast tracts of Africa fit for the settlement of white men. The hon. Member for Oldham speaks of the unhealthiness of the East Coast, and there he is right; but what Mr. Stanley means is inland territory, 600 or 700 miles above sea level, and he declares that he has seen immense tracts well adapted for white settlement. I am afraid there is a good deal of what is very much like cant talked about our noble motives and civilising influences. The Slave Trade, of course, we can take credit for endeavouring to suppress, and, naturally, we do not wish to have those under our authority debauched with bad liquor, nor would we here, if we could help it; but I do not believe that in Africa or here you can keep liquor out. Since exploration opened up the interior of Africa to European enterprise, there has been a scramble among Continental nations for a portion of it; and it has, therefore, become an absolute necessity for England to see that it gets its fair share. Unless the country is annexed in a formal manner, it must become a prey to filibustering expeditions. It is perfectly legitimate to extend British influence and
  1664
  dominion, though, of course, it is a matter that must be carefully watched. But a quarrel with Germany, leading to a war, would, whatever else might be the result, mean an expenditure that half a century's occupation of Africa would not balance. It is well to note that the spread of Christianity in Africa is but slight compared with the spread of Mohammedanism. This last is spreading among the African tribes at a tremendous rate. For my part, I have some respect for the Mohammedan religion; it is certainly better than Paganism, and there are points in it not unlike our own.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But this has nothing to do with the policy of the Foreign Office.
  COLONEL NOLAN: On that point, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Knowing that half the world's wars have arisen out of religious causes or pretexts, I very much doubt that this has nothing to do with Foreign Office policy. But though I am not convinced I shape my conduct by your ruling. I would only remark that I do not think the hon. Member for Oldham has any cause to reproach the leader of the Opposition, who has left this country in a splendid position in Africa, a position which Lord Salisbury seems in danger of frittering away.
  DR. TANNER: I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite, having spoken at such length and with such vehemence and caustic assertion, will now act up to the opinions they have advocated by going to a Division, and I shall support them with the very greatest pleasure.
  (11.1.) The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
  Dr. TANNERwas appointed one of the Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller for the Ayes, the CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. TANNER: Several admirable works have been suppliedto Members of this House, and this is a Report which I hold in my hand by one of the accredited Agents of Her Majesty's Colonial Office. It records a very sad state of affairs, indeed, in the Caicos Islands. We have had an extremely interesting discussion on land grabbing in Africa, and as to

  1665
  whether Germany or Great Britain is to become possessed of certain vast territories. Hon. Members opposite have spoken of a bastard Imperialism, and I thought of the Government policy at Tipperary. While all these discussions occur, here we have a Report of the condition of these islands, in which the state of affairs is most deplorable. The Report is signed H. M. Jackson, who says that experience shows that once in three years the rainfall is insufficient to nourish the crops to feed the people who grow them. One of three results, Mr. Jackson says, is certain. Either the lands must be abandoned, or the people must starve, or the Government must provide for the wants of the increasing population. This Report has been in the hands of Members since last October, yet it seems to me an extraordinary fact that we have heard not one word about the condition of these people. I know that there are hon. Members who are anxious to deal with certain other matters—to deal with a pauper population nearer home, pauperised by the savage action of certain individuals, aided and abetted by Her Majesty's Government I am not, therefore, going to pursue the obstructive tactics of hon. Members opposite, who, after talking 2½, hours, have not the courage to go to a Division. This Report shows that the wells in the Caicos Islands are at least four miles walk from the town, and that a very small quantity of water can be obtained for drinking purposes. Means are required to enable these unfortunate people to exist; and the First Lord of the Treasury might have been here to subdue the intolerable ardour of his followers, who talked for hours without coming to a result, so that some attention could have been given to this subject. If Her Majesty's Government are so very anxious to conciliate the German Emperor, let them give up Heligoland, our possession of which is a menace to the German Empire. Heligoland is nothing better than a, bathing place in the North Sea, patronised by the Germans. Her Majesty's Government, instead of allowing the German Emperor to say in Africa "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther," might do more to conciliate the German people by giving up Heligoland than could be accomplished in any other way. The island is useless to us,
  1666
  either for commerce or as a shelter for our vessels of war. I think a great deal might be done if this little island were given up to the German Emperor in establishing a modus vivendi between the two countries. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Colonial Secretary will give some answer to these observations, notably as to the state of affairs in the Caicos Islands.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I shall be very happy to give the hon. Member the information he desires when the Colonial Vote is reached.
  DR. TANNER: I was not aware the Colonial Vote was coming on. I learnt these facts when I was enjoying the hospitality of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—having got this Report in prison. Other Blue Books were sent to me there which I shall take opportunity to refer to. I had time to study them.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I move to reduce the Vote of the Charity Commissioners by £500. The first duty of the Charity Commissioners is to inquire into the administration of Charitable Trusts. The second duty is to compel the production of accounts of expenditure and to audit such accounts when produced. My charge against the Commissioners is that they are appointed by the country to be custodians of money left for the poor. I maintain that they habitually neglect that duty; that the money left for the poor is stolen by the rich, is used for the purposes of the rich, is often lost, and in many causes misappropriated. By this pamphlet I find that the Charity Commissioners have sent in no Report since 1887, and previous to that since 1861 and 1856. The pamphlet was drawn up on information got from the Charity Commissioners. I went myself to the Charity Commissioners on many occasions, and I am bound to say that each time I was met with the utmost courtesy, and every desire was shown to afford me information. I do not believe the fault rests with the Charity Commissioners individually. I believe it only rests with the office of the Charity Commission, which does not attempt to perform the most elementary duty of protecting the property of the poor. I do not know why they do not do it. Probably because they have not a sufficient staff. Now, in the case of one charity they have not sent in accounts since 1879—something

  1667
  like 11 years—and I find the Trustees are a Duke, a Baron, a Baronet, two squires, and two parsons. Yet these men, who ought to know their duty, have not sent in accounts for 11 years. It is the duty of the Charity Commissioners to make these people send in their accounts, and the Act of Parliament gives them full power to do so. The money, no doubt, was wisely expended; but the poor of the parish knew nothing about it. As a rule, the Charity Commissioners do not make the persons having charge of these small village charities send in their accounts, and I ask what remedy have the poor under such circumstances? What opportunity have those whose life is spent at the plough to protect their own interests if their richer neighbours fail to do so? The Trustees of these charities are usually the church wardens and overseers. We have a special Department whose business it is to protect the poor in these small places, and the charge brought against those who compose that body is that in a large number of cases the Charity Commissioners fail in the discharge of their first and elementary duty. I assert that the Charity Commissioners permit the poor to be robbed of the money which is left for their use, and allow that money to be appropriated to some other use. What is this but theft? Take the case of the money left for Spiers' Charity as lately as in 1856. The amount was £8 a year, and I have the names and addresses of the churchwardens and overseers responsible for the distribution of that sum. I will not give the names, because I know that good work is not promoted by personal attacks on individuals. I may, however, say that that money is gone; it has been stolen by the men whose duty it was to distribute it amongst the poor. In another case, £3 8s. was left for the benefit of the poor, and of that sum £3 3s. was given to the Oxford Infirmary. In another parish £50 was left for the poor, and the executors refused to pay the money because of some difference as to whether it was left to the poor of one parish or of those of another parish, the result being that the executors have pocketed the money, and the poor have derived no benefit from it to this day. In another case, £35 a year was left for apprenticing the children of the poor. Of that sum £19
  1668
  goes to a school account, which certainly is not apprenticing poor children. I have many more cases of the same kind in which money left for the poor has been appropriated to other purposes; but I will not go into them now. My third charge is that money left for educational purposes has been expended for other purposes. In one case the amount was from £120 to £130 a year. Then there is the case of Lady Saye and Sele's Charity in which £320 was left for apprenticing poor boys. How was that money expended?£30 went to the Brandon School, £40 to the school-master, £150 for the repair of the parish church, and 10 guineas towards the salary of the parish clerk. Are we to pass these things over year after year? Who is to protect the poor if the Charity Commissioners do not? I hope I shall leceive some assurance from, the Treasury Bench that this duty imposed on the Charity Commissioners will be insisted on. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are as much interested in this subject as I am, and I trust they will support me in the action I am now taking, especially when they know, as many of them must know, that money left to educate poor children is really expended in saving the pockets of the rich, the poor deriving no benefit whatever from it. In many cases this is done deliberately, because in a large number of rural villages there is a strong objection to the education of the poor, those of the better class saying, "What are we to do for servants if the poor are educated?" My remarks are not meant in any way as an attack upon the Government; but I assure them that this is a matter of burning importance in the rural districts, where, in most cases, a small sum-—say of £10 or £12—devoted to a scholarship would act as great a stimulus to a village school as an exhibition of £50 or £100 in a large public school. I hope the Government will see their way to press this important duty on the Charity Commissioners.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £7,000 (Charity Commission), be reduced by £500."—(Captain Verney.)
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I certainly agree with the

  1669
  hon. and gallant Gentleman that the matter is one of great importance, and although it does not come within my special province, nevertheless as the appeal has been made to me in the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Lowther), I will ask leave to say a few words upon the subject. The cases quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are cases coming under Endowed Schools schemes, and it is clear, therefore, that the Charity Commissioners are in no way responsible.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: They are responsible to this extent, that all Charity Trustees are bound to send in their accounts to the Charity Commissioners, and if they do not insist on this being done they are in fault themselves.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: At any rate, the matter is one which I regard as important, and I shall take an early opportunity of bringing it under the notice of the Commissioners. The complaint that the money of the poor is taken away and devoted to other purposes is a very old one; but if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish information as to specific cases, I will see that they are inquired into. With regard to the general scope of the speech on matters of administration I only wish the hon. Member will give me concrete evidence in regard to two or three cases, and I can assure him they will receive the utmost attention from myself, and I will bring them under notice in the proper quarter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR, J. MORLEY: I am a ware that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to dispose of this Vote on Account to-night, and therefore I will only detain the Committee two or three minutes. There is a rumour that a certain vacancy in the High Court in Ireland is about to be filled up, and I submit that, if that is so, the filling of the vacancy will be a breach of an undertaking given by the Chief Secretary on the 14th of April, 1887, a few weeks after he assumed office. I am not going into the question generally of the condition of the Irish Bench; it is admitted substantially on all hands that that Bench is immensely overmanned, immensely overpaid, and immensely underworked. In his speech, in April, 1887, the right hon. Gentleman re-
  1670
  ferred to the excess of strength in the Supreme Court of Judicature as a recognised evil in Ireland, and promised to bring in a Bill to reduce the number of Judges, stating that, without pledging-himself to the number, the reduction would be three or four. I am unwilling to believe, in the face of that declaration, the right hon. Gentleman is about to do as rumour says. He has not fulfilled his promise to bring in a Bill for the reduction of the Bench, the strength of which he admits to be in excess of the public requirements. I find that the Irish lawyers have distributed among them, in the shape of official salaries, a sum of £230,000 a year. The Irish bar is, I am told, about 1,000 strong, although there are only 300 in actual practice; therefore, the State pays at the rate of £750 a year for each practising barrister. I raise the subject briefly now, instead of on the Vote for the Irish Judicature, in order that the Chief Secretary may know that we protest in advance against the filling up of the present vacancy in the Queen's Bench Division.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman has, with great brevity and clearness, described the case which he has to make against our exercise of legal patronage in Ireland. Now, confining myself strictly to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, it is the case that I gave the pledge in question in 1887. Legislation was brought in accordingly, but it did not meet with any favour from hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway, and it was found impossible, in the then state of Parliamentary business, to attempt to carry it that Session. I do not think any opportunity has occurred since in which the Government could possibly have brought in the Bill with any possibility of passing it. If that is true, the question is what course the Government should have pursued. The right hon. Gentleman would almost lead the Committee to suppose that it rests with the Government to determine whether the vacancy is or is not to be filled up. That is not the fact. In the absence of legislation it is obligatory on the Government to fill up the vacancy. No blame can attach to the Government if they fulfil a duty imposed

  1671
  upon them by Act of Parliament by filling up vacancies in the Judicial Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the: present Government have never proposed to reduce the number of Common Law Judges. They have come to the conclusion that that would be inexpedient, and that the reduction should not be in that branch of the Judicial Service. But without further discussing what form legislation should take in the future, it is clear that if the rumour alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman is correct, and I do not suggest the contrary, no other course is open to the Government than to fill up the vacancy, and so to bring up the strength of the Judicial Bench to the limit fixed by Act of Parliament.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As we are on the subject of judicial appointments, I wish to draw attention to a recent legal appointment in Ireland. Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., has recently been appointed Solicitor General for Ireland, and this gentleman was one of the counsel for the Times before the Royal Commission. I am given to understand that the Times has not paid its counsel their fees, and it appears to me possible that this appointment has been conferred upon Mr. Atkinson as a kind of quid pro quo. I should like to have an assurance from the Chief Secretary that, in his opinion, the obligation of the Times to pay its counsel remains as it stood before this gentleman was appointed Solicitor General, and is in no way wiped away by the appointment. Otherwise we find ourselves in the position of being called upon to vote money as a quid pro quo because this gentleman represented the Times gratuitously.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government know nothing about the relations between the Solicitor General for Ireland and his private clients. Mr. Atkinson has been appointed to the post because there is no more eminent member of the Irish Bar.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary has made any inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Gardiner, Resident Magistrate at Cork, and into the conduct of the Resident Magistrate at Macroom?Against the former gentleman a grave and serious charge has been made. We know well the character of the main
  1672
  portion of the scoundrels who are sent as officials to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain a body of extremely immoral and bad men in Ireland, he cannot do better than promote these two men. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to make an inquiry into the grave and horrible scandal attaching to Mr. Gardiner. Unless some investigation is made it will become my painful duty to follow the line of action which I adopted in regard to Captain O'Neill Segrave, whom the Chief Secretary had ultimately to dismiss. I call on the Chief Secretary to do his duty in the interests of justice.
  MR. F. S. WYKEHAM CORNWALLIS: I will only detain the Committee a minute, but I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now prepared to grant to the Urban Sanitary Authority of Maidstone the sum of £300 to enable them to construct a main sewer, which is urgently needed in a district named Fant, where, owing to the present condition of affairs, diptheria is raging, and there have already been some fatal cases?I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his immediate attention to this matter, as I feel sure the Local Government Board do not wish to be held responsible for any deaths that may occur.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have given the matter my personal attention. What the borough of Maidstone are asking the Local Government Board to do is to enable them to borrow £300 for the purpose of committing a breach of the law. The Corporation of Maidstone desire to borrow £300 and to employ it in polluting a river. I have found myself quite unable to sanction the borrowing of this money for such a purpose. If the borough of Maidstone like to take upon themselves the responsibility of breaking the law, they have the means of doing so by taking the money out of the rates.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the Government intend to suspend Mr. John Mackay, the County Solicitor of Tyrone?The facts of this case are that two men quarrelled outside that gentleman's house, and one having struck the other, he fell and broke a window in the house. Mr. Mackay came out of the house with

  1673
  a drawn sword, pursued the man, and struck him on the forehead, arm, and leg with the sword, and stated that if the man had refused to accompany him to the police barracks he would have murdered him. I wish to know what the Government intend to do with this man?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Although the criminal proceedings in connection with this matter before the Magistrates have terminated, there is still a civil action pending, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that it is premature to go into the case until that action has been heard.
  MR. SEXTON: Of course; but I do contend that the offending official ought to be suspended from his office in the administration of the law. I am sure that no English official who had done such a thing as this man admitted before a Court of Justice he had done, would be allowed to retain his office.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to know why Mr. John Slattery, now in Cork Gaol, is treated differently to myself?When I was in Clonmel Gaol I was allowed to see my wife in the Governor's room, and I ask that Mr. Slattery should be allowed to see his wife also. I asked for no favour for myself. We want no favour at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, whom we are always prepared to fight. With all his bravado and swagger in connection with his Irish administration, the right hon. Gentleman, although he draws a large salary, seldom ventures to enter the country. He gave us an assurance that this class of prisoners should be treated better than first-class misdemeanants, but he has broken his promise so far as Mr. Slattery is concerned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every prisoner in Ireland is treated strictly according to the rules prevailing with regard to the particular class to which he belongs. The rules that applied to the hon. Gentleman will be applied to Mr. Slattery if Mr. Slattery belongs to the same class.
  DR. TANNER: Very well, that is all I ask for.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 264.)
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SLANDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 278.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 2nd June.

  WORKING CLASSES DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 279.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  DR. TANNER: I beg to move that you, Sir, report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: The object of this Bill is merely to enable gifts of land to be made for the erection of houses in populous places. According to the present law this cannot always be done, and it is in view of the munificent gift of a countryman of the hon. Member, made to the Metropolis recently, and to the gifts made by Earl Cadogan and others, that this Bill is introduced. I trust the hon. Member will not oppose the passage of this Bill, which is so obviously for the good of the community in Ireland as well as in England.
  DR. TANNER: I would sooner be guided by the advice of my friends in this matter, and if the Bill is likely to be beneficial to Ireland I would rather take an assurance to that effect from hon. Members on this side of the House than from an hon. Member opposite. As my hon. Friends have given me that assurance I shall not oppose the Bill. I moved to report progress, but, understanding that the money which the measure has reference to is for the benefit of the working classes, I do not think I should be justified in offering further opposition to the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report the Bill without Amendment to the House."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to ask whether on the Report stage the Bill could be made general in its object? It may be general now, but we do not think so. Will it be so framed as to have regard to the working classes generally, and not merely the Guinness' Trust?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: The Bill is general in its terms. It has been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who approve of it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read a third time to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLDMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 140.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 3, page 1, line 22, leave out from "payable" to "of," inclusive, in line 23, and insert "advanced, paid, presented for and raised in like manner as any other moneys advanced or raised for supporting and maintaining."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Attorney General for Ireland give us an assurance that between now and the end of the Whitsuntide holidays our representations in regard to this Bill will be considered?
  MR. MADDEN: I considered the matter carefully when I put the Amendment down on the Paper, and the view I take is this, that it would be extremely inconvenient to extend this Superannuation Bill to a different class of officers than those provided for by the existing law. If the hon. Member will put down on the Paper what Amendments he thinks right I will give them the best consideration in my power.
  MR. MACARTNEY: This is not a new measure in the House, and though it has been put forward by my
  1676
  hon. Friend to-night, it really comes from the other side of the House. Whatever course may be taken by the Government, I shall certainly not be able to assent to any proposal for enlarging the scope of the Bill.
  *MR. JOHNSTON: I appeal to the hon. Member opposite not to oppose the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not wish to disoblige the hon. Member, and I will not oppose the Bill.
  MR. CRILLY: In the absence of any assurance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I must move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Crilly,) put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit, again upon Thursday 12th June.

  EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVANTS).
  SIR J. GORST: I hope the House will allow a Select Committee to be appointed on the alleged grievances of the Uncovenanted Civil servants of India. It will be impossible for the Government to consent to the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has given notice. I hope, however, he will not oppose the appointment of the Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I cannot consent to it.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I would appeal to the hon. Member to forego his opposition.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I appeal to the hon. Member to accept my Amendment.

  OPEN SPACES BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 9th June, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 298.)
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Aldershot Roads Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Lord Carbery—Petition of William Charles Baron Carbery in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

ROYAL ASSENT—COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:—
Commissioners for Oaths Act (1889) Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT—COMMISSION.
  EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF MOTE CHILDREN BILL.
  A Bill to amend the law in regard to the education of blind and deaf-mute children in Scotland was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian;) read la; and to be printed. (No. 101.)

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give any information as to the progress of this Bill? It is regarded with great interest in Scotland, and the only news we have of it is that the Lord Advocate in the other House promised that the Second Reading should be taken before Whitsuntide. I am aware, of course, that there is a clog of business in the other House, but I hope my noble Friend will be able to give your Lordships favourable tidings with regard to the Bill.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My noble Friend has kindly given me private notice of the question he has asked in regard to this Bill. I am almost tempted to answer my noble Friend's question in what is supposed to be Scottish fashion by putting another question in reply. I should be inclined to ask my noble Friend whether, from his great influence, he could give any information as to the progress likely to be made with Government measures in
1550
the other House? I have no doubt, however, from the statement which was made by an eminent statesman in East Anglia the other day as to the almost entire absence of obstruction in the other House, that the Second Reading-of this Bill will be taken in that House as set down on June 2. With regard to the assurance of the Lord Advocate, it was the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading before Whitsuntide if possible; but in consequence of that which my noble Friend is pleased to call the clog of business in the other House it is now impossible to do so. It is the intention of the Government that the Bill should come on at the earliest possible time, and I hope to he able soon to introduce it in your Lordships' House.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
*LORD NORTON: My Lords, I will only say a few words upon this Bill. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships by moving any Amendment at this stage, but I will attempt to carry the Amendments I lost in the Standing Committee on the Third Reading. They are three in number, and they are intended, first, to prevent a child convicted of an ordinary, not for a grave, offence from being sent, during the interval between his conviction and his reception in the reformatory to a common gaol. My second object is that there should be places provided to which such children, if sentenced to imprisonment, could be sent, not being a common gaol, but to places for the purpose under Government control, in connection with a few principal reformatories, where the child might pass his sentence, not exceeding three weeks, or in worse cases for longer periods of imprisonment, before being sent to the reformatory school. My third object is that the education of such children after punishment should not be in schools of a penal character retaining the stigma of criminality during the whole of the child's education, and keeping up in the

1551
child's mind a sense of criminality which is not only cruel and unjust, but absolutely foolish and obstructive of the object of his being sent to school at all. The fact of there being provisions for child imprisonment in common gaols, and penal education in an amending Bill on the subject, I think, shows to what a small extent the idea on which those institutions have been founded has yet been generally accepted. Both the Commissioners' Report and the answers to Circulars which have been sent round to all the Petty Sessions in the Kingdom are against children of that description being, except in aggravated cases, sent to common gaols, and prove a growing opinion that ordinary child convicts should not be treated as adults. I venture to speak on this matter, for I have had very considerable acquaintance during nearly 50 years with the legislation and the working of these institutions, and with the sort of children who come to them.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Viscount CROSS): It would be only respectful to the noble Lord who has just spoken that I should say I know no one who has paid more attention to the subject than he has done, or who has had more practical experience with the working of these schools. With the greatest sympathy, however, for the objects he has in view, I am afraid that I shall have to show reasons on the Third Reading why the Government cannot accept the propositions he has mentioned.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I only desire to say a few words upon the Report being received. I wish to express my great regret that, in consequence of the adoption of the system of Standing Committees, the public are quite unaware of the great pains which your Lordships have bestowed upon this and other kindred Bills. I have not been able myself to take part in the discussion upon them; but I think no one who has attended in those Standing Committees can doubt the minute criticism and care bestowed upon the Bills before them. Valuable, however, as the criticism is which is given in the Standing Committees, I think it would be still more valuable if it could be given in this House, where the Debates would be reported. The public would then have
1552
some knowledge of the pains and time which your Lordships have bestowed on these Bills. I make this protest, because I hope the time will come, before long, when the House will see how much it has lost by the system of Standing Committees, and how much it has thrown away by delegating to hole-and-corner meetings of Committees upstairs deliberations which ought to take place in the face of day.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not see any reason for regretting the change which has been made. The misfortune in former times was that discussion did not take place in the House, and the work which is done by these Committees was not done at all. No doubt if the House were to deal with Bills in the same careful way as the Committees deal with them perhaps the same result might happen; but, unhappily, that has-not been done. I do not think anybody can doubt that Bills are now carefully revised in a manner which they never were before.
*LORD BRABOURNE: As I was the first to raise the standard of revolt against these Standing Committees I am glad to see that the feeling against them is becoming more widely extended than it was formerly. If it be a good thing that the Standing Committees should continue, I think it is desirable that a rather better record should be made of their proceedings than at present. Some of those proceedings are of great importance. For instance, we were debating the other day upon a question of principle. I was in a considerable minority, and when such is the case I always look forward to the time when that minority will become a majority; but, unfortunately, the record of the proceedings did not give the slightest clue as to what it was that the Committee voted upon. I can only say that the effect of these Standing Committees has, it appears to me, been exactly what I expected upon their being founded. I do not believe that Bills receive a more searching criticism in the Standing Committees than they used to receive in this House before the change was made. On the other hand, it is a change which debars a large number of Peers from taking part in the discussion of business which they are interested in, a change which entails that business being conducted with a certain

1553
amount of secrecy, and which, to my mind, has only the effect of spoiling the deliberations in your Lordships' House afterwards; because Peers apparently do not care afterwards to attend in the House and again debate upon the Bills.
*THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I quite agree with what my noble Friends near me have said. These Standing Committees now sit at half-past 3 o'clock, and if these large Committees can sit at that early hour, there is no reason why the House itself should not be summoned at that hour on occasions when there were heavy Bills to go through in Committee, and thus transact in public the work lately delegated to the Standing Committees—the work of which is now practically unrecorded. I have heard in former times most valuable discussions in Committee of the whole House, and these having been formerly recorded by the daily Press, often most valuable communications and suggestions from persons of experience outside were received, which enabled the House, by being thus brought into relations with persons of knowledge and experience regarding the questions in hand, to introduce useful Amendments at later stages—while the public were aware, from the newspaper reports of our discussions, of the reasons for Amendments made by your Lordships. I think the loss is very great, not only to the Public Service, but to the credit of the House, from doing in secret this very useful business of Committee. It has the effect of entirely precluding the public from being aware of what we are doing. I can only hope, in common with a large number of your Lordships who attend these Committees, that the matter may be re-considered hereafter.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I entirely concur with what has fallen from my noble Friends. I do think it a very serious matter that the whole of these discussions should be withdrawn from the Committees of the whole House. I think one of the evil results which has not been pointed out by my noble Friends is that the public in general, being unaware of the time which is spent in discussing Bills in these Committees, is under the impression that when the House meets on Tuesdays at half-past 5 o'clock and adjourns, perhaps, at 20 minutes to 6.
1554
that is all the work the House has done during the day. They are necessarily unaware, because no Reports are published in the Press, of the fact that an hour and a half or a couple of hours has been devoted previously to the discussion of the very measures which make so little show in the Press reports of the Sittings of the House. It is most important that the feeling should not get abroad that this House is not giving the same full discussion to the matters which come before these Committees as the public have been accustomed to see transacted in public, when there are regular Reports given of the proceedings. I do not wish for a moment to detract from the great zeal and assiduity with which my noble Friends review the subjects which come before the Grand Committees; but those are facts of which the public is wholly unaware, and I think it does not reflect credit upon the proceedings of the House that so much of its business should be transacted behind the scenes. I observe, also, that very few notices of Motions or Questions are ever put down on Tuesdays as on account of the House meeting so late; whatever attendance there may have been before the Grand Committees, there is always a very thin attendance of Peers in the House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether these Committees have been found to be successful in their operation or not; but they have been found fault with for two reasons: In the first place, it is said that the subjects which are taken into consideration by them are withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. I wish to remind the House that it is entirely in the power of the House to prevent such a withdrawal, and to determine whether a Bill should be send to a Standing Committee or not upon notice given. After a Bill has been read a second time, a Motion is made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to refer it to a Standing Committee, and it is for the House itself to give its assent to the Motion or to refuse it. Upon the Motion to refer the Bill to either the Committee on Law or the Committee for General Purposes, it is quite within the power of the House to decline to accede to it, and in that case the Bill

1555
would go before the Committee of the whole House. That evil, therefore, if it be one, may be remedied by the action of the House itself. As to the other fault found, namely, the want of publicity, of which complaint has been made, I can only say that on the first meeting of the Standing Committee the reporters asked leave to be present at the Sittings and to be allowed to report the proceedings; permission was given; but though the report was made on that occasion, we saw no more of the reporters. It is, of course, impossible for the House to ensure publication in the daily newspapers of an adequate report if the editors do not choose to publish it. I am afraid I see no remedy for that. But I think it. would be better if greater discrimination were used as to the Bills which are referred to the Standing Committees and those which are left for consideration by the Committee of the whole House.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I quite agree with what has fallen from my noble Friends, and having been always opposed to the system of Grand Committees, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words. With regard to the first objection by my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal,. that it is quite competent for the House when the Motion is made to refer a Bill to one of the Grand Committees to say that it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House, I would appeal to my noble Friend himself, and ask him whether there would be the smallest chance in 99 cases out of 100 of that course being taken? In fact, the Grand Committees have been established for the purpose of having all the Bills possible taken before them.
EARL CADOGAN: No.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Well, the greater part of the Bills introduced. I think he would be a bold man who would attempt to take from the cognisance of the Grand Committees the Bills which are proposed to be sent there. That is all I wish to say, but feeling very strongly that the system is a bad one, I did not like to let the matter pass without comment on my part.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say a word upon this matter before he replies.
1556
Having attended the Committees regularly, I should like to point out that there are two sides to this question. Undoubtedly we have to balance between two evils, or two advantages, whichever you like to call them. On the one hand, there cannot be a doubt that the public get an impression that we are doing-nothing because we no longer go through Bills in full Committee when the Debates would obtain publicity. But the deliberations of the House in Committee upon Bills was not generally of a serious character. The Bills went through with very little discussion, and of that even very little appeared in the newspapers. At the present time I do not think it can be denied by anyone who has attended these Committees that the Bills which come before them do receive a more severe and complete examination, and there are several reasons why it should be so. One reason is, that the proceedings are somewhat less formal, and Members of your Lordships' House will get up and make most useful suggestions and observations, who might not make speeches in the House. Again, discussion is facilitated and time saved. I quite agree that the system is on its trial. But I would put this to my noble Friends who take an interest in this matter, that there are two things which are quite distinct—one is to do business, and the other to seem to be doing business. I think we are doing-business at the present time. I quite admit that we do not seem to be doing as much business as we are. It will be for the House to determine whether the advantages from the revision of Bills which come before us in Grand Committee are not sufficient to outweigh any disadvantages which the House may suffer from the public, owing to the change in our arrangements, being unaware of the work done. It is not quite true that there is no report made of the proceedings. On two occasions recently, when important discussions took place in Committee—my noble Friend opposite probably had not observed them—there were short reports of the proceedings given in the newspapers.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I only want to point out that nothing has been really withdrawn from

1557
the cognisance of the House, and that there has been no abbreviation of the proceedings of the House. I understand that certain of my noble Friends are panting to discuss in Committee these industrial Schools and Reformatory Kills. But why do not they do it? These Bills have all passed through Committee of the whole House. It was then open to my noble Friends to go through them with all the minuteness of detail which, we understand, was the practice in former times. But they never opened their lips. Was it that they were exhausted with what they had done in Standing Committee, or that they found it was impossible for them to repeat here the arguments used there? There was no reason whatever why the full discussion, which we are told used in past years always to take place in Committee of the whole House, should not have taken place in all its former amplitude of detail. The matter lies entirely in the hands of noble Lords themselves, and depends upon their appreciation of the importance of a measure. But I entirely agree with the noble Lords opposite that there was no discussion on Bills of this class in Committee in former years. Bills of adequate importance were no doubt discussed in Committee, but Bills of a less important character were not discussed in Committee at all. I have gone carefully through the record in Hansard of similar Bills which have been passed in previous years, and have carefully examined that record to see what discussion they received in Committee of the whole House, and I find that before the Standing Committees were appointed Bills of the less important class received very little examination in Committee. What the cause is, why Bills which are so carefully examined in Committee are so perfunctorily discussed in the House, I do not know. There seems to be something in the atmosphere of this House or in its traditions which makes noble Lords unwilling to open their months within its walls; but I appeal to the experience of those who have sat constantly through the Debates in this House in former years as to whether our mode of dealing with the committal of Bills in former times was distinguished by that thorough discussion on details the opportunity for which it is now complained has been withdrawn.
Bills reported without further amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday, the 12th of June next.

SUCK RIVER DRAINAGE (PROVISION OF FUNDS) BILL.—(No. 92.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday, the 9th of June next.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 57.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons: and to be printed as amended. (No. 103.)

ADJOURNMENT.
Moved, "That the House do adjourn to Thursday, 5th June."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: On the Motion for the Adjournment I will take the opportunity of suggesting, with regard to the minute examination of Bills, that if the noble and learned Lord Herschell and the noble Lord who sits near him would bring to bear in this House that minute and valuable criticism which they bring to bear in Committees upstairs we should all benefit very much. I really must say that I think the noble and learned Lord opposite is alike the sole cause and vindication of the system of Standing Committees upstairs.
*LORD BRABOURNE: I wish to call the noble Marquess's attention to one fact. He states that nothing has been withdrawn from the consideration of the House by referring Bills to a Grand Committee. I cannot agree in that. Take, for instance, the General Standing Committee. I am not a Member of that Committee, but I am a Member of the Committee on Law. I was told that if I applied I could be nominated on both Committees. On inquiry I found that the number of Peers which could be added to the other Committee was limited, and when I asked to be put on it I found it was not possible to be done. Only certain noble Lords are Members of that Committee, and the power of discussing such Bills as go before it is practically taken away from

1559
those noble Lords who are not Members of that Committee. It is not in human nature to get up in this House and recommence a discussion upon a Bill which, one knows has already been fully discussed upstairs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would only reply to what my noble Friend has said that that limitation of Members appears to be an error which I think it might be very desirable to correct. I think any such result as he has related was certainly not contemplated and ought not to have taken place. There should be no difficulty in adding to a Grand Committee any noble Lord who desires to be a Member of it. But I cannot admit that it is not in human nature to discuss again in this House a Bill which has been already discussed upstairs in Committee. There are G70 specimens of human nature legislating a "little further down the House, and I believe those 670 specimens of human nature find no difficulty in discussing, and discussing at considerable length, Bills which have previously been dealt with upstairs.
On Question agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday, the 5th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock.