Sitting of 17 February 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL—(by Order).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I do not rise now for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill; but after the Bill has been read a second time, I propose to move the Instruction which stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt).
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. S. HILL: I beg now to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee "to omit Clauses 5 and 6." In making this Motion I wish to say that I represent the interests of the Riparian Proprietors, the Conservators of the River Trent, and the Staffordshire County Council. The object of the Instruction is to restrain the Corporation of Wolverhampton from becoming independent of the public law, as to the discharge of the effluent of their sewage into the Pendeford Brook. The Corporation, in 1865, sought to acquire land at Dunstall, but this scheme having been opposed by the then owner, Mr. Hoodson, on public grounds, they obtained with his assistance their present sewage farm at the Barnhurst. Unfortunately, for 10 or 15 years, things went from bad to worse, no real attempt was made to remedy it, until the whole of the arrangements of the Corporation in re-

  823
  gard to their disposal of the sewage of Wolverhampton became an abominable nuisance, not only to the inhabitants of the immediate locality, but for a distance of from 80 to 100 miles down the streams into which the sewage is directed. Steps were then taken to put a stop to the nuisance, and after the lapse of many years, and every consideration had been shown to them. In November last, Lord Justice Fry, held that there had been negligence on the part of the Corporation, that their action was wilful and illegal, and ordered an injunction and a sequestration against the Corporation. They propose now to take further land. With that we have nothing to do, because we feel that if they want further land they must have it. But the Corporation are now endeavouring by Clause 5 of their Bill to repeal in their favour certain provisions of the Public Health Act and the Rivers Pollution Act. By Clause 6 they seek to set aside the decision of the Courts of Law. I am told that Clause 6 has been withdrawn. I am not astonished at it, as I should have been surprised if anyone could have been found to defend it; but Clause 5 still remains, and although it professes only to repeal certain provisions of the Rivers Pollution Bill in effect it says that they are to be allowed to do what is permitted to no one else, and that a certificate granted by the Local Government Board is to be an answer in all Courts and in all cases against any action which may be brought against the Corporation. It is utterly impossible to suppose a greater interference with the law in favour of a public Corporation. When an injunction was granted against the Corporation, and sequestration was threatened, they saw, as they ought to have seen 15 years before, that they must amend their ways, and they set to work to correct the evil. Accordingly, when Dr. Frankland was sent down to make an investigation he found that to a certain extent matters were going on satisfactorily, which shows that there could be no difficulty in observing the existing provisions of the law and preventing a nuisance. The question really turns upon this: Can the Corporation or can they not comply with the provisions of the existing law, or have they a right to claim
  824
  exemption from them because they are unwilling to comply with them? But although Dr. Frankland declared that there was no absolute nuisance at the time of his visit, he stated in distinct terms that what was being done approached very closely upon that which would be called an unsanitary state of matters, and therefore ought not to be allowed. The Rivers Pollution Act was passed in 1876 for the purpose of dealing with this very state of things. The County Council of Staffordshire claim that the Act shall be enforced; but the Corporation of Wolverhampton say, "Repeal those clauses, and do not allow the County Council to interfere at all." Such a position is monstrous. It simply amounts to an assertion that what is good against the rest of the world is not good against those who are bent upon breaking the law. I hope the House will support the Staffordshire County Council, and will lay down that if the law is to be altered, it must not be done by a private, but by a public, measure. At a meeting in Wolverhampton convened for the purpose of considering this Bill, the Mayor of the borough said that unfortunately Wolverhampton is situated on the top of a water shed, and consequently, as there is no large stream into which to turn the sewage, it must be turned into two small streams. And the Town Clerk added that what the borough wanted was relief against all persons who were likely to be litigants—that is to say, all persons who are likely to be injured, and he added that the object of the Bill was to give them "a right to do that which was at present wrong." I sincerely trust that the House of Commons will refuse to enable the Corporation of Wolverhampton or anybody else to do that which is at present wrong, and which will inflict a serious injury on their neighbours.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to second the Motion. I have not the slightest personal feeling in this matter, and I am glad to think that I am on terms of personal friendship with many members of the Corporation of Wolverhampton. But I recollect on one occasion having to consult the right hon. Gentleman

  825
  opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in reference to the Corporation, and he asked me to remember the old saying that a Corporation had neither a soul to be saved nor a body to be kicked. Therefore, if I make allusions that are unpleasant, I hope it will be borne in mind that I am not making them individually, but only against the Corporation in its bodiless and soulless capacity. From my knowledge of the merits of the case I cordially support the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend, and in opposing the 5th clause of the Bill, the 6th clause having been withdrawn, I wish to say that I am only actuated by the earnest belief that if that clause is not amended, a very grievous injustice will be done. I had originally put down an Amendment for the total rejection of the Bill, but I have not moved it on account of the withdrawal of Clause 6, which practically set aside the injunction of the High Court. I considered that that was a piece of audacity on the part of the promoters of the Bill, and that it fully justified me in moving the rejection of the measure. As Clause 6 has been withdrawn, in lieu of bringing forward my own Motion, I beg to support that of my hon. Friend, who proposes that it shall be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 5. I know that it is unusual to stand between the promoters of a Private Bill, and the Committee to which it is proposed to be referred in its entirety, and that, as a rule, it is considered better to send a measure of this kind to a Committee, and trust to them to exercise their common sense in dealing with it. But this is a peculiar case; and I feel that if the Corporation of Wolverhampton are to have their way, this stream will not only be polluted, but become absolutely poisonous, that out-lying lands may be flooded in all directions, and the stream, instead of fulfilling its proper functions, will be the means of rendering every residence on its banks uninhabitable. In 1885 action was taken against the pollution of this stream; in 1886 an injunction was granted against the Corporation, and three years after the granting of the injunction an application for sequestration was made. An order was made that it should issue, and Lord Justice Fry, in delivering judgment, bore testimony to the unwillingness of
  826
  the Corporation to incur the necessary expenditure for carrying out the necessary works. His Lordship came, further, to the conclusion that the disobedience to the injunction had been wilful, and that it was necessary to proceed to sequestration. There has been no disposition since manifested on the part of the Corporation to meet willingly those who had a right to consider themselves injured, but there has been a desire to continue to turn this stream into a sewer. I do not deny that in some cases it may be desirable, bearing in view the necessities of a large town, to come to a compromise, but this Bill rejects all compromise. Any land they may require the Corporation of Wolverhampton can get without this clause, and there are means by filtration and otherwise by which the purity of the water can be secured. All that we who oppose the Bill seek is to prevent the granting of unusual and unreasonable powers that may be dangerous to the principles of justice and equity. The immediate effect of the Bill as it stands will be to suspend the operation of the Common Statute Law of the land in favour of the Corporation of Wolverhampton. I think the House ought to hesitate before it sanctions a suspension of the general law which bears upon the health of any portion of the community. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that this very Corporation is seeking in another district to enforce the very law which in this case it is anxious to evade. I refer to a case in which, having a personal interest in preserving the purity of the water, the Corporation of Wolverhampton is now endeavouring to put in force the provisions of the Pollution of Rivers Act, whereas in this instance it is seeking to evade them. The word "reasonable" is used in the Bill more than once, and I suppose it implies a certain amount of equity and moderation, but I cannot forget that we have had the experience of other Corporations who have succeeded in depriving the whole of a rural district of every single drop of drinkable water, and have refused to make any compensation whatever. Therefore, I decline to accept the term "reasonable." My only object is to secure that another and smaller community shall have the same justice and fair play which the Corporation of

  827
  Wolverhampton are seeking to obtain for themselves.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, to omit Clauses 5 and 6."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sorry that I am compelled to trouble the House with a few remarks, because I quite appreciate the feeling which is in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen who have brought forward this Motion. But I feel it is due to the Corporation of Wolverhampton, who have been subjected to much terrific censure, that I should state what really are the circumstances under which they come to the House to-day to ask that this Bill shall be read a second time, not with a view of securing a definite opinion upon the measure or of legislating upon it, but simply with a view of securing that it shall be investigated by an independent Committee who will hear evidence, thresh the whole subject out, and come, I have no doubt, to a right conclusion in regard to it. The Corporation of Wolverhampton have no private interests to serve in the matter, but, like this House, they are a body of public men appointed to discharge a public duty. As they have been subjected to such severe censure, I must ask the indulgence of the House while I tell the simple story of the reasons which have induced them to come here and ask the House to relieve them from a costly and harassing course of litigation which I venture to say no Public Body whatever has been subjected to. The Member for West Staffordshire told the House that this question had been before the locality since 1865. I was going to say that prior to that, from 1854 to 1865 the Corporation of Wolverhampton had devoted a great portion of its time and attention to dealing with this very complicated and very difficult question of the sewage of a large town. If Wolverhampton had been fortunately situated on the banks of the Thames, or of some other great river, this difficulty would not have arisen; but it stands at the head of a water-shed, and some portion of the drainage finds its way into the Severn, and the rest into the Trent. Not having the outfall of a great river it
  828
  is necessarily exposed to difficulties from which a great many other towns are exempt. In 1867 the Corporation came to the conclusion that it was desirable to establish a great sewage farm for the purpose of enabling the sewage of the town to be satisfactorily dealt with. They purchased an estate which has by subsequent additions cost them £36,200. In 1870 they commenced their sewage works, and in 1873 they were able to bring those works into operation. In that year 10 different actions were commenced against them for the injury they were said to have done to this particular stream, and those actions were referred to arbitration. The arbitration took place in 1875, when the arbitrator awarded to the whole of the 10 litigants the enormous sum of £1,880 as representing in full the damage which had been done to their estates during that number of years. In addition, the arbitrator called on the Corporation to construct works which cost £10,000, and thus recognised the moral right of the Corporation to the use of this stream for its effluent water. No sooner were they completed than litigation again commenced. The litigant who is the litigant carrying his controversy to a successful issue in the Courts is the son of the tenant for life who was proceeding against the Corporation in 1876. The son found out that he was not bound by his father's agreement, and that is one of the grounds upon which I ask the House to deal with the case, because in this case it is impossible to get a binding agreement between the Corporation and the tenant for life which will prevent the Corporation being sued again by the succeeding tenant for life. This litigation lasted from 1878 to 1886, and the amount of damages claimed was £3,049, and the amount awarded was £1,050; but in addition to that the Corporation had to pay £850 for the claimant's costs, and about £1,000 for their own. After this award an application was made for an injunction, damages to the extent of £3,757 being claimed. The action was tried at Birmingham, and, after Mr. Justice Wills had visited the locus in quo, inspected the stream, and seen all the alleged abominations, the damages were fixed at £400. A large sum had again to be paid in costs, the plaintiff's costs as delivered

  829
  being £2,688, and as allowed £1,084, and the Corporation costs £1,000. Complaint has been made that the Corporation works were not completed until 1890. The answer to that is that it was simply impossible to complete them sooner, and nearly £50,000 have been spent upon them since 1886. Last year the High Court of Justice appointed an officer to report as to what the Corporation had done. That independent expert, in his Report, says—
  "In reply I have to say that no excrementitious or filthy matter or sewage, or any water contaminated or mixed therewith, was passing into the Pendeford Brook on the 1st of November last, neither do I think it probable or even possible for such matters to gain access to the brook in future, so long as the defendants' works are maintained in their present efficient condition. With regard to noxious matter, the defendants were discharging nothing into the brook which was noxious, unless the water was used for dietetic purposes. There was nothing noxious to the senses in the effluents or any of them, but the water was not, in my opinion, fit for human consumption as a beverage."
  This is the whole gist and point in this case. The Corporation have at present no right to put any water in the stream unless such water is perfectly pure, and this Bill seeks to empower the Corporation to put water in the stream which, though not absolutely pure, will in no way detract from the beauty of the stream or its amenities. He had recently travelled down it and found it quite clear.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I did not say that the river has been in an improper state since the Corporation completed their works. I am quite prepared to admit that since last summer the stream has been in a proper condition.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am glad to have obtained that admission. And that is the case that I present, that having spent this money and having done this work, having accomplished this improvement, I say that the Corporation are not to be exposed to litigation day by day and week by week, and spend thousands and thousands in costly and useless litigation because it has undertaken to carry out the law of the land. What the town of Wolverhampton has done has been that the Corporation have, at an enormous cost, separated the rain water from the sewage. Now, what do we ask? We ask you to stop this liti-
  830
  gation, and if we do any damage—we do not interfere with private rights, we do not deprive any man of his property—we are willing to pay the last farthing, and we ask the House to let us have a cheap and effective tribunal on the spot, and not let us be subject to these injunctions, and trials, and arbitrations to which we have been subjected for years. And we ask that this Bill be sent in to a Committee upstairs in order that they may investigate it there and decide it on its merits. My hon. Friend says that "this is unprecedented, that nothing of this sort has been done before, that this is a new application brought before the House." Well, Sir, it has been done before. The House of Commons has passed a similar clause to this, and passed it in the River Lea Conservancy Act, and in this Act it may be almost said they have taken the very words used in the River Lea Act. These are the words of the River Lea Conservancy Act—
  "Nothing in this Act shall operate and extend to prevent the Local Board of Health for the district of Luton and the inhabitants of Luton for the time being, maintaining and continuing their present sewerage and drainage works, or discharging into the River Lea the sewage water or matter formed from such sewers or drains, after such sewage matter has been subject to the process of purification known as Higgs' process,"
  and then it describes the mode in which that is to be carried out. The Corporation has spent nearly £200,000 in endeavouring to carry out the sewerage. The rating of Wolverhampton this year, I think, is 3s. 9d. in the £1, and the sewerage rate that we have to pay is 1s. 2¾d. in the £1, and I ask gentlemen who are now on County Councils what a rate of 1s. 2¾d. in the £1 means? At present they are crippled and forced to incur enormous costs of litigation because of committing what is, after all, a mere technical wrong. There is no desire to avoid paying compensation to all those entitled to it, but it is desired to have a cheap and effective tribunal on the spot to deal with the matter. The House is not now being asked to pass the Bill, but only to allow it to be referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee, after which it will again come before the House for Third Reading. This is an attempt, without any precedent, to arrest the action of the Corporation, at a critical moment in its history, in its endeavour

  831
  to discharge a public duty, and I ask the House to do justice, irrespective of Party or any other consideration, to allow the Bill to go before one of its own Committees, where the opponents can make out their case, for we cannot well dispose of this clause in the House; and I hope we will hear no more of it. If the Committee misconceives its duty or trenches upon principles of the general law, the House will have the Bill in its own hands on a Third Reading. You may rest assured that there is nothing in this Bill which in any way trenches upon the rights of property.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I do not think there can be any opposition to that part of the Bill which gives power to the Wolverhampton Corporation to acquire additional land for the purpose of their sewage scheme. But the Bill contains some clauses which are of an objectionable character. The 5th clause proposes something quite new and exceptional. It proposes that the Corporation should not be compelled to comply with Section 17 of the Public Health Act, 1875; and that if they obtain a certificate from an Inspector of the Local Government Board that they are employing the best practical means for carrying off the sewage, such certificate, which shall last for two years, shall be a bar against any person who may consider himself injured. That is an entirely novel power to confer on the Local Government Board, and, even if desirable, it would be extremely difficult to exercise. To confer upon the Local Government Board power to issue certificates which should be an absolute bar to all actions that may be brought in the High Court by persons who may feel aggrieved or injured would be going very far indeed. If, however, the Corporation of Wolverhampton should be able to show to the Committee that exceptional provisions are desirable in their case, the Committee, I think, ought to have power to consider the matter. Therefore, I should propose to move an instruction in lieu of that which has been moved, empowering the Committee to consider whether, under the special circumstances of the case, any special provisions are necessary for the protection of the Corporation of Wolverhampton
  832
  until additional sewage works can be completed. If the Committee should decide that such provisions are necessary, the Local Government Board could be empowered to give a certificate which could be produced in any action before the High Court, and which would be taken into consideration, although it might not be an absolute bar to the proceedings. The Instruction which I am prepared to move will enable the Committee to make such provisions as would protect the Corporation from any arbitrary proceedings.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "Clauses 5 and 6," in order to insert the words "Clause 6; and with regard to Clause 5, to consider whether, under the special circumstances of the case, any, and, if any, what, provisions are necessary for the protection of the Corporation, until additional sewage disposal works can be completed. That any provision for this purpose should be such as will not affect the present proceedings against the Corporation, and as will be in conformity with the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, with regard to the conditions on which certificates are to be granted,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Corporation have no desire in any way to prejudice existing litigation. I would therefore propose that we should rest content to-day with providing for the omission of Clause 6. The Instruction to be moved by the President of the Local Government Board could be considered on a future occasion.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair.
  MR. S. HILL: Would it not be the better plan to postpone the whole matter?
  MR. RITCHIE: An Instruction similar in terms to the one which I have handed in can be placed on the Paper to-morrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: The proper course will be to withdraw the Instruction now and bring it up again.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill to omit Clause 6.

QUESTIONS.

  THE ARBIB BROTHERS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of the British steamer, Arbib Brothers, recently arrested in Algiers on a claim for salvage; whether it is true, as stated In the Moniteur de l'Algerie, of the 27th ultimo, that the Compagnie Transatlantique, the plaintiff in the salvage suit, anchored one of their vessels with an armed crew alongside the Arbib Brothers, with the avowed intention of forcibly preventing her from escaping, in case of her attempting to do so; and, if so, whether this step was taken under the authority of any French Law Court or Government Department; and, if not, whether any remonstrances have been addressed to the French Government against a proceeding calculated to provoke violence, and lead to International difficulties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The circumstances as stated in the question are substantially correct. The British vessel was disabled not far from Algiers, and was brought into that port by a steamer belonging to the "Compagnie Transatlantique," the agent of which company then made a claim for salvage. The agent alleged that the Arbib Brothers was about to proceed to sea and to escape payment; a seizure was laid upon the vessel, and on a tug steamer arriving from London the other steps mentioned were taken. The owners would have their remedy at law for any illegal procedure. The only apparent ground of complaint on the part of Her Majesty's Government was in the omission to inform the British Consul General of the procedure against the ship; but, as we have no Consular Convention, this involved no more than a breach of courtesy, and we have no ground for formal representation.
  DR. CAMERON: In Committee of Supply I shall call attention to this case.

  THE CASE OF ANDREW REID.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, since August last, any further inquiry has been made by the Secretary for Scotland into the mental condition of Andrew Reid, of Glasgow, sentenced in February, 1887, to be confined during Her Majesty's pleasure for firing at a policeman, whilst labouring under a fit of insanity, and at present confined in Perth Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and whether, considering that Reid has now been three years in confinement, if it be ascertained that for a long time past he has shown no sign of insanity, he will take steps to procure his release?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The man referred to in this question was sentenced in February, 1889, and not in 1887 as erroneously stated. He will complete two years' confinement on the 26th of this month; and, following on the satisfactory Report of a recent inquiry as to his mental condition, he will be liberated on that day, subject to the requisite guarantees being given by guardians, who, I understand, are prepared to grant them.

  BANGOR TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, in consequence of the Report of the Inspector sent down by the Education Department to inquire into the causes of the recent outbreak of students at Bangor Training College, that the discipline of the Institution is unsatisfactory, the College Committee is now engaged in re-constituting the staff of the College; can he explain why the Education Department has refused to sanction the re-admission of one of the students for his second year's course of training, notwithstanding the fact that the College General Committee and the special Sub-Committee unanimously recommended his re-admission; whether the student was given any opportunity of defending himself before the Inspector; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he will recommend the Department to reconsider the matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The Education Department has refused to sanction the re-admission of the student at the Bangor Training College whose impertinence is stated by the Inspector to have been the immediate cause of the outbreak to which the hon. Member refers. The facts were, unfortunately, too well attested to permit of explanation so far as that student was concerned, and it is as well to bear in mind that the Inspector's recommendation in regard to him sought nothing more than to give effect to what had been the first resolution of the authorities of the College. The student has already been treated with indulgence, to the extent of being allowed to qualify himself for a certificate by concluding his first year's course; and, looking to the paramount importance of maintaining the discipline of the College, I am not prepared on the part of the Department to re-consider a decision which has been arrived at with the aid of the fullest information and after the most careful and deliberate inquiry. The statement that the College General Committee recommended the re-admission of the student is quite incorrect.

  THE DISTRICT OF GURGAON.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the revised settlement of the district of Gurgaon, Panjab, and all other Papers connected therewith until Orders were passed, and including the Orders passed, by the Panjab Government; whether he is aware that remissions of rent were refused by the Government of India to the people in a time of crop loss through drought, and that between 1877 and 1882, 150,000 head of cattle were found to have died, 80,000 of the agricultural population had disappeared, and a debt of Rx.200,000 incurred; and whether the Secretary of State will inquire into these facts, and take such steps as will put a stop to their recurrence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: The Report and Papers asked for make a volume of 500 pages. I shall be glad to lend the hon. Member a copy; but the Secretary of State does
  836
  not think it necessary to lay it on the Table. The Secretary of State is aware that a mistake was made by the officer, since dead, who refused to suspend a part of the land revenue in Gurgaon in 1877. But since then substantial benefit has been conferred on the district by remissions of arrears, by reductions of the demand, and by loans for the purchase of cattle. The cultivated area of the district is returning to the old level, and the number of cattle has been fully recovered. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the suggestions of the Famine Commission of 1880, the Orders of the Government of India issued in 1885, and the provisions of the Punjab Famine Code issued in 1888, will, if carefully observed, prevent the commission of similar mistakes in the future.

  OOLOGICAL EXPEDITION TO THE SHETLAND ISLES.
  MR. WALTER JAMES: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a Circular issued from Birmingham and published in Monday's Times, by a company entitled "The Naturalists' Publishing Company," and projecting "an oological expedition to the land of the Great Auk," meaning the district of the Shetland Isles, set forth in the Circular as one of the best collecting grounds for the marine birds of the United Kingdom; and whether he will introduce some amendment of the Wild Birds Protection Act to avert the destruction of the eggs of rare birds?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My attention has been called to the letters in the Times of Lord Lilford and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings. I observe that a Bill to amend the Wild Birds Protection Act was read a first time last night on the Motion of the hon. Member for York; it has not yet been circulated, but it may afford an opportunity for extending to the eggs of wild birds the protection at present given to wild birds themselves. In the meantime, it is well that it should be known that, under the law as it stands, the Shetland Islands are not completely at the mercy of the Naturalists' Publishing Company of Birmingham, for oologists are not yet exempt from the general law of trespass; and the proprietors of the threatened islands will probably consider

  837
  whether they should not apply for Interdict against acts of illegal trespass, the intention to commit which has been publicly announced.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give facilities to the hon. Member for York to proceed with his Bill to amend the Act for the protection of wild birds?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The Government can hardly give facilities for such a measure, much as I desire that such a measure should pass. The general feeling of the House, however, will no doubt be in favour of passing such a Bill, and in that case the hon. Gentleman will not be under the necessity of asking for special facilities to push it forward.

  ALLOTMENTS IN SUFFOLK.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the high assessment of allotments in Suffolk and other parts of the country; whether the statement is true that in South-West Suffolk the assessor's valuation for the purpose of rating allotments averages 40s. an acre, though farm land in the same locality is assessed at from 5s. to 10s. an acre; and whether he can take any steps to alter this disproportionate rating?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention was called some days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for the Sudbury Division (Mr. Quilter) to the high assessment of allotments in Suffolk and elsewhere, and he undertook to furnish me with particulars of the assessments. I have not yet received these particulars; but I may say that it is not in the power of the Local Government Board to interfere with the discretion of the Local Authorities in matters of rating. The rateable value of an allotment depends on the rent at which it may reasonably be expected to let from year to year; but I should regret to learn that allotments were unduly rated as compared with the ordinary basis of assessment in force in the union.

  ABDUL RASOUL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India under what Article of the Indian Penal Code have the Government of India power to arrest any person on landing at an Indian port, to examine his wearing apparel, cutting open his boots and other articles of clothing, to imprison him in an inland gaol, and detain him there for nine months at a time without preferring against him any charge or bringing him before any tribunal; what ground of suspicion had the authorities in India against Sheikh Abdul Rasoul; whether he is aware that Sheikh Abdul Rasoul himself called at the India Office and asked to see Lord Cross, who, after keeping him waiting for three hours, refused to see him; whether a registered letter has been received at the India Office from Rasoul, why no acknowledgment of such letter has been returned to him, and whether he will undertake that some reply shall be sent to him; whether, as the Government have brought Rasoul back to this country, and landed him destitute without means of subsistence and without friends in London, they will take steps to provide some support for him pending the reply which he may receive from the Indian Government; and whether it is the intention of the Government to detain Rasoul in this country and to prohibit him from returning to his own country; and, if so, on what grounds and under what statutory or other powers they are in such case acting?
  SIR J. GORST: I informed the hon. Gentleman yesterday that the Secretary of State was awaiting information on this subject from India, and pending the receipt of that information I am afraid that I cannot answer many of the questions which he has put. But in answer to paragraph 3 I am aware that Abdul Rasoul did call at the India Office on one of the days when my noble Friend was out of London, and therefore he was not able to see him. In answer to the fourth paragraph, I stated yesterday that a letter had been received at the India Office, and I regret that no acknowledgment had been sent. In answer to the last question, the Secretary of State has neither the power nor

  839
  the intention of detaining Rasoul in this country.
  MR. CONYBEARE: There are two points on which the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer, and which I think he could reply to without awaiting letters from India. I want to know whether he will see that an answer is sent to this unfortunate man as to what decision the authorities have come to; and I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the unfortunate man has been brought to this country against his will, and has been landed in this Metropolis destitute and without friends or means of support, he will consider the propriety of making some provision for him?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman begs the whole question. We are awaiting information from India as to whether this man was sent here; and until the Secretary of State receives that information it is impossible for me to reply to the question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any provision for this man's subsistence? I understand that he does not contradict that he was arrested in India and sent to gaol and kept there for nine months without trial; and I wish to know whether he will recommend that some allowance shall be made to him to enable him to subsist in England?
  SIR J. GORST: I have never heard that the man was in a state of destitution. He certainly has made no such statement to me.

  THE CASE OF HARRY WYNDHAM CARTER.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the trial of Harry Wyndham Carter, at Maidstone Assizes, in January, 1887, the indictment laid before the common jury was for the shooting at and wounding with the felonious intents to maim, disfigure, disable, or do some other grievous bodily harm; has his attention been drawn to a statement published in the Kentish Gazette, under date 23rd February, 1887, by Mr. Samuel J. West, one of the jury, stating that
  "The unanimous verdict we presented through our foreman was 'that we found the prisoner guilty of unlawful shooting,' and expressing
  840
  surprise at the sentence which was inflicted;"
  was the verdict, as entered in the Record, the same as that found by the jury; and, if not, can he explain why it differs therefrom; is he aware that, at the trial, Carter repeatedly begged that counsel would call his witnesses, who were in Court, but that for some unexplained reason they were not allowed to give evidence; is it the fact that while in prison, in 1889, H. W. Carter was offered his release on condition of his executing a disentailing deed; through what medium, by whom, and by whose authority was this offer held out to the prisoner; and whether he will inquire into the legality of Carter's imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I understand that the indictment was for wounding with the felonious intents mentioned. I have not seen the statement in the Kentish Gazette, but an affidavit to a similar effect was sent to me, which I forwarded to the learned Judge. He reported to me that it was founded on a complete mistake as to the effect of the indictment. The question for the jury was whether the wounds, which had been inflicted by shooting, were inflicted with any of the felonious intents charged in the indictment, or were merely unlawful wounds, i. e., wounds inflicted by an unlawful purposed act; and he states that the jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawful wounding. After reading the Judge's Report, I have no reason to suppose that the verdict entered on the Record was not the verdict found by the jury. The prisoners were defended by most able counsel, who, in the exercise of his discretion, declined to call witnesses. It is not the fact that any offer of conditional release has been made to the convict on the authority of the Home Office. I am satisfied, after full inquiry, that the convict's sentence was legal.

  THE LLANERCH COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will, according to promise last Session, place upon the Table of the

  841
  House verbatim copies of the notes taken at the inquiry into the causes of the deaths of large numbers of miners at the Llanerch Colliery explosion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: What I said last Session was that I would place these notes upon the Table if there was any general desire on the part of hon. Members to see them. I have not found that any such general desire exists, and have therefore given no instructions. The transcript is quite at the service of the hon. Member, or of any hon. Member who desires to see it.

  LAND PURCHASE IN CORK.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill as it now stands, the barony of Cork, being the portion of the county of the City of Cork outside the borough boundary, is excluded from the scope of all land purchase transactions; whether he is aware that this extensive area, consisting of the old liberties of Cork, and extending in some directions over seven miles from the city, is a purely agricultural one, and, though within the county of the city, is, for all fiscal purposes, cut off by statute from the borough and united with the County of Cork; and whether the Bill is drawn in this manner through inadvertence or by design?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the position of the old liberties of Cork. It is the desire of the Government to extend the benefits of the Land Purchase Bill to all districts in Ireland which are of an agricultural character. Inquiries will be made before the Committee stage of the Bill as to the possibility, consistently with fiscal arrangements, of including the district in question within the County of Cork.

  TELEGRAPH DELIVERY.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the statement on the back of telegraph forms, that the charge for transmission will cover the cost of delivery if the address is within the limits of the
  842
  town postal delivery of any Head Post Office, is in many cases not correct under the existing Postal Regulations; whether persons living within the limits mentioned, but within the delivery of a local telegraphic sub-office, are compelled to pay porterage on telegrams delivered during the hours when the sub-office is closed, though porterage would not be payable if such sub-office did not exist; and whether he will put an end to this anomaly?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The hon. Member has not quite accurately stated the terms of the notice on the back of telegraph forms. It is as follows:—
  "The charge for transmission will cover the cost of delivery.
  "(a) If the address is within one mile from the Terminal Telegraph Office, or within the limits of the Town Postal delivery of that office when it is a Head Post Office."
  The terminal offices in the cases to which he refers are probably not Head Post Offices. But, if he will be good enough to send me particulars of the cases which he has in view, I shall be glad to have inquiry made and let him know the result.

  THE IRISH BANKRUPTCY LAW.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Cork Chamber of Shipping and Commerce, in which complaint is made that insolvent traders are enabled by the present state of the Bankruptcy Laws to prevent any effectual investigation of their affairs by petitioning the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin, and thus preventing proceedings in the Local Court of Bankruptcy: and whether the Government will facilitate legislation, making it necessary in the case of all traders within the jurisdiction of Local Courts of Bankruptcy to initiate legislation within such Courts?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not yet seen the Report referred to, but the suggestion which it contains is receiving the close consideration of the Government. I cannot undertake to facilitate legislation of the character suggested in the question, and I do not think that such legislation could be undertaken without further experience of the working of the local Bankruptcy Court.
  MR. M. HEALY: Do I understand the Government intend to offer opposition to legislation on this point initiated by private Members?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir; as at present advised.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen the report in the Essex Weekly News of the sentences passed by the Chelmsford Magistrates upon three prisoners, one of whom was a girl, who were all charged with robbing their employers, and were recommended to mercy, none of them having been previously convicted; upon what grounds was the girl sentenced without option of fine to two terms of one month's hard labour each for what was practically one offence, while the men were let off with a fine of 40s.; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances with a view to mitigating her sentence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen the report, and I have no information as to the case, but am making inquiry, and will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

  ENNISKILLEN BARRACKS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it has been determined by the authorities to erect new buildings for additional military accommodation at Enniskillen; if the ground plans have been prepared and approved by the Royal Engineer Department; if the probable estimate was roughly stated at £18,000; and if it be the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of this projected additional barrack accommodation; and, if not, will he state on what ground the scheme has been abandoned, or at whose suggestion?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: For military reasons it has been decided to locate more troops at Londonderry and less at Enniskillen. In these circumstances, it will not be necessary to increase the barrack accommodation at the latter town.

  MEETING AT BANDON.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions passed by a large and representative meeting held in Bandon on the 10th instant, which meeting was presided over by the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, and attended by the Dean of Cork and several clergymen of different denominations; and whether, in view of the present and further apprehended distress, as set forth in the resolutions, he will give immediate attention to the requests contained in the said resolutions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The resolutions referred to in the question do not appear to have been received, but the state of the locality is having careful consideration at the hands of the Government.

  LABOUR IN INDIAN FACTORIES.
  MR. J. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House assurances that the Government of India will pass into law a Bill to amend the Indian Factory Act before the Viceroy leaves Calcutta for Simla, and that the provisions of this Bill will include as a minimum the rules adopted at the International Labour Conference of Berlin regarding age, hours of labour, and hours of rest and refreshment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have to inform my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State in Council for India has been in communication with the Viceroy, and he is informed that legislation will be proceeded with immediately to amend the Indian Factory Act. The provisions of the Bill will follow, speaking generally, the recommendations of the International Labour Conference at Berlin, with this limitation—that it is proposed to raise the age for the employment of young children from seven (at which age they are now employed) to nine. The employment of women and children at night is to be prohibited, and the Secretary of State in Council has urged that the limits of work for children shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Berlin Conference.
  MR. MACLEAN: With reference to one point in the right hon. Gentleman's answer. May I ask him whether, as the minimum age of employment of children in some European countries was fixed at 10 years by the Conference at Berlin, and as Indian children are of a weaker and more delicate frame than children in European countries, the right hon. Gentleman will press upon the Indian Government the importance of fixing the minimum at 10 years instead of 9?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no hesitation in saying that the Secretary of State is impressing that view upon the Government of India, and will continue to do so.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the recommendations of the Berlin Conference were stated by that Conference not to be applicable to the case of a tropical country, and whether they are consistent with the people of India, or whether they are only urged upon the Government by a few Lancashire Members?
  MR. W. H SMITH: I am not aware of the limitation to which the hon. Member refers; but I am under the impression that the sole object the Government of India and the Secretary of State have in view is that the regulations of labour in factories in India is consonant with humanity and in the interests of the Indian people themselves.

  SMOKE ANNIHILATION.
  LORD ERNEST HAMILTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to Mr. Elliott's invention for the annihilation of smoke, now on view on the Thames Embankment; and whether it is the intention of the Government to give the invention a trial, with a view to the possibility of taking some steps to abate the smoke nuisance in the Metropolis?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not personally acquainted with the apparatus in question; but I am informed by the Metropolitan Police, whose duty it is to enforce the Acts relating to the smoke nuisance in the Metropolis, that smoke has been observed to issue from the chimney on the Thames Embankment, from which it may be inferred that the apparatus is not at all times successful.

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now name a day to be given for the purpose of debating the Resolution regarding the right of the public to access to uncultivated mountains and moorlands, which stood on the Paper last Tuesday, in the place of that day which the Government took for the purpose of Government business, having regard to the widespread interest felt in that Resolution in Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to fix a day for the Debate on the Resolution as to access to mountains.

  THE ALABAMA INDEMNITY.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that there is remaining in the hands of the Government of the United States of America a large sum out of the so-called Alabama indemnity, paid by this country to meet claims then to be made upon the Treasury of the United States; and if any request has been made on behalf of this country for the return of the sum thus admittedly ascertained to have been overpaid; if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will communicate with the Government of the United States on the subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is believed, from accounts which have been published in the United States, that a certain portion of the sum paid by Great Britain to the United States under the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva still remains in the hands of the United States Government. It would be contrary to the engagements taken by this country in the Treaty of Washington of 1871 that Her Majesty's Government should request the return of this sum.

  ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can arrange for Questions to be printed with the replies to them, and awaiting the arrival of Members at the House each day, so saving the time of the Members for other business?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: However desirable it may be that the time occupied by Questions and Answers in the

  847
  House should be economised I am not prepared to propose to the House that the Standing Orders should be altered, as any proposal of the kind suggested would involve a discussion leading to a considerable expenditure of time.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is now the intention of the Government to introduce this Session Bills for the establishment of District Councils, and for amending and consolidating the laws relating to the public health; and, if so, can he say when?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government hope to introduce within the next few days Bills to amend and consolidate the laws relating to the public health in the Metropolis, and they do not anticipate that the time at their disposal will enable them to deal this Session with these laws outside the Metropolis. The Government will be glad if they are able, by the progress of other business, to propose legislation this Session in connection with District Councils, but it entirely depends on the progress of Public Business.

  A QUEENSTOWN MEMORIAL TO THE ADMIRALTY.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to a report of a meeting of the Town Commissioners of Queenstown, which appeared in the Cork Examiner of the 12th instant, in which it is stated by the Town Clerk
  "That a Memorial had been prepared by a Joint Committee of the Commissioners, clergymen, magistrates, local gentlemen, and traders of the town and district, and duly signed by them, and submitted by a deputation to Admiral Erskine to be forwarded to the Admiralty. He (the Town Clerk) could not account for the non-receipt of the document at the Admiralty;"
  and has he, as yet, received the Memorial; and, if not, can he state why Admiral Erskine has not presented the document?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): My attention has been called to the report alluded to by the hon. Member. A Memorial was presented by a deputation to Admiral Erskine, and after some discussion the Deputation
  848
  announced their intention to amend the terms of their Memorial. Admiral Erskine understood that the Memorial would be amended by its authors, but they understood that the Admiral would make the amendments. It was owing to this misunderstanding that the Memorial was not forwarded at once. It has now been received at the Admiralty, and will be carefully considered.

  THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the fragmentary portion of the Motion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle dealing with the administration of the law in Ireland affirms nothing, and that no part of the Amendment has yet found its way on the Records of the House; whether the right hon. Gentleman will fix a day for the discussion of the subject; or whether the Government wish to allow the question to remain in the condition in which it stands?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are perfectly satisfied with the Debate. If the hon. Member and his friends desire another Debate in which they can exercise their right of speaking, considering that they were shut out of it last night, it will be a subject for the consideration of the Government whether they shall proceed further in the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken on Thursday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall ask the House to consider the Army Estimates.
  MR. J. MORLEY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to begin the Committee stage of the Land Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the first necessity of the House at present is Supply. A certain amount of Supply has to be obtained before Easter, and until we obtain this Supply we cannot proceed with business of importance. There will be small matters introduced between Supply; but the progress of Supply will be the main business next week.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether it is true, as stated by the man Sadler, who is charged in connection with the Whitechapel murder, in the course of his cross-examination, that he was not in good trim to cross-examine as he was cold and hungry, that he repeated the statement over and over again; and whether it is the custom to bring prisoners to the police-courts who have had nothing to eat?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir. It is not true. The Commissioner of Police informs me that Sadler had his regular meals on Sunday, and his breakfast on Monday. His dinner on Monday was being prepared for him when he was summoned to the Court. He had it afterwards.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Then how is it that Superintendent Arnold, when the man complained, said to him, "You shall have something."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I really cannot answer as to Superintendent Arnold's motives.

  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Return relating to Brewers' Licences (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 345, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]

  SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered—
  "From each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, containing, in columns, the names of the Officers, their respective salaries, and other allowances, if any; the amount of security each gives; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to Depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; the rate of interest paid to Depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of Depositors; and the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund, on the 20th day of November, 1890; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management; the annual number of receipts from Depositors; the annual number of payments; the average amount of receipts; the average amount of payments; the number and amount
  850
  of annuities granted; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries, for the year ended the 20th day of November, 1890; also the year in which business commenced in each Bank, and the name of the day or days, and the number of hours in the week, on which the Banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of moneys; including in such Return a list of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such Banks, as well as the number and amount of Depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the Officers of such Banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such Banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their Depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same Banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the form of the Return, for each separate county, as well as collectively, for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and for the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 219, of Session 1890).—(Mr. Maclure.)

  EAST INDIA COUNCIL.
  Address for—
  "Returns of the names of the Members of the Council of India, with dates of appointment according to seniority, stating in succession to whom appointed, and ages last birthday; whether having served or resided any time in India, and, if in the service, in what branch, and from and to what rates; the annual amount of any pay, pension, civil fund, or other allowance now received for such Indian Service; the salary and allowance received as Member of the Council; the total annual receipt of each from the Indian Treasury."
  "Of the Secretaries of the several Correspondence Departments, and of the Accountant General, Director General of Stores, Government Directors of Indian Railways, Director of Funds and Agent to the Administrators General of India, Registrar and Superintendent of Records, Librarian, and Auditor of the Accounts of the Secretary of State in Council."
  "And, of the different Committees the Council is divided into, and of the Names of the Members of each Committee, with the dates of their appointment thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper (East India Council) No. 224, of Session 1877)."—(Mr. Hurt.)

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following six Members to be the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing

  851
  Order XLIX.:—Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Walter Barttelot, Sir Henry James, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and Mr. Salt.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MOTIONS.

  QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS (GUARDIANS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Morton, Bill to amend the Law relating to the qualifications of Voters for Guardians of the Poor in England and Wales, and to provide for the election of such Guardians by ballot, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morton, Mr. Burt, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Priestly, and Mr. Bowen Rowlands.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 217.]

  TRUST INVESTMENT ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Oldroyd, Bill to amend "The Trust Investment Act, 1889," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Oldroyd, Lord Brooke, Mr. Curzon, Mr. Gully, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and Mr. Rowntree.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 218.]

  CHILD LIFE INSURANCE REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Parker Smith, Bill for the Registration of Insurances on the lives of Children in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. Charles Parker, Mr. Thorburn, and Mr. John Wilson (Lanark).
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 219.]

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: Mr. Speaker, in moving
  "That Standing Order No. LI., be amended by inserting after the words 'Ways and Means,' the words 'or the Committee on the Indian Financial Statement,'"
  I do not think it will be necessary for me to trespass very long upon the attention of the House. The object of the Motion is very simple: it is to replace the House in the position in regard to debate on matters of general interest, in connection with India, it was in previous to the passing of the Standing Order No. 51 on the 28th of February, 1888. Standing Order No. LI., which was passed with very little debate and without any opposition, runs thus:—
  "That whenever an Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into
  852
  Committee (not being a Committee to consider a message from the Crown, or the Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means) Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question.''
  I propose to insert certain words which will save from, this clause the discussion on the Indian Budget. I shall be able to show, first of all, that this alteration in the procedure of this House which took place on the 28th of February, 1888, was altogether unwarranted and uncalled for; secondly, that it is useless; and, lastly, that it is invidious. In regard to the first point, it may be satisfactory if I turn for a moment to the Debate upon the Rules of Procedure to find what were the objects with which the change in the Standing Order was effected. The objects were briefly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The object of the change is to prevent a repetition of discussion on the principles of a Bill on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair. It has been found," he added, "that the Motion that you leave the Chair is greatly abused, and there is a general agreement that a Second Reading Debate should not occur twice over."
  I think there are very few Members in the House—if, indeed, there is one—who will take exception to the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. I certainly do not take exception to it; but I think it can very easily be shown that that argument has no application whatever to the alteration of the Rule in so far as it regards the discussion of Indian subjects. That can very easily be shown by reference to the history of past years. I also wish to note, it would seem, from the course of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that it was not specially intended to cover the Debate on Indian topics by this change in the Standing Order. Certainly, at a subsequent period, when it was found that this change had that effect, the leader of the House showed distinctly he was of opinion that the discussion of general topics in connection with India should not fall within the scope of the change. What is the condition of things now that this change has been effected, and how does it contrast with the state of things which existed before the change was effected? I have ascertained from the Debates of the House all the occasions

  853
  on which, during the 10 years preceding 1890, there has been any discussion whatever on Indian topics in this House. The change occurred in 1888, and, going back to the seven years before 1888, when it was within the competency of the Members of the House to discuss any topic of general interest in connection with India on the Motion that you do leave the Chair, I find that in the seven years there were two occasions when no advantage whatever was taken of the Rule. In five other years advantage was taken of the Rule. But what was the effect upon the time of the House? In 1887 there was only one speech made on the question. In 1886 no discussion took place; in 1885 no discussion took place. In the four earlier years there was a discussion; but it will be found, if you look into the facts of the case, that the discussion on the occasions when there was a Debate on the question that you do leave the Chair was not very prolonged. In 1890 we spent 5 hours and 19 minutes in Committee on the East Indian Accounts. In 1889 we spent something less than six hours, and in 1888 a little more than seven, hours. The longest discussion was in 1885, when we spent very nearly nine hours in discussing Indian affairs. But when one comes to take into consideration the great importance of the affairs of the Dependency, there can be no reason for any action on the part of the responsible officers or leader of this House for shortening the time for the discussion of Indian affairs. In the last 10 years we have not devoted 15 hours in each Session to a discussion of Indian affairs. There are a number of topics which, are of far less importance to this great country than those connected with India which are debated at much greater length, and it seems to me altogether improper and irregular that a change of this nature should have been allowed to affect the consideration of Indian subjects. I said the change was entirely useless, and I will show why. Under the Standing Orders of the House it is quite possible for every Member who chooses to incur the displeasure of the House to make a Motion respecting India on the question that the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and thus interpose himself between the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement.
  854
  Then, I say, the change creates an invidious distinction, because the position of India, as regards this House, is altogether different to that of other Dependencies. We have assumed the entire responsibility of determining what shall be the expenditure of that great country, and, therefore, it is not right and proper that we should treat the matters connected with the expenditure of India in a different manner to that in which we treat our own matters. I think it has a very unfortunate effect upon the people of India when, first of all, it is noticed how little time is allotted to the discussion of Indian subjects, and, secondly, how we treat the question of the Indian Budget. I am not now going to discuss the propriety or otherwise of our Indian Debates being taken at the fag end of the Session; it seems hardly necessary that they should be so taken; but whether that is necessary or not, it is quite obvious that the change which has occurred in the Standing Order is not one of which we can approve. I hope the House will see the desirability and propriety of going back to the old state of things. I hope I shall have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the House and the assent of all hon. Members. This is no Party question at all. No question connected with India can be a Party question. We are all deeply interested in doing our duty by that country, whose resources we are so proud of, and whose position is so affected by our discussions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Standing Order No. LI., be amended by inserting after the words 'Ways and Means,' the words 'or the Committee on the Indian, Financial Statement.'"—(Sir William Plowden.)
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I rise to second the Motion, and I appeal to Her Majesty's Ministers to give it a favourable consideration. There is no doubt whatever that the Motion is in absolute accord with the opinions and the earnest wishes of every class of Her Majesty's subjects in India, whether native or European, official or non-official. Everyone in India wishes to see more, rather than less, attention given in the House of Commons to Indian matters, for in the long run the House of Commons really rules the destinies of the Indian Empire. The wishes of all

  855
  classes in India have been freely expressed in Petitions, and those who follow, as I do, from week to week the Indian Press, will know that there is no subject which excites the interest of the public in India more than the desire that Indian subjects should be taken up in the House of Commons more generally than is now the case. I have had a Motion on the Paper almost identical with that which the hon. Gentleman has moved ever since the day that I discovered the real effect of the change in the Standing Order. At first, in common, I believe, with almost all the Members of the House, except those who are very well versed in its procedure, I was absolutely ignorant of the effect of the change. In 1888 I never realised the effect of the change. Every other part of the British Empire has a right to have its affairs discussed at least on one occasion during the year. The grievances of the Mauritius, or the Falkland Islands, or any other island in the Empire, can be discussed, for instance, on the Vote for the Salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Surely, when we compare the importance of India with that of any other part of the British Dominions, it is right that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing any grievances that may exist in India. Hon. Members will remember that no Indian salaries, as such, are voted in this House. We vote the whole of the Indian expenditure en bloc, as it were. That, however, ought not to be given as a reason why we should not have an opportunity of entering into Indian grievances and discussing them: The only argument I have ever heard advanced in support of the existing rule is, that the discussion of Indian affairs in this House is generally based on a certain amount of ignorance and sometimes of prejudice. I do not agree at all with that view. I am quite aware that a large number of the Members of this House are not as entirely familiar with the affairs of India as they are with affairs at home, or perhaps with the affairs of some of the colonies; but I maintain that with the good sound judgment and common sense which is at all times brought to bear in the House of Commons on Indian subjects, especially when Anglo-Indian Members venture to submit them to the consideration of the House, the people of India
  856
  are quite satisfied, and usually find they derive very great and real benefits there-from. It has been pointed out that from time immemorial up to 1888 the right for which we are asking was possessed. It is perfectly evident to anyone who reads the Debate on the Motion for the change of the rule that it was not realised that the change would affect the Indian Budget. No one seemed to realise that this would practically preclude the House from taking notice of Indian affairs. I well remember that the very year when the Indian Budget came on I came down to the House with my pocket full of letters and extracts received from friends in many parts of India. I am not sufficiently egotistical to believe that any good would have resulted from what I might have said, but, still, there were many people in India who thought that their views and their grievances ought to be submitted to the House. What happened? I was called to order very rightly by the Chairman of Committees. I stumbled and stumbled on, not knowing exactly why I was out of order, and was called to order a second time. Finally, I had to give up the attempt to call attention to the subjects which had been intrusted to me, and to devote myself to the consideration of the Financial Statement alone. The Indian Financial Statement is not one of a kind that lends itself to very free discussion. It deals with immense figures, relating to subjects of the greatest importance I admit, but it is impossible to devote to it that amount of discussion that would properly attach to every other topic in connection with India. The financial details have been already settled, and there is little to be said upon them. It is on the other details of administration that the common sense and good judgment of this House should be exercised, and for that reason I think the Government will be well advised if they give a favourable hearing to the proposition of my hon. Friend opposite, and allow a reversion to the old and immemorial usages of this House to take place with reference to Indian questions.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: This is a question on which the Government would like to consult the general opinion of the House. If the general opinion of Members is in favour of the

  857
  change proposed, it would scarcely be seemly for the Government to make any strong objection. It is rather the duty of the Executive Government to invite criticism on its action, and it is not for the Government to lay down in what particular form or circumstances the House can best criticise its conduct. I think the hon. Member who moved this Motion took rather a gloomy view of the possibilities of Indian discussion when he limited them to the Budget night. Since I have had a seat in this House I know that Indian questions have not only been discussed on the Indian Budget night, but, according to the fortune of the ballot, have found a place on many other evenings throughout the Session. Here we are to-night discussing Indian questions on one of the earliest and best opportunities in the Session. But it is true that the Indian Budget night is the only night on which discussion can be absolutely ensured by any Member who has an Indian question to discuss, and it is for those independent Members who wish to bring Indian questions under Parliamentary discussion to consider how the Indian Budget night can be best utilised for their purposes. It is generally a night towards the end of the Session. The effect of the 51st Standing Order is that the night is devoted to one subject to the exclusion of all others, and that is the discussion of the finances of India. I do not know whether it is the opinion of Members generally that it is essential that the finances of India shall be discussed in this House. If they are to be discussed, the Indian Budget is certainly the occasion on which they can be debated, as the Standing Order ensures that the sole business of that night, to the exclusion of all others, shall be the discussion of the finances. There are, no doubt, a great many subjects relative to India that are not connected with finance. Any discussion upon them has been very properly ruled out of order by the Chairman, and no doubt during the last few years Members have been confined to the consideration of the finances with such rigour as the duty of the Chairman has compelled him to apply. If Members who take part in the discussion would rather have a wider field for their utterances,
  858
  and would wish to discuss every question connected with Indian administration, the adoption of the alteration of the Standing Order proposed by the hon. Gentleman will give them a chance, but a chance only, of their raising such discussion, because the House must remember that if Amendments are allowed to the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, the cream of the evening may be taken up by the Member who is so lucky as to get his name first down on the Notice Paper. That Member will be able, if he wishes, to take the sense of the House at a time when the Government forces are unusually strong, and when the sense of the House is likely to be against him. But we must also remember that this question which absorbs the whole evening may be a question which affects only half a dozen Indian officials or a question concerning a handful of Indian capitalists, whom I suppose the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) would call the people of India.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I?
  SIR J. GORST: Or it may be a question which really affects the welfare of the 270,000,000 or 280,000,000 of people whom the Government represent; but whether it is a large question or a small question it may take up the whole of the time of the House to the exclusion of whatever discussion of the finances may be desired on the Budget. It is really for the House to consider whether it will confine the discussion on the Indian Budget to the Budget itself, or allow the wider scope which the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion advocate, but which may result in an unpractical and desultory conversation on a variety of unconnected Indian topics occupying that time which the Standing Order at present devotes exclusively to finance.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had rendered the House a little more assistance by advising us what should be done. It seems to me that, considering that there are 270,000,000 or 280,000,000 of the Queen's subjects in India, we devote uncommonly

  859
  little attention to them, and I think some more attention should be given to their interests. This matter is becoming everyday more urgent, because the people of India are feeling more and more the necessity of having their interests guarded. The people of India see that the House of Commons is capable of applying almost as many hours to preventing the people of Dublin moving a pillar as they devote in a Session to the interests of the 270,000,000 of the Queen's subjects in India, and they desire that the House of Commons should discover some manner in which Indian grievances shall be considered in this House. The figures brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Sir W. Plowden) are very striking. They are not creditable to the manner in which India is dealt with by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has said that if we were to allow Members to bring forward Indian grievances they might occupy much time, and the Under Secretary might not be able to begin his Budget speech until the dinner hour.
  SIR J. GORST: No, I make my Statements in print now.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At all events the right hon. Gentleman said it might throw the financial discussion back. Well, but is it absolutely impossible that in the course of the Session two days should be devoted to India? I think India is worth two days of the time of the House of Commons, and therefore I do not think that is a subject which ought necessarily to stand in our way. I am not speaking from the point of view of one who desires that Indian subjects should become a constant battlefield of discussion in this House. I do not think that is desirable from any point of view. We do not here undertake particular administrations in India in the same way as we undertake particular administrations in the United Kingdom, but, on the other hand, what opportunities now arise of dealing with Indian questions? We all know that on the Colonial Votes that come on under the Estimates, there are constant opportunities of discussion, but of course Indian expenditure does not come under the consideration of the House of Commons in the same manner. I will not myself attempt to propose any method of dealing
  860
  with this matter. I think it is one highly deserving the attention of the House, but I express no strong opinion on it. As far as I can see there is no objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, which at all events would give a definite opportunity of bringing forward any question of this kind. There may be gentlemen here who understand the matter better than I do, who may think that something else might be done. At all events I think it is a matter extremely deserving of the attention of the House.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Though I give credit to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir W. Plowden), and to the hon. Member for North Kensington, for having brought this subject forward, nevertheless as a practical man I submit to the House that the present plan is far and away the best, because by it one first-rate discussion is secured and devoted to a practical purpose from the first, and to a Debate which relates to the whole of India. Whereas, under the plan of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton the whole evening might be devoted to miscellaneous matters which might or might not be important, and some of which might interest only particular persons who put them forward. Instead of discussing the large matter of Imperial finance, we should be discussing all sorts of grievances which might or might not be fit to occupy the attention of this House. Of course if, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), two evenings could be devoted to Indian affairs so much the better. But even then the better plan is to say that the discussions should be devoted to definite matters of Imperial concern. In reference to all this I submit that there is no good whatever in our following the old English method of disparaging ourselves, and I should be very sorry that the natives of India should suppose from to-day's discussion that this House of Commons, or this Parliament, has at all neglected or been inattentive to the interests of India. Quite irrespective of the Indian Budget Debates and the hours of discussion to which my hon. Friend opposite has referred, it will be found that this Parliament has every Session

  861
  devoted part of many evenings to vivid and forceful discussions of Indian affairs. I venture to say that the subjects so discussed have been of the very greatest importance to many of our fellow-subjects. We can no longer Debate Indian topics on the Address to the Throne, but we can still day by day put questions to the responsible Minister at Question time in the House, and very often this questioning is an effective way of bringing forward Indian subjects. Besides that, we can ballot for a position on the Notice Paper. There are many Members of the House who take an interest in Indian subjects, and if they all ballot they will secure an evening. Besides those who like myself have lived in India, there is a large and increasing number of Members who take an interest in that country, though they have never been there. Under these circumstances there is no danger of the interests of the great Dependency being neglected.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Except that I was sitting opposite the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, I have not the slightest idea why he fixed a dart in me. I was listening with interest and appreciation to his argument when I understood him to suggest that the Member for Kirkcaldy called small knots of capitalists the people of India. The Member for Kirkcaldy is the very last person to do such a thing. On the contrary, any efforts I have been able to make in this House on the subject have been devoted to the purpose of protecting the people of India against knots of capitalists. I generally agree very much with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir W. Plowden) on most topics, and especially on Indian topics, but I must say that on the present topic I am not much with him, and on this broad ground: that I am inclined to think that the less the House of Commons interferes with Indian affairs the better. An hon. Friend of mine opposite said that some people who took an interest in India were apt to be influenced by ignorance or prejudice. I will not say much about ignorance; what I am most afraid of is prejudice. I have noticed in this House that the strongest influences which are brought to bear on India are those exercised by prejudice, and those of a personal
  862
  character. I do not think I need go further in illustration of this view than the subject of the Indian Factories Act. Who are those who take the greatest interest in the question of the Indian Factories Act? They are the rivals of the Indian manufacturers—the manufacturers of Lancashire. The questions which are put on this subject are almost invariably put by Lancashire Members. The First Lord of the Treasury told us that to some extent he accepted the views of these hon. Members, and that he had pressed their views on the Government of India; and he told us that the Secretary of State had urged on the Government of India the desirability of prohibiting night work for women and children. We know that work of that kind was a disputable question in this country; but those who are acquainted with tropical climates are aware that night is often the best time for work, and that work is done at night, the day being devoted to rest. I am quite sure that the First Lord of the Treasury, humane man as he is, would never have advocated such a course except under the influence of ignorance and pressure from hon. Members. Therefore it is that I am not anxious that great facilities should be afforded for the discussion of Indian matters in this House. Feeling that such matters would be discussed to a certain extent to the exclusion of other subjects which we already have too little time to discuss, Parliament in its wisdom has thought fit to delegate great powers to a body sitting not far from here, and the principal duty imposed by law on them is that of controlling the expenditure of money by the Secretary of State. I certainly feel the force of that which has been urged on the House by other Members, namely, that if you go into all sorts of discussions on all sorts of subjects—all sorts of personal grievances which will crop up—on the Budget night it will be impossible to discuss Indian finance in the future as you have discussed it in the past. It is clear to my mind that if you accept this Motion it must be on the understanding suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that instead of having one night you must have two for Indian questions—one for grievances and the other for the Indian

  863
  Budget. If we delegated our duties to local bodies—as I hope one day to see them delegated—and could afford to give one or two additional nights to Indian subjects then, I hope, Members in this House would become better informed as to Indian subjects, and the number of Members who really do desire the welfare of India would preponderate over those who act on prejudice. Under such circumstances, if great good is not done to India, at any rate no great harm will be done. Therefore, I await the decision of the House merely submitting my own view, that I do not think it desirable that the House should have too much control over India, or that too much time should be devoted to the discussion of Indian subjects, until we have sufficiently delegated our duties in the matter.
  SIR R. FOWLER: This Debate has recalled to my mind the recollection of the late Mr. Fawcett, and I think my hon. Friends near me will testify that he had as much knowledge of Indian affairs as could be gained without residence in India. Hon. Members will recollect that it was his habit to bring forward Indian matters in connection with the Indian Budget, and on those occasions he addressed the House in speeches of length and fulness, such as would have been remarkable in any man, and suffering as he did from his physical infirmity perfectly marvellous. I heard these then, and look back upon them now with astonishment. At that time the discussions were taken on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. I know there is one argument against this course—that towards the end of the Session the labours of the occupant of the Chair are very great, and that these discussions involve an additional strain upon the Speaker as distinguished from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but at the same time I must admit there are great advantages in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite. My hon. Friend has said he has found himself unable to enter upon certain subjects in connection with India, because the Chairman of Ways and Means has ruled that he could only refer to matters connected with the financial question, and I think there are a good many questions which might be discussed with advantage on such occasions if a rather more liberal interpretation
  864
  were accorded. There is the question of irrigation, for instance, which might be supposed to have an indirect connection with finance, and there are many cognate subjects which might be better discussed on the general Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; and recognising the great advantage there was in this respect when such was the practice 15 or 16 years ago, in Mr. Fawcett's time, and feeling that there has been less advantage in the system pursued in later years, I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham has expressed an apprehension lest the effect of Debates in this House read in India should give natives of India the impression that the House is becoming less and less interested in their affairs than the House ought to be. Now, I am bound to say in reply to that remark that it will not be from these Debates that the natives of India will have their attention called to this matter, because any hon. Member who has travelled in India, like myself, will confirm what I am going to say, that there is no topic which an Englishman, and especially if he happens to be a Member of Parliament, has more frequently brought to his attention than this discontent, this regret on the part of the people of India that the House of Commons takes so little interest in their affairs, I never remember having a conversation with an intelligent native in which this subject did not come up, and you find them saying, "You must be far from sensible of the great responsibility which rests upon you, and of the great honour you claim it is to be the holders of such an Empire, judging from the small amount of time you find for the discussion of Indian affairs." It is a matter of very great concern, and there are not a few Members here who do feel the greatness of their responsibility—and who would willingly take whatever opportunity the proceedings of the House afford to bring Indian affairs to the knowledge of the British public. I am far from wishing to see the House of Commons interfering more actively in the duties of Indian Government than now. I do not think that any of us differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir

  865
  G. Campbell), that it is undesirable that the House of Commons should endeavour to supersede the Government of India or interfere actively with the duties of the Indian Government. It is Lot at all on that ground that my hon. Friend has made his Motion. His view is that what is wanted is not that this House should interfere directly, but that the House should give mandatory directions to the Indian Government that it should give more attention to, and be more tolerant of, Indian grievances than it is now, and provide better means for bringing the complaints of the Indian people before the British people, not necessarily with a view to action by this House, but in order that the people of India may feel that the facts of their condition are fairly known and studied. Now, the question is, whether this is best effected by having a power of general discussion before the House goes into Committee on the Indian Budget. It has been very fairly stated, Sir, that a discussion with you in the Chair might have a tendency to wander, but there are two or three points connected with our procedure which have a bearing on this question. It is not possible late in the Session for Private Members to secure an opportunity for raising a discussion, and, indeed, even at the commencement of the Session, as some of us from recent experience have found, the rights of Private Members are very uncertain. But towards the close of the Session, after the middle of May, it is extremely difficult for Private Members to obtain any opportunity of bringing questions forward in the House, and not only so, but in regard to Indian questions it is very difficult to keep a House together. As the House knows, towards the period of the year I have mentioned it is the practice of the Government to take Morning Sittings, and it is not easy to bring 40 Members back to the House at 9 o'clock to make a House for an Indian Debate. It is a misfortune, for there are many Indian questions that well deserve Debate; but Members, disappointed of their opportunity in May, June, or July find their only chance upon the Indian Budget. That is a strong reason for allowing this greater latitude for which the Motion pleads. It seems to me that even more material than the particular technical question as to the width of
  866
  the discussion upon the Indian Budget is the bringing the Budget forward earlier in the Session. The suggestion has been thrown out that the Government ought to give two days for the discussion, and I hope that that expresses the general view. If that suggestion be adopted, it certainly will be an argument in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend, because the Government will no doubt feel that it is desirable to give the two days at the earliest possible period in the Session. Of course in the last days of the Session the discussion has to be crowded into one night, but if taken earlier then two days might fairly be occupied. On the whole, I think the balance of argument, looking to the fact that we have to satisfy public opinion in India and to show that we are sensible of our responsibilities towards India, is in favour of the Motion.
  MR. CONYBEARE: When I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy I was inclined to exclaim "Is Saul, also, among the prophets?" The Anglo-Indian official view is not one I feel inclined to adopt. The usual Anglo-Indian official view is that India is governed in the best of all possible ways, and that it is difficult or impossible to discover any means of bettering the condition of the Indian people. Now we cannot all speak with practical experience and knowledge of India, but I am perfectly certain that the great majority of Members who do attend in any degree whatever to the statements and facts they may gather from all sources as to the condition of the people of India must come to this conclusion, that however proud we may be of the great system of administration our forefathers have built up in India, and I in no way wish to depreciate it, yet it falls far short of what it might be expected to be if we relied on the optimistic Anglo-Saxon official view. It is not merely the financial condition of India we wish to bring before the House; that is done adequately enough by the few specialists capable of dealing with the figures in an Indian Budget. We cannot leave out of view the social condition of the people of India, and it is to this we want to call the attention of the people of this country and to enlighten them, through the medium of Debate, upon the con-

  867
  dition of our fellow subjects in India. I am inclined to think that few of our people realise what a terrible condition of poverty is that of the greater part of the 270,000,000 of our fellow subjects in India. The average earnings of each inhabitant of these islands is £41 per annum, but the average earnings of an Indian subject of Her Majesty is £2 a year. There are many other facts which might be adduced in proof of the terribly poverty-stricken condition of the people, which suggests that something should be done to stem the constant drain of wealth out of India at present going on. If this were a time to go into details it would be possible to show by accumulated instances the enormous suffering caused by the constantly recurring famines—I will not say the result of our government, but which surely our government has not done enough to prevent. I do not say we are at fault in relieving distress when famine occurs, but we have not been successful in rooting out the causes of these famines, and it is well the light of public opinion should be directed to the subject. So far as I am able to gather, though I confess my statistics are not altogether reliable or complete, the condition of the people in the native-governed portions of India is far more satisfactory than the condition of the people in those parts immediately under British administration. That surely shows that the causes of the poverty of which we complain and the terribly depressed social condition of the people are not to be found in the inherent qualities of the people or conditions of climate, but may be traced to maladministration or defects in our system. But the question before us is whether we shall return to what was the old Constitutional practice in regard to Indian affairs. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is anxious that this House should not have too much control over Indian affairs, and he fears the ignorance and prejudice that exist on the subject. We do not, however, as has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, want to take away the responsibility and power exercised by the India Office, but so far as the system of Government emanating from the India Office is concerned, I say the proceedings ought to be subjected to the light of public opinion. Everything
  868
  is done in a hole-and-corner manner. We ought to know what the Indian Council is doing, how it conducts the affairs of this great Empire, and I hope the time for this publicity is coming. As to ignorance and prejudice, we know how prejudice has been excited by the rivalry that the Indian cotton manufacturers have established with our home manufacturers, and how, by the development of the cotton industry, Bombay has become a manufacturing city equal to many in this country. We can understand the selfish interests brought to bear against formidable rivals in India, and these influences being exercised in an underhand, backstairs sort of way, we cannot cope with them so long as we are unable to bring the facts before the House. The effect of free discussion in this House would be to stamp with a sense of responsibility those who otherwise might conduct administration to the prejudice of our Indian fellow subjects. I am quite sure that public opinion in this country would be against the exercise of any influence from these selfish trade motives. An excessively small amount of time is devoted here to Indian affairs. I think it has been estimated at 14 hours in a Session for all subjects affecting India. Now, I do not think it is too much to insist upon, that two regular days should be devoted to Indian affairs, one day for the discussion of general questions on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and the other day to the specific subjects connected with finance. The Ballot for private Members interested in Indian subjects is an uncertain process, and even when the day is secured the Government steps in frequently and confiscates the opportunity. We know, too, that in the latter part of the Session it is well-nigh impossible, by the influence of a private Member, to keep a House together for an Indian Debate. I do not want to elaborate the various suggestions made, but there is one suggestion I offer. There is a complaint of ignorance of Indian matters in the House, that Members do not make themselves acquainted with the geography, language, and social conditions of the people, and there is a desire for more information on Indian affairs. It is not possible for many Members to avail themselves of the oppor-

  869
  tunity of travelling in India during the Recess; but I throw out the suggestion that if the Government would place at the disposal of Members berths in some of Her Majesty's ships, there would thus be afforded a ready means of acquiring knowledge, by personal visits, of our great Indian Dependency. I am prepared to have this suggestion met with a laugh; but have we not at this present moment notices in different parts of the House offering facilities to Members to view the launch at Portsmouth, and in the Jubilee Year were not other facilities offered of this nature? I am not in the least alarmed by the fear expressed that important Indian questions may be dragged through the mire of partisan debate. What is required is the ampler discussion of Indian affairs generally, so that free ventilation may be given for all real or supposed grievances. I am certain that much good will result to India from the confidence inspired by the knowledge that an increasing number of people in this country take a lively and sympathetic interest in Indian affairs.
  MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: I have always taken an interest in Indian matters, for I represent a country which, like India, is under British rule, bat outside the pale of the British Constitution. We always hear from Anglo-Indian officers that the natives of India are contented and happy; but they are nothing of the kind, and would be foolish if they were. The Government of India is in the hands of a few officials, and Debate in this House was restricted in 1888, just about the time when Mr. Bradlaugh got his mandate from the people of India to take up their cause. Debate is restricted by being taken in Committee on the Budget, and I well remember how this operated when the hon. Member for Shoreditch wished to draw attention to proceedings in India for the authorisation of vice. That had nothing to do with the Budget question, and was accordingly ruled out of order. Similarly, when the hon. Member who seconded the Motion and who has taken great interest in educational matters in India, and has done a great deal to solve the problem as to how far we are able to bring western education and ideas into harmony with eastern life—when this hon. Gentleman thought he was
  870
  quite within his rights in giving the House some idea from his special knowledge on that subject, he was at once ruled out of order. And a Member of the Government opposite who is a deputy Chairman, I remember, on the Budget of 1889, exercised his legitimate rights, as he thought, and endeavoured to give expression to his views on Indian Government and the Indian National Congress, but he had hardly uttered half a dozen words when he was called to order. I wish to show how Debate is stifled in this House not only by irresponsible Members like myself being ruled out of order, but by even Members of the Government being treated in the same way. I think that what took place on the last Budget was the most emphatic condemnation of discussion of all. I have here a speech by Mr. Bradlaugh—whose presence here we all of us, no matter on what side we sit, were always glad to see, and who was an upright and honourable man, and a great acquisition to the House. I am sure that, of all Members of the House, the First Lord of the Treasury will pay attention to what Mr. Bradlaugh had to say on the subject, for we all recollect with pleasure that in Mr. Bradlaugh's closing hours the right hon. Gentleman forgot all the enmity of party, and wished to tender to the dying man all sympathy and regard. The Chairman of Ways and Means will remember calling Mr. Bradlaugh to order, with great pain. He would have liked to have heard what Mr. Bradlaugh had to say on this most interesting topic, if his speech could have come into consonance with the ruling of the Chair. We all know that, of all matters, the one which has affected Indian trade most materially was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th March, when he proposed to abolish the silver plate duty. Mr. Bradlaugh wished to direct attention to the probable consequences to Indian finance of that abolition, and at once the Chairman said "I do not know how this concerns the finance of India." And then, further, we have a still more important point. Mr. Bradlaugh wished to direct attention to the operation of the salt syndicate in still further increasing the Salt Tax in India, which is one of the worst and vilest taxes of the Indian

  871
  Government, and a tax which we alone, of all people, impose upon a native race, and one which was referred to only the other day as a specimen of our rule in India. Again the Chairman said, "I cannot see how that is relevant to the subject before the House." Referring to the point that all matters connected with the salt syndicate were outside the scope of the discussion, Mr. Bradlaugh said—
  "The moment you say that, it is my duty to accept, as I always do with profound respect, the ruling you give, but it then becomes my duty to appeal to this Committee, when it is sitting as a House, to give at least once a year as, by the old custom, always was given, some opportunity during which the representatives of a defenceless nation may put before Parliament their criticism of the official statement made and some reasons for the grievances pointed out."
  Those words are more eloquent coming from a man in the grave than they would have been if we had still his kindly presence amongst us. I do not see how the Under Secretary for India can at all, even by implication, limit to one night the discussion of questions affecting the interests of 270,000,000 people who themselves have no voice whatever in this House. So far back as 1873, when Indian subjects did not excite the amount of interest they do at present, the Indian Budget took three nights. I am sure the First Lord of the Treasury would be glad to consult public opinion in India, and would be glad to show to the natives that he takes some interest in their welfare. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to speak—as I see he will immediately—he will take note of and consider the opinions of Gentlemen on all sides of the House, and those of Mr. Bradlaugh, to which I have directed attention. On all these grounds I respectfully hope, having regard to the magnitude of the question, and to the scant attention given to Indian matters, that the right hon. Gentleman will at once say that the Government will accede, and gracefully accede, to this Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I have listened with great interest to the conversation—it cannot be called a Debate—which has been taking place during the past hour and a
  872
  half. I find that there is almost a universal concensus of opinion on the part of those who have been responsible for the government of India in any sense, and that there is no desire, whatever, to interfere with the actual administration of affairs in India. The only difference of opinion which has been expressed has been by gentlemen who have hitherto had no responsibility for that Government. The desire we have had in limiting the Debate on the Indian Budget has been to insure the discussion of Indian Finance. It appears now to be generally the opinion of hon. Gentlemen in this House that it is even more important to secure an opportunity for dealing with the grievances of India than to discuss Indian finance. At the same time we do not desire to escape from the discussion of these Indian grievances although we disavow all intention of interfering with Indian administration. If the Debate we have had this evening is circulated in India, I am afraid it will not give the people of India generally a very high opinion of the knowledge and information that this House possesses on Indian subjects, or that they are able to suggest any very pratical method by which the grievances—if they are grievances—can be remedied. I remark that one hon. Gentleman, who spoke in this Debate, said that discussion in this House would probably tend to uproot the causes of famine in India. I have always understood that those causes were drought, and it struck me as very remarkable in the House that any hon. Gentleman should get up and say that a resolution or discussion here could avert those terrible calamities, which are certainly due to causes far beyond any human control. I observe that an hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I wish he could have the responsibility of governing some district in India and would state for himself how he could avert a drought there by any Resolution like this. I only refer to this remark of an hon. Member to show how thoroughly impracticable are some views on the great questions that affect the Indian people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pressed on Her Majesty's Government the expediency of yielding to the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Well, this

  873
  is not a matter on which the Government desire to oppose the appeal of hon. Gentlemen if they wish to discuss questions other than those of finance on the annual occasion when the Indian Budget is presented to the House. There would be no desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to shut out these questions. The arrangement now in force is the one which best secures the consideration of the finances of India, for which undoubtedly the Government of India is responsible. If, however, in the opinion of hon. Members and of the House, there are questions which should precede the consideration of the finances of India it is certainly not for the Government to interpose any obstacle. I notice that one hon. Member desired that those matters should be discussed at an earlier period than we are accustomed to take, but the House is aware that the actual figures on which the Indian Budget is framed do not arrive from India until the month of June is far advanced, and in the month of June the condition of public business is such that it is almost impossible to interpose a Debate of one or two days in the Debate on some Bill which is before the House, and which it is necessary to press for the consideration of. It is not in our option to present the Indian Budget for consideration at a very much earlier period than at present, and if it is relegated to a late period of the Session it is a circumstance which we regret but which we are unable to prevent. My desire is that hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with and have an interest in this subject, should have a full opportunity of dealing with it when the occasion arises, because there is no doubt that questions of very great importance to their fellow subjects in India frequently occur—questions upon which they undoubtedly ought to have the means of expressing not only their own views and opinions but those which they know to be entertained in India.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  EAST INDIA (PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.)
  MR. BUCHANAN: I rise, Sir, to call attention to the Presidential system of Government in India; and to move—
  874
  "That, in accordance with the recommendation of four successive Governments of India, the system of separate Presidential commands in Madras and Bombay should be abolished, and that the entire administration of all the Indian Armies should be made over to the Commander-in-Chief in India, acting in direct communication with the commanders of the local Armies and under the direct orders of the Government of India."
  The question which I have undertaken to bring before the House to-night is one which I do not urge on my own authority as important, but which is looked upon as of the greatest importance by the Government of India. It is one that has formed the subject of continued representations made from time to time to the Secretary for India, ever since the year 1879. I would, in the first place, remind the House that the words I have used in this Resolution are not words of my own, but that they are words which have been employed in despatches that have been addressed to the Government of India; and it is a question in which I am supported by the weight of Indian official opinion and the authority of Indian experts, both civil and military. This authority I may say is overwhelmingly on one side, and the words in my Resolution that the entire administration of all the Indian armies should be made over to a Commander-in-Chief in India, acting in direct communication with the commanders of the local armies of India, and under the direct orders of the Government of India, are those of Lord Dufferin, the earlier words referring to the recommendation of four successive Governments of India being those of Lord Lansdowne—in fact we have the declared opinions of four successive Governments of India in favour of my proposals—namely, of that of the present Viceroy, Lord Lansdowne, that also of the previous Governments of Lord Dufferin and Lord Ripon, and in addition to these we have the opinion of several members of the Government of Lord Lytton, and of Lord Lytton himself. The House will recognise that these four Viceroys were men of different Parties, and who would approach such a subject from different points of view. In addition to these noble Lords who held the office of Viceroy of India, you have also a long list of distinguished men, occupying high

  875
  civil and military positions in India thoroughly in favour of this proposal. I will not trouble the House with the names, but will only ask hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this matter to look at the list of individuals who have formed part of the Government of Lord Lytton and the successive Governments of Lord Ripon, Lord Dufferin, and Lord Lansdowne, to enable them to see that I am fully borne out in my statement. Not only have the Governments of all these Viceroys expressed the views I have referred to, but that of Lord Dufferin's, on two separate occasions, made earnest representations in favour of the principle embodied in my Resolution. With regard to military opinion in India I will only refer to it for one moment in order to put before the House the fact that we have more than once had the opinion of the present Commander-in-Chief in India. Sir Frederick Roberts, expressed in favour of my view. We have also the strong support of the late Commander-in-Chief, Sir Donald Stewart, and amongst others, who may be said to represent home military opinion in India, the opinions of General Chesney and General Wilson, military members of the Viceroy's Council. The materials before the House, by which it may be guided in forming its opinion on this subject, are to be found in three different Blue Books that have been issued at different times—in 1884 and in 1887, and again last year, in the correspondence which has been issued to the other House of Parliament. I may also refer to the slight discussion which took place in this House upon the subject in the Budget of 1883–84, as well as the further discussion which took place in the House of Lords last Session. I shall endeavour to state the case I have to put before the House as briefly as possibly, and I shall also endeavour to put facts I have to advance as clearly as I can for the judgment of hon. Gentlemen. I do not propose to go back to the ancient history of this question. Practically it all dates from the year 1879, when, coincident with the discussion which took place in this House on Indian expenditure, Lord Lytton, who was then Viceroy of India, appointed the Simla Army Commission to consider the whole subject of Indian Army adminis-
  876
  tration and expenditure. Now what is the present system? I presume it is within the knowledge of Members of this House that as far as the Army is concerned it comes to this—that the Madras and Bombay Army have separate Commanders-in-Chief, and are administered by separate military Departments attached to the local Governments. The Commander-in-Chief is also Commander-in-Chief of the Bengal Army. The Commander-in-Chief in India undoubtedly has a certain general control over all the armies in India, but all questions of discipline and administration of the armies in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies are decided by the Presidential Commanders-in-Chief and the Military Departments connected with the Governments of each of these Presidencies. This may be taken as a very general statement of the position which, as I understand it, is occupied by these two armies. Now, as far as the local service of these two armies is concerned, the grievances that have arisen would not, I think, have been so great as urgently to demand a remedy, but it was owing to the fact that the command of the Northwest frontier of Southern Afghanistan was under the Bombay command, and that of Lower Burma, before it was annexed to Upper Burma, was under Madras—it was owing to these two facts and the military operations on these two frontiers that difficulties and confusion has arisen which has given rise to continually pressing demands by the Government of India to the Home Authorities for the abolition of the Presidential system of command. The Presidential system, as it continues to exist, in civil and military matters in Madras and Bombay, is not an administration carefully built up in accordance with the results of long experience, but may be said to be the survival of past history and tradition. Undoubtedly that state of things is due to the fact that our conquest of India started from three bases, namely, that of the West coast, that from the mouth of the Ganges, and that of Madras, and in consequence we had three separate armies for what were three separate dependencies. But the new India, with a Governor General as the central authority solely responsible

  877
  to the Home Government, is constituted under a totally different system; and the political theory of Government now is that there should be in the Viceroy in Council one individual responsible to Parliament and the British people for the whole administration of that great Dependency. Now, I should like to say that, as I read the papers and correspondence that has taken place between the Government of India and the Home Government, there is no intention whatever of doing away with the armies of Bombay and Madras as local forces, and, as far as mere terminology is concerned, if the commanders of these forces desire to retain titles of Commanders-in-Chief, no objection could be made to their doing so. Those who look at those Papers will see that if the principle I am indicating is carried out, in all probability these forces of Bombay and Madras will be better able to discharge their duties as local forces. Then there is another point to which I desire to call the attention of the House. This proposal, as set forth in the correspondence of the Government of India, is not one for mere centralisation, but for carrying out a system of unity of command, unity of responsibility in the Government of India, and in regard to everything that concerns the Army administration of India. This point is particularly dwelt upon by successive Governments of India, who have urged the matter upon the attention of the India Office. Lord Lytton put it in this way: He said he considered the Government of India should be based on a water-tight compartment system, and the Governments of Lord Ripon and Lord Dufferin favour the views I have put forward, neither of them desiring centralisation, but a proper organisation of the forces. Hon. Members who look at the General Order drawn up by Lord Dufferin's Government will be able to see how the Government of India is prepared to carry out its scheme in detail without actually centralising, but rather by the providing for greater localisation of the forces in the civil and military arrangements of India. Something of a practical nature was done many years ago when the Military Accounts Department was amalgamated, the principle of amalgamation was then conceded, and from that time forward the Governments
  878
  of Madras and Bombay have been unable to make any alteration which involves the slightest increase of expenditure without consulting the Government of India. The system of amalgamation, as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary is well aware, has been further carried out during the last 10 years. The Government of India and the Secretary of State for India have already marched a very considerable way in the direction of carrying out the abolition of Presidential commands. What we urge upon them at the present time is that they should go a single step further and really do away with them as liable to cause very considerable danger in time of war, as well as serious inconvenience. Now, Sir, as I stated, the Simla Army Commission was appointed by Lord Lytton in 1879, and it reported in the same year. But the Government of Lord Ripon had no opportunity as Government of considering the Report. Lord Lytton himself wrote a very strong Minute in favour of the recommendations of the Commission, and particularly of this proposal. Then came the General Election. Lord Ripon's Government did not take up the subject at all spontaneously. They were especially instructed to do so by the India Office in a telegram from the Secretary for India, the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale. Getting those instructions, Lord Ripon took up the matter thoroughly, and in a series of despatches during the year 1881 they dealt with all matters contained in the Army Commission Report, and they recommend the adoption of the bulk of the proposals, including the main proposal of the abolition of the Presidential commands. Lord Kimberley, after long delay in July, 1883, was willing to carry certain minor recommendations of the Government of India, but he refused to abolish the Presidential commands, basing his refusal principally on financial grounds. The Government of India had not been able to show that the financial saving would be quite as much as he had been led to expect and believe by the Government of India. But taking part in the Debate which took place in the House of Lords last Session, Lord Kimberley showed that his view in this respect was very considerably modified. No doubt from that time continuous representations have been made by the

  879
  Government of India, and by every Viceroy since the year 1883. In the year 1885 a change was made in our Indian military policy owing to the Russian advance Upon Afghanistan. Then measures were passed for increasing the Army of India, and also for fortifications, especially on the frontier of Southern Afghanistan. The matter was taken up by Lord Dufferin in a despatch which he wrote, and which appears in the Blue Book of 1887. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington in October, 1885, agreed to some of Lord Dufferin's recommendations, but he declined to sanction the measure for the abolition of Presidential come mands, on the ground that the change could not be carried out without legisletion. In 1888 we got the second representation of Lord Dufferin's Government on the subject. They had experienced the difficulties of the situation at Quettah, and in the intervening years they had further experienced the difficulties in Burma. Lord Dufferin wrote a most admirable despatch on the 1st June, 1888, urging this as an eminently necessary reform to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India. Immediately, or almost immediately, on the receipt of it, the Secretary of State for India telegraphed for particulars of the mode in which this scheme could be carried out, if it was to be carried out. The Government of India set themselves to work to do this, with the result that we have in this Blue Book the draft general order, and other draft orders. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of considering how thoroughly practical those proposals are, and into what detail the Government of India were prepared to go. Hon. Members who have read the despatches are entitled to assume, as most men would assume, after the Secretary of State had instructed the Government of India to go into this detail, that the principle was already conceded. I am perfectly certain that anyone who reads the despatches will conclude that the principle had been conceded. It was a very great disappointment—a disappointment forcibly expressed by the Government of India themselves when, in the middle of 1889, Lord Cross, the Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Government of India that while he was prepared to sanction several other reforms he was
  880
  unable to give his assent to the proposal for the abolition of Presidential commands, basing his refusal on the ground that legislation would be required. Now, the question I should like hon. Members to consider is, how is it that the Government of India have so continuously during the last 10 years been pressing this subject on the attention of the India Office? It will be seen from the official correspondence that the Government of India is still as eager in insisting upon this fundamental recommendation being carried out as it was before. The reason is as much a political as an administrative one. In times of peace things get along; there is confusion, but there is no great harm done. But in time of war the Government of India, when active operations are entered upon, has to put the whole military control under the Commander-in-Chief. We find that what took place in Southern Afghanistan had its effect upon the various individuals and authorities who are in favour of this proposal, more particularly upon Lord Lytton. It also had its effect upon the present Secretary of State for War, who in discussing the Indian Budget in 1882, said—
  "All he could say was that at the time of the Afghan War it was proved to him conclusively that the system as it stood was unsatisfactory. He believed there was great truth in the remark made by a distinguished General at that time when they were employing troops both from the Bengal Army and from the Bombay Army, that the result was that they were not operating against Afghanistan with one Army, out that they were exactly in the same position as if they were employing two allied Armies. There could be no doubt that such a system as that caused very great inconvenience and was eminently unsatisfactory."
  But in October, 1881, Lord Ripon's Government used even stronger language—
  "We believe that to any impartial mind it will be manifest with respect to the operations in Lower Afghanistan the war was carried out with all the disadvantages and with none of the advantages attendant upon the operations of allied armies. Appointments to high command were made by one authority, while the sole responsibility for the result rested upon another. There were all the jealousies, all the delays, all the recriminations which are incidental to war carried out under such unfortunate conditions."
  I do not think any statement coming from a responsible Government like that of India could possibly be stronger than that. It has been confirmed by speeches delivered since in the House of Lords

  881
  by Lord Ripon. That was the effect of the operations in Afghanistan. The same effect was produced upon the mind of Lord Dufferin and his advisers by their experience in Quettah and Beloochistan. They say—
  "With this experience on record, we regard with apprehension the possibility of our being called upon at any future time to undertake more extensive military operations while hampered by so faulty a system, which violates all the recognised principles of sound military administration; and we feel that we shall be incuring a grave responsibility if we did not once more place on record the sense of the danger to India of allowing the reform so strongly advocated by our predecessors to be postponed any longer."
  That I think is equally forcible and equally impressive with the statement of Lord Ripon's Government as regards their experience in Afghanistan. I could further strengthen it by what has been said by Lord Lansdowne's Government, in the year 1889, and by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India himself. In, a despatch which he wrote to the Indian Government he speaks of these Presidential commands as an evil. I think we may fairly conclude from his despatch that he looks forward to the time when the evil will be not only mitigated, but done away with. On what ground, then, has the India Office hitherto declined to sanction the proposal made so forcibly and frequently by the various Governments of India? The argument with regard to finance was laid great stress upon by Lord Kimberley, though his Lordship no longer appears to entertain that view so strongly. The ostensible reason of the noble Lord (Churchill) at the time he was Secretary for India, when he refused the reform, was that legislation would be required. I quite allow that at the time of the noble Lord's despatch, October 1885, there was a General Election in prospect, and that legislation on this subject at an early date was hardly possible. I also agree that to some extent, in the summer of 1888, Lord Cross was justified in pointing out this difficulty of legislation. But now no such difficulties exist. I quite recognise that the India Office is justified in not bringing forward legislation such as this of a technical character until it can fully depend upon an overwhelming consensus of military opinion
  882
  in its favour. But what I say is, that they have already shown us they have an overwhelming consensus of opinion in their favour, and they would not meet with any substantial opposition to such proposals if they brought them forward. I admit that undoubtedly there may be circumstances which might render difficult such proposals. In a speech delivered in 1882 by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington)—a very remarkable speech delivered on the Indian Budget—he told us that at that time there was a distinct difference of opinion amongst the members of the Indian Council upon the subject, and that the large majority of them were adverse to the proposal of the Simla Army Commission. He went on to state—
  "It is natural that the Council should be opposed to any large and sweeping changes. The Council of India does not represent the prevailing opinion of the Indian Administration. It represents the opinion of 5 or 10 years ago or even longer, and the Council of India will always be of a Conservative character, and will very rarely go to the length which the actual Government of India are prepared to go."
  That is the statement made by the noble Lord in 1882. But it must be remembered that the personnel of the Council has been largely changed since that time, and I venture to hope that they are no longer in a position of utter hostility to this proposal of the Indian Government. But there is another Department at home, which has something to say upon this subject, and that is the War Office. In a Debate in the House of Lords we have had the Commander-in-Chief himself stating his opposition to this proposal, and as hon. Members are aware very often the War-Office, under various Governments, and not this Government only, is very apt in considering matters relating to the Indian Army—to consider them from the point of view of the British Army, and not look at Indian interests. What we want to insist upon in this Debate is that these eminently exclusively Indian questions should be considered from the point of view of whether they are good or bad for India, and decided accordingly. I can quite understand there may be interests connected with our home army which might militate against the abolition of these Presidential com-

  883
  mands. They are posts of high dignity, and are often bestowed upon officers who have distinguished themselves at home, and have no Indian military experience. There are other considerations which no doubt induce the Army Authorities at home to retain these offices, but the interests of India should be made absolutely superior to all professional interests at home. I hope I have been able to show that this proposal has been urged by people in high authority in India and by successive Governments of that country. We have had statements from Lord Ripon that he would not like the responsibility of undertaking another war outside the frontiers. We have had Statements from Lord Dufferin that there is great danger in not carrying this immediately, and from Lord Lansdowne that the carrying out of this reform is essential to the efficient defence of the country. Lastly, we have the statement of the Secretary of State for India himself that the present system is an evil; therefore, I think, we are justified in urging that no other interests, professional or departmental, should stand in the way. We desire that Her Majesty's Government, should give a fair consideration and a renewed consideration to these representations of the Government of India, and endeavour to put a little pressure, if necessary, upon their colleagues for a speedy carrying out of this reform. We should urge upon them, therefore, that if they have not already done so to take further steps to have the Army in India in the state in which all those responsible for Indian Government say it is necessary it should be if it is to adequately discharge its duty of the defence of that country against external foes. I beg, Sir, to move the Resolution that stands in my name.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in accordance with the recommendation of four successive Governments of India, the system of separate Presidential commands in Madras and Bombay should be abolished, and that the entire administration of all the Indian Armies should be made over to the Commander-in-Chief in India, acting in direct communication with the Commanders of the local Armies and under the direct orders of the Government of India."
  THE UNDER, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: Mr. Speaker, this question, as the House has ascertained from the speech of the hon. Member, is an extremely technical one, and though nothing could exceed the lucidity with Which the hon. Gentleman explained it, I think it must after all be left to the, technical advisers of the Secretary of State for India to suggest the proper solution of the difficulty. The hon. Member did not quite do justice in his speech to the Report of the Simla Commission of 1879, which has been the foundation of all subsequent procedure in this matter. When the Simla Commission, was appointed in 1879, there were very real dangers and disadvantages in the then existing system of Indian Military organiation. That Commission proceeded in a most careful and exhaustive manner to examine branch by branch into the whole of the military organisation. They made a great number of practical recommendations which affected every branch of the military service in India. They pointed out where there were duplicate offices, where there was division of control, and they showed that, as the organisation then existed, the Commander-in-Chief was unable in time of war, to rely with confidence on receiving proper support from the local Armies, and that, on the other hand, the local Commanders-in-Chief possessing an imperfect knowledge of the objects and nature of the military operations undertaken at headquarters, were unable to give proper assistance. This Commission recommended the abolition of the Presidential system as one among a great number of practical suggestions which they made. This recommendation was forwarded in due time to Lord Kimberley, at that time Secretary of State for India, and was carefully considered by him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: At that time Lord Ripon was in office.
  SIR J. GORST: Before the consideration of that Report had been concluded at the India Office, the Earl of Kimberley had become Secretary of State. In 1883, after full consideration of the proposals of the Government of India, the proposal for the abolition of the Presidency Armies was rejected by Lord Kimberley and rejected by him on its merits. It

  885
  was not alleged that there was any difficulty in obtaining time for legislation in Parliament, or that military difficulties existed, but the proposal was rejected on its merits; and I, do not think the hon. Member, has quite sufficiently indicated to the House the reasons that induced Lord Kimberley to reject it. They are given, in a Despatch of the 26th July, 1886. He says—
  "Looking at the differences of military opinion, upon the subject"—
  So far from there being an overwhelming consensus of military opinion there was a difference. He says—
  "Looking at the differences of military opinion on the subjects, and to the political objections which may be urged against the proposed reconstruction of the Madras and Bombay Armies, and the absence of proof of financial saving, I do not feel justified in recommending the abolition of the Presidential Armies."
  But instead of beginning by abolishing the Presidential Armies, the Secretary of State of that day commenced the work of Army reform, which has been continued, by successive Secretaries of State down to the present hour, by dealing, one by one, with all the other suggestions made by the Simla Commission in 1879, and by gradually removing every one of the dangers brought to the notice of the Government. There again, the hon. Member has scarcely done justice to the reforms in the military administration of India, which have been carried out by successive Governments of India and successive Secretaries of State. The British troops have always been under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, and so far from the British troops in this country having a strong motive in resisting the abolition of the Presidential Armies, they have very little personal interest in the matter. Since the date of Lord kimberley's Despatch refusing to abolish the Presidential Armies, the following reforms have been carried out:—The Punjab Frontier Force has been entirely placed under the Commander-in-Chief in India, the Military Account Department has been centralised, the separate Commissariat has been abolished. We have now only one Commissariat Service, the change being made by the present Secretary of State only a short time ago. The whole Transport Service has been placed under one head; the Ordnance has been placed under one
  886
  head; Clothes, Military Works, Military Education, and the judge , Advocate General's offices have been centralised. There is now one single department under the Government of India for all these offices for the whole of India, and the financial powers of the Commander-in-Chief have been very greatly extended. The effect of these various reforms is that at the present day the objections which could have been justly made in 1879, and which were justly made by the Commission, have been met and done away with, and there is really at the present time, as the Government of India pointed out, very little left to be done in the way of reform. There is now no strong ground why the House or the Government should proceed immediately to make any further change. And, in deciding as to further changes, what, perhaps, is the most important consideration of all is the political aspect of the question. The political considerations involved in the question of abolishing the control over the Native Armies of Madras and Bombay, at present exercised by the Presidential Commander-in-Chief, are the considerations which should weigh most with the House in making them hesitate to interfere in this matter between the Secretary of State and his technical advisers. In all the circumstances of the case I can say that when the proper moment has arrived at which the question of the connection at present existing between the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Armies is ripe for consideration, the reform recommended by the Simla Commission in 1879 will be finally carried out. In the meanwhile, it is said that great difficulties may arise in time of war. I believe hon. Members of the House can be perfectly easy on that score. The changes that have been made have entirely precluded any risk whatever in-time of war. In the case of Burma, reference to which was made by Lord Dufferin in a Despatch, there was no marked difficulty in carrying out the actual military operations in upper Burma. The difficulty which was experienced was a difficulty as to commissariat and transport, because while the troops employed in Upper Burma were under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in India the Com-

  887
  missariat and Transport Departments were, according to the regulations, under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in Madras. There was thus a certain inconvenience in Burma owing to divided control, but that has since been done away with. The Commissariat and Transport Departments are now centralised in the office of the Commander-in-Chief in India, and if the operations in Upper Burma had to be conducted now, there would be no cause for difficulty in those Departments. I think the hon. Member and the House may feel quite safe on that score. Now, why should the Secretary of State decline to make the further change which the hon. Member suggests? I think I have shown the House that no strong reason for that change has been advanced. There has been no proof of danger or difficulty, and no necessity for the reform has been made out. What may be advanced against the change? In the first place, there is a difference of opinion among military authorities. So far from their being unanimous on that point I may say that, undoubtedly, they are divided. My hon. Friend spoke of the military advisers of the Indian Council being unanimous upon this subject. I may tell him that they are by no means unanimous, but that there is a marked difference of opinion between them on the matter. The hon. Member has called attention to the fact that the Commander-in-Chief is opposed to this proposal, and if it comes to be discussed in detail in this House, or in another place, there would probably be a great difference of opinion expressed. Then, again, another reason which I may advance against the adoption of my hon. Friend's Motion is, that there is no financial advantage to be gained from it. Indeed, the financial advisers of the Government of India have come to the conclusion that the change would be the reverse of economical. The third reason is a practical one. It is, that this change cannot be carried out without legislation, and everyone must admit the difficulties of carrying through Indian legislation in the course of the present year. Since I have held the office of Under Secretary for India, I have tried year after year to carry Indian legislation through, but among the Bills which my right hon.
  888
  Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has massacred each year there have always been two or three of my bantlings, and I should be very sorry to undertake any further Indian legislation under these circumstances, unless a very great demand should be shown to exist for it. I do not think the Government would be justified in introducing a Bill which is not urgently required, and the discussion, of which would undoubtedly take up a considerable portion of the time of the House. The fourth reason that I have to advance is, that surely it would be better to wait and see the effect of the reforms which have already been introduced, before endeavouring to carry out these further proposals. I hope that the House will see that these are sound argument infavour of not adopting the Motion of my hon. Friend; and without wishing to undervalue the efforts he has made, I trust the House will admit the desirability of leaving the decision of these highly technical and difficult subjects to the advisers of the Crown.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN: I must acknowledge the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question before the House, but I wish to demur at once to one sentiment which, he expressed at the commencement of his observations. It was to the effect that, because this was a highly technical matter it ought, therefore, to be left entirely for the decision of the technical advisers of the Government. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be presumptuous on the part of any ordinary person, such as the right hon. Gentleman or myself, to attempt to override by the mere weight of our authority the technical opinion given by the more competent advisers of Her Majesty But the business of the political administrator is to distinguish between the technical and other opinions he receives. You have many persons who give you technical advice, and surely the administrator is not to stand helpless in the presence of those different gentlemen with their technical advice, but he is bound to exercise his common sense and judgment in determining the nature and character of the advice that should be adopted. What strikes me—approaching this subject, as I confess, with very imperfect knowledge of the details

  889
  —what strikes me as strongly in favour of the course advocated by my hon. Friend behind me, is that we have Government after Government in India coming back to the charge upon the Secretary of State at home and always urging the necessity of this great change. I am quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that much has been done in the way of reforming the system of Army organisation in India; many of the reforms recommended by the Simla Commission have been adopted, but this question is still not settled to the satisfaction of the Government in India, and the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that almost every grievance and difficulty has been removed by the steps taken by the Government, omits to observe the fact that the last Despatch we have from the Government of India—and couched in terms so strong that the words deserve to be read to the House—was written after they were informed that these changes were to be introduced. I am right, I think, in this, that the Despatch of the 5th July, 1889, was written with the full knowledge that it was the intention of the Government to carry out all the reforms indicated. The Despatch from the Secretary of State for India, to which it was a reply, had enumerated the different measures which the Government had determined to carry out;— that the Commissariat and Transport Department should be placed entirely under the Government of India, and so with the Clothing Department and other branches. And I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, as I do not wish to treat the matter in the least degree controversially—I should like to know whether any other alterations of that nature have been introduced in addition to those specified in that Despatch! With the knowledge that the reforms were to be made, which the right hon. Gentleman has enumerated, the Government of India say this—
  "We agree with your Lordship that although these measures fall short of the larger scheme of reorganisation which has been submitted to you and to your predecessors, they will, when carried out, accomplish an improvement in the military system which cannot hut be advantageous to the efficiency of Her Majesty's Army in India."
  They go on to urge the reform, with
  890
  regard to Presidential commands, which they had urgently pressed on the Government at home, and they use these very strong expressions—
  "Four successive Governments of India have thus supported the proposals which were put forward by the Army Organisation Commissioners ten years ago. The alterations proposed in the administration of the Army are not merely for the purpose of remedying inconvenience, but to impart a practical and working form to an accidental organisation which, in the course of time, developed into a cumbersome and complicated machinery. We desire, therefore, once again to place before Her Majesty's Government our conviction that it would be a misfortune of the greatest moment if this amendment of the military administration which we consider to be essential to the efficiency of the Army in this country should not be carried out in the breathing time of peace which we fortunately now possess, and if the desired change so persistently and so impartially advocated by the Government of India were to be postponed until the disastrous experience of war should force upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for effecting this most necessary reform of the Indian Army system."
  I am well accustomed to the consideration of various army schemes at home, and I never knew any proposal that was not both supported and opposed by a great weight of military opinion; but let it be remembered this is no mere political or theoretical reform which is urged by some persons interested in the question in a speculative way; here are the men who are actually responsible for the safety of our Indian Empire, the Viceroy and his Council,, including Sir Frederick Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief, and General Chesney, signing this Despatch, which speaks of it as
  "A misfortune of the greatest moment if this amendment of the military administration which we consider to be essential to the efficiency of the Army in this country, should not be carried out,"
  and who speak of it
  "As this most necessary reform of the Indian Army system."
  These expressions were used, not half a dozen years ago, before the other changes referred to, but used in the very Despatch which acknowledges the announcement of the intention on the part of the Secretary of State to introduce those minor changes. What I want to get from the right hon. Gentleman, or someone on the part of the Government, is, has nothing more been done in the interval that has

  891
  elapsed since that time beyond the changes referred to in the Despatch? I began by saying this is a matter on which possibly few individual Members of this House can express an opinion of much authority. For myself, I base my opinion on the authority of those responsible persons in India who did not take up the matter suddenly, who did not form, any speculative view of it, but impressed by the necessities of the case And under a full sense of their responsibility, urged again and again on Her Majesty's Government that this should be done, and have continued to urge them in the terms I have quoted, even after subordinate changes have been made. That, I think, is an ample justification for my hon. Friend behind me having brought forward this Motion. I do not suppose, and, in fact, it was obvious from the tone of his speech that he did not bring it forward in any hostile spirit; we merely wish to impress upon the Government the fact that this strong representation has been made from India in favour of this great reform, and we wish to know how far the Government either have gone or are prepared to go in that direction. There is considerable force in what the Under Secretary of State said, that it is desirable to allow a little time to elapse in order that we may see how these changes that have been introduced work, and how far they may effect the purpose we all have in view. But, in the meantime, I think good has been done by public attention being directed to this matter in this way, and I trust, before; the Debate closes, we shall have even more ample assurances from Her Majesty's Government than have yet been given, that the object which my hon. Friend behind me has advocated, if not fully attained has been, at all events, very nearly accomplished.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling, who has just sat down, very properly said where technical authorities differ it is very difficult for a politician to distinguish between them. I think I am a politician in that position, because I, for many of the best years of my life, wag a Member of this very Government in India, whose authority has been already quoted this evening, and had the honour
  892
  of serving in both the minor Presidencies and conducting the Government in one in time of war. Well, Sir, I may endeavour in a few moments, without detaining the House unduly at this late hour, to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who introduced this subject. He quoted, and very properly quoted the concensus of opinion, but the concensus of what opinion? The opinion of four successive Governments in India. No one desires to speak with greater respect than I do of the Government of India; all my prejudices and predilections are in its favour, but still, as a Member of this House, I may venture to say that in all Imperial institutions the besetting fault of official men is ambition—the tendency to aggrandise the particular Government or Department; the particular Presidency or Province to which they happen to belong. Even the men about the Government of India are not exempt from this failing. Again, the great danger of modern times in India is excessive centralisation. The first English statesman in India who saw that was the late Lord Mayo. For many years an endeavour has been made by Governments in India to decentralise in all Imperial matters, and I venture to say that, where there has been success it has been in those places in which there has been decentralisation; and where the management of affairs has been placed in the hands of the Provincial Government on the spot, still there is a tendency to the incessant concentration of all authority in all Departments in one great Government at Simla. That is a position the Government of India cannot be qualified to sustain; instead of being an administrative Government itself, it is to be a supervising Government over seven or eight Local Governments in a great Empire—it is to be the duty of the Government of India not to govern itself, but to supervise other Governments. Now, Sir, as regards the consensus of opinion of the Government of India—is there any consensus of opinion on the part of the authorities of Madras or the authorities of Bombay or the authorities in England connected with India? We have heard of the differences of opinion which exist here, but I can assure the House there is still greater difference of opinion in

  893
  India itself. We only hear one side of the question, but in India there are far greater differences of opinion upon this question. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Edinburgh stated that India ought to be in water-tight compartments. That is a phrase he has borrowed from a great master of phrases—the late distinguished Viceroy, lord Lytton. With that phrase I concur; but would the House consider for a moment what is the application of the phrase to the subject before the House? It is that you must have three Native Armies in India, with little or no reference to the European troops. It is solely a question of Native Armies. In the nature of things, owing to the varieties of language, of races, of climatic conditions, there is no other way in conducting the various wars and arranging the Military Service. And there is an additional reason. When these Armies were first constituted there was no difficulty in getting recruits; now there is some difficulty, and that is an additional reason for the Government of the country availing themselves of all the recruiting fields throughout the great Indian Empire. If you must have these three native Armies, they have different wants, different sentiments and prejudices, and, what is more, there are different interests. Therefore, it is essential that the various interests concentrating themselves into three great corps of the Indian Empire, that each corp should be under its own particular head, and that head should be the Commander-in-Chief. It is a matter of the gravest importance to mate that Commander-in-Chief as great as possible so that he shall fill the largest space in the eyes of the native troops. Hitherto it has been the policy to maintain that position. Now, apparently desiring to concentrate all authority in itself, the Supreme Government propose to degrade the office of Commander-in-Chief to that of Commander of an Army Corps. The House heard that passage so strongly Expressed, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). You heard the governor of India said—
  "It would be a misfortune of the greatest moment if this amendment of the military administration, which we consider to be essential to the efficiency of the Army in this
  894
  country, should not be carried out in the breathing time of peace.
  Now, really, what is this momentous Amendment? Why, the lowering of the office of Commander-in-Chief to that of a Commander of an Army Corps. I desire to speak with the greatest respect of the Government of India, but, after all, it is a human institution, and I appeal to this House whether these expressions have not the tinge, at least, of exaggeration? Will the House believe that the question whether the Commander-in-Chief, either of the Madras or the Bombay Army, shall retain the status and rank of that office, or whether he shall be called Commander of an Army Corps, and whether this change be so carried out or not in a time of peace is such a question that to defer its decision would be a misfortune of the greatest moment? I say, language of that kind carries with it half, at least, of its own refutation. What has been, historically, the effect of the present constitution of the Army—each native Army with its own Commander-in-Chief; each with its own separate interests? Why this: that in the dark days of the mutiny, when the Bengal Army revolted, the Bombay and Madras Armies, though not free from the infection or contagion, nevertheless hesitated to revolt. To any man who knows the history of that time it is patent that had there been but one Army, divided into so many local Army Corps, the danger of the Mutiny extending would have been even greater than it actually was. Undoubtedly, one of the causes of that providential deliverance of ours was the existence of the very system the hon. Member for Edinburgh desires by this Resolution to destroy. It is good, on the whole, for the Army there should be these Presidential commands instead of Commanders of Army Corps. I will not dwell on the financial aspect of the case after what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), but as an old Finance Minister of India I can assure the House that several times I have considered whether a substantial saving could be effected by abolishing the office of Commander-in-Chief in the two minor Presidencies. But I never was able to make this out. Something has been said about how the system has

  895
  worked in the time of war, and something also has been remarked about two allied forces, instead of one united force. Well, Sir, I venture to say that that dictum will not stand the test of thorough examination. How does the system operate when war breaks out? The Government of India settles what the military operations shall be, and who the officer shall be who is to command in the field. These questions having been decided the troops from Madras or Bombay are ordered to be sent to the seat of war, where they are entirely and absolutely under the command of the General commanding in the field, and not under the command of their own Presidential Government. There is a perfect system of organisation, no Imperial confusion, to use the hon. Member's term, and the success of the combined operations has been undoubted in all the wars ever conducted in India. I thank the House for listening to these remarks, and I will not prolong them. I have said enough, I think, to show there are high political reasons connected with the discipline and supervision of the men and officers in the Native Army likely to strengthen their loyalty and make them feel confidence in the Presidential Authorities under whom they are to work, keeping their minds, thoughts, and sentiments fixed on their own proper spheres, and preventing them from combining for any purpose that is inconsistent with the safety of our Imperial interests. (7.55.)
  (8.30.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The hon. Member who spoke last was, I suppose, a representative of the divided opinion to which the Under Secretary of State for India referred in his speech. But I do not conceive that the evidence he gave would weigh against the views of the successive Governments of India, whose opinions have prompted this Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan); and I do not think that up to the present time anything has been advanced which should induce him to withdraw the Motion which stands in his name. If the situation is so perfect as it has been described to us, why have
  896
  we had all these reports from successive Governments in India? Why have so many of these Governments been practically unanimous in demanding a change in the present system? The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) seems to advocate the preservation of a kind of triple alliance amongst the Armies of India. He spoke of the Civil Government of India being a supervising Government over the minor administrations, but I venture to think that that supervising system is hardly compatible with efficient military command and organisation. The hon. Gentleman might equally have argued that because we have inaugurated County Councils in this country the command of the Militia should be taken from the War Office and placed in the hands of the Chairmen of the County Councils. But we have assumed an opposite direction in the conduct and control of military affairs, and I venture to think that the whole of the recommendations which have been received from India, from, various persons and from various Governments in that country, tend to show that the reform which is now asked for should no longer be postponed. It is not desirable that this subject should be longer treated with anything like silence, even by hon. Members opposite; and I think it would be regarded with much interest by Members on both sides of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Stanhope) would give his opinion upon those military proposals affecting the Army in India. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the subject of centralisation. He said that there had been too much centralisation in India, but that contention was, I think, disposed of in Lord Dufferin's Despatch of 1st June, 1888, in which he says—
  "The proposal is one which substitutes unity of general administration of the Indian Armies for the present divided control. It is not a measure of centralisation in the sense of diminishing the authority of those who are immediately entrusted with the command of the different Armies. On the contrary, the effect of the change would he to increase sensibly the functions of the Commanders-in-Chief of Madras and Bombay by restoring to them the direct command of the whole of their Armies, part of which has now, under the progress of events, passed away from their immediate control."

  897
  The whole subject is one which I think is eminently suited for discussion in this House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, who spoke earlier in the evening, that Indian affairs are not likely to progress more prosperously because they are more frequently the subject of consideration by this House. But I think this is eminently a subject on which the House is qualified to express an opinion, and I hope the present opportunity of doing so will not be lost. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India gave various reasons against the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh, but the only one which seemed to have anything in it at all was the one in which he said that any legislative proposal he might bring forward would not receive consideration from this House. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman hatches his chickens so late in the season, it is impossible that they will survive. But if he will bring his proposals early in the Session, at any rate if he brings this specific one, it will not, I think, be the subject of very prolonged discussion in this House, at all events, and it is one which we might very easily pass into law. Another of the reasons which the Under Secretary for India gave us was the financial consideration involved. He said it would cost more money. Well, that is the first time I have heard it suggested that the proposed change would cost more money. I have never heard any good authority state that the change of the system would save very much money, but I have heard it on good authority that the change would rather tend to save money than to increase the expense. At all events, that is a very minor consideration. And the contention that it is impossible that legislation can be considered by the House is very conveniently made use of. It has been made use of before by the Secretary of State for India to the present Viceroy, when he refused Lord Lansdowne's representation on the ground that the change would involve legislative discussion and delays. Why should not a Bill dealing with the reorganisation of the Armies of India be brought before this House and passed? That is what we want to know, and what we have a right to ask.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: It is clear from this Debate that in the first place the Government of India, for the last 10 years located in India, have been of one mind with regard to this matter, and it is also quite clear from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, and his supporter, the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple), that they are at daggers drawn in regard to the arguments they are prepared to bring forward in support of the present system. I should like the House to notice how extraordinary is the discordance of argument upon this subject. We have from the Under Secretary of State for India a series of remarks showing what have been the many proposals made. I need not repeat them; but I may make a reference to one which seemed to have escaped the notice of the hon. Baronet. I find that the hon. Baronet stated that the greatest success in the Government of India had been due to decentralisation, and that there was the greatest danger in concentrating all the Departments in one great office. Now, already we have the fact that in 10 important particulars power has been taken away from the Presidential commands and concentrated in the Commander-in-Chief in India. Thus, while the hon. Baronet is all for decentralisation, the Under Secretary here is pluming himself on the centralisation that has been effected in these 10 particulars.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not commend centralisation, but unity of control.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I always admire the facility with which the Under Secretary adopts and puts his arguments, and I accept his disclaimer. But I cannot understand how it is possible to get unity of control without at the same time getting a certain amount of centralisation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham says there is a great danger arising from the desire among statesmen in India to aggrandise their own particular parts of the country. But if that is an argument at all, it cuts the ground from under his own argument; for who are these gentlemen who are desirous of this retention of the Presidency Commanders-in-Chief,

  899
  but the Provincial Governors and the Provincial Commanders-in-Chief—the very men who, as the hon. Baronet has pointed out, are opposing this change we advocate? He says we must have three native Armies in India. I have not the least objection to that; but I am perfectly certain that the Government of India have no idea of doing away with the three Armies in India, and I cannot understand how the hon. Baronet arrived at the conclusion that we are going to do away with these Armies. He has told us if we do away with these Presidential commands we are doing away with valuable recruiting grounds. I could understand this argument if we only recruited the Presidency Commander-in-Chief. His Adjutant-General his Quartermaster-General, and his remaining staff do this area. But we do not do this, and whatever happens to these officers, we still retain these recruiting grounds for our native soldiery. There was one other topic which was referred to specially by the Under Secretary of State for India. He spoke, and he took some credit for it, of the British troops—I will not say British troops, but Indian troops—forming the Punjab Frontier Force, having been entirely removed from the Local Government and placed under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Now, if there was an instance of the absolute necessity of doing away with the Presidential command it is to be found in this example. The Punjab Frontier Force is one of the finest portions of Her Majesty's Army in any part of the country, whether in Great Britain or anywhere else, and those who are aware of the great feats of arms which that Force has performed take the Punjab Frontier Force as as fine a specimen of our Indian troops as we can find. But that body of troops has been transferred from the Local Government of the Punjab to the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief. Now, I do not think any hon. Member who is acquainted with the conditions of warfare in India would venture to pit against that Force as superior to it the Armies of Bombay and Madras. If there is a special Force to which may attach greater credit than to any other of our Indian Forces it is this Punjab Frontier Force; yet that Force can safely and properly be removed from the local command of the Punjab Govern-
  900
  ment and placed under the control of the Commander-in-Chief in India. Why cannot that be done in regard to the Forces in Madras and Bombay? We have had certain reasons given to us, but they do not satisfy me. The present proposal has been, recommended at, the express desire of the Government of India for the last ten years, so that this is not the first time the Indian Government have urged their views upon it. It is a repetition of their claim that their opinions should be acted upon—an opinion which has been held from 1879 to 1890, and that claim is just as strong now as it was in 1879. The fact is that the only real ground for the refusal of the demand is to be found in the patronage which rests in the Military Authorities in this country. It is there that we find the dissentient opinion expressed by Military Authorities at home, for that dissent is not expressed by the Military Authorities in India. You have the Commander-in-Chief in India now, as in 1879, expressing the same views as to the reduction of the Presidential commands. I should like to call the attention of the House to the very strong language in the last letter from the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India. First of all, that letter disposes, I think, of the objection raised by the Under Secretary of State for India in regard to this being a matter which would give us no pecuniary advantage, because on page 200 of the Blue Book they urge this abolition of the Presidential commands in the strongest way, on this very ground of securing thereby a financial advantage. That was the Despatch of the 5th July, 1889, from the Government of India to the Secretary of State, and it decidedly disposes of the argument that we are not to expect from this abolition of the Presidential system any pecuniary advantage. They point out also in that Despatch that it was their earnest desire to have this change, and that it was a misfortune that their desire was not attained; and they ask that this amendment of the military system should be carried out now, while there is peace in the country. They say—
  "We desire, therefore, once again to place before Her Majesty's Government our conviction that it would be a misfortune of the

  901
  greatest moment if this amendment of the military administration, which we consider to be essential to the efficiency of the Army in this country, should not he carried out in the breathing time of peace, which we, fortunately, now possess."
  Now, we have had debates on this topic in this House before, and the last occasion was when we moved a Resolution on the Indian Budget in 1888. We were not able on that occasion to carry our point, but the arguments in favour of it are just as strong now as they were then. I myself have a letter from a gentleman, unfortunately now deceased, who was President of the Simla Commission, and in it he expressed his indignation that the efforts which have been made by the men who composed that Commission over which he presided had met with such unfortunate ill-success, not from the Indian Government in India, but from the Secretary of State for India in this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: I think that whatever else may be said of this Debate, it clearly shows that the House of Commons, as a whole, is scarcely competent to arrive at a conclusion upon a matter of such detail and of such vast importance to the administration of India. I do not think any hon. Member who has spoken will seriously dispute that proposition. For instance, I find nothing in the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken which shows that he, or anyone of the hon. Members who have addressed the House, draws his illustrations from personal knowledge or from any knowledge attainable in this country, or so as to be able to express a confident opinion either of what has been done in India, or as to the probable effect of the step which it is now proposed should be taken. The one exception is probably my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, who has watched very closely the various steps which have been taken; who is able to speak with great authority as to the views entertained by the Government of India; and who, probably alone in this House, is able to appreciate the real importance of many of the details brought under our notice. I, myself, am very much in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). He very
  902
  candidly confessed that he approaches the consideration of this subject without any knowledge of recent details, but only with that general knowledge of military detail which he has acquired in the high position he has formerly filled. I feel myself almost exactly in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman. He has spoken to-night of the differences of military opinion on this subject, and he said that, in his opinion, there is no question of military administration whatever about which vast differences in military opinion are not to be found. Well, I entirely agree with that proposition. I am afraid my own experience in that direction is even wider than his own. But I do not think he has given a fair attention to the other consideration which attaches to this subject, and that is, that we have not only a difference of military opinion, but a difference of opinion amongst all the higher authorities who have had occasion to approach this question. We have had four Viceroys of India expressing an opinion in one direction. We have had four Secretaries of State for India of different periods, every one of whom objected on different grounds to the proposal that this step should be taken. I think I may go so far as to say this—that, in my opinion, the difference of opinion that has existed between the Viceroys of India and the Secretaries of State for India has not altogether extended to matters of principle. It has not been altogether difference of opinion on matters of principle that has led to that divergence of view as to the action that should be taken, but it has been because grave doubts have been entertained as to whether the precise time had come for carrying into effect the particular proposals made by the Government of India for the time being. I should like also to say this: This is not a War Office question at all. It is quite true that my connection with the War Office and; the connection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) with the War Office naturally leads people to expect that we should express an opinion upon a very important question of military administration, but I do think that at the War Office we have really very little to do with it indeed. British interests and the interests

  903
  of British troops are very little concerned in this matter. If any question ever was so, this is essentially a matter of Indian opinion. It is an Indian question from first to last; and I am bound to add also that, for that reason, special attention ought to be paid to those of Indian experience who are qualified to express an opinion on the subject. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion dwelt upon the danger which might exist in time of war if a reform did not take place in the system of military organisation in India, and he referred to the state of things which existed in 1879. Now, so far as regards what existed in 1879, I entirely agree with him. I expressed an opinion at the time, and everything I have heard since has only led me to form a stronger opinion on the subject. I believe our experience at the time of the Afghan War abundantly shows that the military administration at that time in India was by no means a satisfactory one, and that we might have run even greater dangers than those which were proved to have existed at that time. But the hon. Member has frankly admitted that since that time very great changes have been made. My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India has explained the nature of those changes. I am not qualified to explain them myself, nor have I followed with close attention to detail the alterations that have taken place in Indian military administration. But I am certain from what I have been able to ascertain on the subject that some objections, and grave objections, which existed at that time, have been entirely removed. I am confident that in any matter like this, which involves, we cannot doubt, the gravest questions of military administration, we must proceed by gradual steps. The Blue Book from which hon. Members have quoted to-night, and which showed the opinions of great authorities in India and in this country in respect to this question, amply proves that amongst them all there was this general consensus of opinion that the steps to be taken were grave steps, and ought to be approached with the fullest sense of responsibility; and I believe that is all the more true, because one of the main steps which would have to be taken involves political control over native troops. Now, is there
  904
  any one man now present in this House who would venture to say that he is competent to express an opinion as to the precise time when political control over native troops in India ought to be transferred from one authority to another? Certainly, having given some attention to the latest knowledge on the subject—I do not think, nor is the Government prepared to say, that the time has come to carry effect any one of the steps which are included in the general terms of the Resolution that the hon. Member has proposed. But I should not like to deal with it in more detail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs spoke of it in terms of the greatest moderation; but he showed very clearly that the strong bias of his mind was in favour of the general tenour of the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member, and he advanced arguments to show that we must move in that direction. I admit that I have spoken strongly on this question in this House, and I do not now withdraw a word of what I have said. I believe that the system of military administration in India undoubtedly requires that a considerable modification should be made in it. Some modifications have already been made, and it remains for the Government to see whether any of the changes that have been made have been effectual. It is obvious, I think, that every great change that has been introduced requires that any Government that is wise should watch carefully the effects of the steps that have been taken up to the present time, but which may not even yet have been completely carried into effect. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government think it is their duty to watch and see, at any rate for a short time, what have been the results of those measures that have already been undertaken in the way of change. I am prepared to give this assurance to the House: that while we do not wish to pledge ourselves by a Resolution such as the hon. Gentleman has proposed to carry into effect by legislation changes of a wholesale and widely sweeping character; while we are not prepared to interrupt the work of the House of Commons for the purpose of pushing on such a measure on a subject like this which will require, and

  905
  which ought to require, very serious attention, and which must necessarily occupy a considerable amount of time, we are at the same time ready and willing to say we will take what further steps we may deem necessary to carry into effect whatever experience may prove to be essential to render complete and efficient the Army organisation of India. Before I conclude my remarks, I should like to say this also: The hon. Gentleman has put before the House a proposal which involves, if it be carried, our arriving at a conclusion of a most drastic character, and which would commit the House and the Government to immediate legislation on this subject. Of course, if the hon. Member insists on taking a Division, we shall be forced to vote; but let me ask the House what would be the effect of such a proceeding? The Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman would in all probability be rejected, and this House would thereby be affirming that it is not prepared to accept the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, that is not the spirit in which I desire to approach this question. On the contrary, I desire to approach it in the spirit of one who, to a great extent, sympathises with the principle enunciated by the hon. Member, but who also desires that the House and the Government should be allowed sufficient time to enable them to judge fully and fairly of the effects produced by the measures that have already been taken, in the belief that the time will then come when we ought to take counsel and consider whether or not any, and what, measures may be necessary to carry out the changes that have been suggested.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: When I first read the Motion of my hon. Friend I thought it was intended to be much wider in its scope than it has proved to be. It proposes "to call attention to the Presidential system of Government in India," and I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to raise the question of separate Presidencies, in regard to which my own opinion is that separate Presidencies are an inconvenient and expensive survival, which is only justified by those who regard them from the patronage point of view. For my part, I am of opinion that the time has come when they ought to be abolished. But I find that my hon.
  906
  Friend has confined himself entirely to the military aspect of the question; and, as he has taken that course, I will endeavour to confine myself solely to the military and financial view which is presented by this subject. With regard to the financial part of the question, I have a, very strong opinion. I desire that the Commander-in-Chief—the great officer of the British Army who holds the command of the Armies of Madras and Bombay—should be done away with in the interests of economy and the interests of efficiency. We are told that the whole of the European Army in India is under one Commander-in-Chief, and I think it a very good system which requires that it should be so. I know from personal experience the difficulties that arise from this command of the different divisions of the Army. I think that the arrangement under which the three Armies of India are commanded is a very extravagant and a very undesirable one, and, as far as that point is concerned, I am entirely with my hon. Friend. But, on the other hand, and from a political point of view, I think that the Native Army ought to be divided, and that the policy of such a division is made apparent by the experience we have had of the great Mutiny in India. In my view the success with which we were enabled to meet and overcome that Mutiny in India was very much due to the separation of the Native Armies because, by dividing one Native Army from another, we adopt, as it were, the system of building in compartments, in such a way that if one compartment takes fire the other does not. I hold very strongly the view that while we have in India a general European Army, and perhaps, to some extent, also a General Service Native Army, it is most desirable that this should be kept entirely apart from the Native Armies belonging to the different Governments of India—I will not say, of the Presidencies. It is exceedingly desirable that the Native Armies should at all times be kept under separate control, and that they should not be allowed to come much together. This was a policy which I myself held when occupying the position I held in India and I believe that in this view, which hold very strongly, lam in accord with the majority of the Council of the Secretary for India. It has always seemed to me that the peculiar position of the natives

  907
  in some parts of India is such that it is most desirable that we should not have too much centralisation, but that to some extent we should adopt the principle of Home Rule in these matters. It appears to me that it is an injurious policy to centralise too much, and that it is always safest and best to keep the Native Indian Armies divided. With regard to the civil aspect of these Native Armies, I think that in matters connected with enlistment, the terms of enlistment, and their general relations to the State, there should be a strong element of local government, and not too much centralisation. From a purely practical point of view, I am very desirous indeed of seeing a certain amount of power over the local Armies maintained by the Local Governments of India. I know how expensive it is in the case of a little war to bring to bear all the heavy paraphernalia of a great centralised Army. On the last occasion when I was serving out in India I thought I might have avoided these little wars; but I was not so fortunate. In the East of India we had a good many little wars. When the Commander-in-Chief had to be appealed to, the result was that everything was done on a great scale, two large forces being sent from different points with different Commissariats and different supplies of material. Those two forces were no doubt successfully "marched up the hill" and then equally successfully "marched down again;" and as they, for the time being, quelled the raids of the wild tribes, they were called upon to subdue, the expedition was, upon the whole, regarded as a very successful one. But after a time those wild tribes became as bad as ever, and I believe they are giving a great deal of trouble down to the present moment. Subsequently I had a good many little wars to contend with, and I found that, by avoiding the necessity of appealing to the Commander-in-Chief and carrying on those little wars in my own way, I was enabled to bring them to a successful issue. As I have said, it is in my view most desirable that in these matters there should be certain powers granted to the Local Governments. I am not sure whether the Punjab frontier of India is now under the control and management of the Governor of the Punjab; but if it be so, it is desirable that he should have
  908
  certain powers enabling him to manage things in his own way, and that the Commander-in-Chief should not be allowed to annex the Frontier Punjab Force. I am not sure whether Madras and Bombay are parts of India which most require a Native Army; but we have a Native Army in Burma, and I am quite sure that there is no necessity for the large paraphernalia the Commander-in-Chief now has in Bombay. I hope that things are not now as bad as they were formerly. If in the future we are enabled to carry out in reality that which is nominally supposed to be carried out, and if we unite the European Force with the General Service Force, at the same time maintaining the local Native Armies under distinct commands, we shall in that way save a large portion of the expense which has now to be incurred without danger to the Native Forces.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Sir, the statements which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has made were, on the whole, fair. He stated that if further steps were necessary for carrying out the object which the Government of India have in view, the present Government were prepared to take those steps as soon as they found they were necessary or practicable. Under the circumstances, therefore, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  COLONIAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I rise to call attention to the growing desire of the great colonies to enter into closer commercial relations with the Mother Country and with one another, and to move
  "That, in the opinion of this House, an early opportunity should be taken of inviting the self-governing colonies to confer with the Imperial Government upon the best means of developing the trade of the Empire."
  I am mindful that a somewhat similar Motion was brought forward in another place; but from what then took place it is evident that the Prime Minister has an open mind upon the subject, for he said that whenever he perceived that public opinion was favourable thereto he would be willing to take steps to ascertain the feeling of the colonies more definitely upon the subject. In view of that

  909
  expression on the part of the Prime Minister, I trust I shall not be considered as taking up the time of the House unnecessarily on a subject which is second to none in importance to the future welfare and integrity of the Empire. It is perfectly true that the argument might be justifiably advanced with, regard to our extraordinary fiscal system; which, while it affords the most extravagant protection to freedom of competition at home, admits to this country not only foreign labour but foreign goods, with the effect of submerging one-tenth of our population and reducing tens of thousands of others to a state bordering on poverty. However, Mr. Speaker, this is a domestic matter in which we need not mix up a colonial question, and especially as we shall have other opportunities of raising it. A large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are warm sympathisers with the idea of Imperial federation, and many are members of the Imperial Federation League. It is not too much to say that commercial federation is the only road to that Imperial federation of the British race which was so dear to the heart of the late Mr. Forster, and which he hoped to see an accomplished fact. The Colonial Conference, which was the greatest event of the Jubilee year, was a step towards it. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, during his too brief sojourn at the Colonial Office, in his Despatch of Invitation expressly excluded this subject from consideration. The fruit of commercial federation has since, however, become far riper. Mr. Hofmeyr, one of the most prominent and loyal of our Dutch fellow-subjects in South Africa, even then presented on behalf of Cape Colony a formal Resolution to the Conference upon the subject of the trade relations between the Mother Country and the colonies and between the colonies themselves. He presented it not as a Protectionist measure, but as an effective measure for the unification of the Empire. The Motion of Mr. Hofmeyr urged
  "Consideration of the feasibility of promoting closer union between the various parts of the British Empire by means of an Imperial Customs Tariff."
  It was submitted in a speech that was eulogised by the other members of the Conference, and the proposal
  910
  was described by not the least distinguished among them as "the only concrete one that had been brought forward for the unification of the Empire." The present Premier of Queensland, Sir Samuel Griffith, the ex-Premier of Victoria, and many others took part in the discussion, and no one could read the Report without seeing how strong and unanimous was the feeling in favour of closer trade relations between the great self-governing colonies and the Mother Country. Sir William FitzHerbert, whose death New Zealand has lately mourned, spoke with warmth, but not in warmer terms than the circumstances justified. He said—
  "Friend or foe, white or dark man, it is no matter for England. There is no favour or preference given to kith or kin, wherever they may be. If we are to draw closer the bunds of union between the British Empire all over the world, this matter of the trade relations of the Empire is of fundamental importance, and one with which we must attempt to deal."
  This view was corroborated by the Prime Minister of Queensland, who declared—
  "The first duty of every one of us in every country in the Empire is a duty to the Empire before our duty to any foreign country."
  Nor can I forget to quote from a speech by Mr. Service, the distinguished Australian politician. When it was insinuated by one of his colleagues at the Conference that the course recommended might be against the canons of the gospel of one sided Free Trade, for the support of which the Cobden Club would avow that Englishmen are expressly born into the world, Mr. Service declares—
  "I am a Free Trader, but I am not one of those Free Traders who believe in Free Trade as a fetish to be worn round our necks, and who regard it as always indicative of precisely the same condition of things that it was indicative of in the Cobden period, or hold that circumstances might never arise of an Imperial character which might demand a revision of our policy upon that question."
  I have to ask the pardon of the House for making these extensive quotations, which are necessary to prove what is the condition of colonial feeling on this question. It has been urged, in reference to another matter which we have been discussing, that we should wait until the people have spoken. In this matter we are urged to wait until the colonies have spoken. I contend that the colonies spoke on the subject, and very emphatic-

  911
  cally, at the Conference of 1887. They have also spoken since 1887, and are speaking to-day through their most representative men. Now, on the 22nd June, 1889, Sir Charles Tupper, the High Commissioner of Canada, who during his residence here has won the regard of all classes of the community, said publicly—
  "I believe myself that it is most important that Her Majesty's Government, with the support—the united support—of Her Majesty's Opposition, should take the necessary steps for summoning here in this heart of this great Empire Representatives of all Her Majesty's colonies. Means should be adopted by having a great Convention representing every portion of the Empire here in the Metropolis to consider a scheme in all its details."
  With the help of my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Battersea, steps were taken to press home by influential representations this view upon the Government, though I am sorry to say up to the present time with indifferent success. The development of inter British trade and the termination of all trade engagements with Foreign Powers was also urged in April of last year upon the Dominion House of Commons by General Laurie, a distinguished Representative of Nova Scotia in that House, and recent events have undoubtedly strongly developed Canadian feeling, expressed eloquently as it was by Sir Charles Tupper, the High Commissioner, and expressed, too, in the heart of the Dominion of Canada by General Laurie. Recent events, I say, have intensified Canadian feeling. Now, it is very easy for right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Table to endeavour to persuade themselves that the M'Kinley Tariff will very soon he repealed, but, for my part, I shall only believe it will be repealed when that repeal is an accomplished fact. What has the M'Kinley Tariff done already for the United States. A Trade Convention is in progress of negotiation between Newfoundland and the United States. It has won for the United States a preference of 25 per cent in the markets of Brazil. Most undoubtedly it has provoked a very serious political crisis in the Dominion of Canada. Here at home it has reduced by 45 per cent already the trade of my constituents with America. In South Wales, and in parts of Ireland also, working men either find themselves without work, or with
  912
  reduced wages, in consequence of this M'Kinley Tariff, because we have no means of negotiating with foreign countries for the repeal of duties against British trade, having, as was stated authoritatively from the Government Bench several times in the course of last Session, nothing to give in return. But for the Dominion of Canada the state of affairs provoked by the economic legislation of the United States is far worse. Let me quote the words of Sir John Macdonald, the veteran Prime Minister, who, speaking at Halifax on the 2nd October last, said—
  "The United States practically say to us in Canada, 'if you want reciprocity with us or trade with us, there is only one of two thing you can do—either annex yourselves to us, or sever yourselves from Great Britain. Start out for yourselves or join us, and we will deal with you; but so long as you are a portion of the British Empire we will not deal with you.'"
  Sir John Macdonald went on to say—
  "According to the old saying this would be a case of the lion and the lamb lying down together, but with the lamb inside the lion. No such fate threatens us, however, if we are true to ourselves and true to our country, and true to our children and our children's children. We must continue to remain as we are—happy in living under a magnificent climate, happy in the possession of a fertile soil, and a law abiding population, and happy in being an integral portion of the greatest and grandest Empire known to history."
  And then upon another occasion more recently the Canadian Ministry, speaking on the economic condition of affairs produced by the M'Kinley Tariff in the Dominion of Canada, said—
  "For trade, for new markets, we will look to Australia, to the West Indies, to the Mother Country."
  Communications are already in progress between the Dominion of Canada and Australasia; communications are already in progress between the Dominion of Canada and the West Indies; and will not the House of Commons say that, so far as possibly can be done, the great Dominion of Canada shall not look in vain to the Mother Country? It would not only be a fitting answer to send this evening to a veteran servant of the Empire, whose motto and watchword at the present time is "A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die." But in October, 1889, the leader of the Political Opposition in Canada is reported to have said—

  913
  "I would be in favour of a more close commercial alliance of Canada with Great Britain. I would favour it with all my soul."
  There is only one more witness I call: Sir Gordon Sprigg, speaking last year in London, said—
  "How are the component parts of the Empire to be held together? Having given a great deal of attention to this matter it appears to me that the basis of the Imperial Federation of the future must be a Customs Union. Supposing you do'nt bind together your colonies and dependencies by some such bond as a Customs Union, what guarantee have you that you will hold your Empire together? It has been doubted whether the colonies themselves are in favour of such a proposal"—
  and I particularly invite the attention of right hon. Gentlemen to this: Sir Gordon Sprigg replies—
  "I will only say that in travelling through this country upon occasional visits I keep my eyes and ears open, and I sometimes think that it I wanted to find illustrations of men who hold fast to the best traditions of Old England I would not look for them here in the centre, but I would go to the distant dependencies where the sons and daughters of England keep watch and ward over the outposts of the Empire."
  And these views are, I know, undoubtedly warmly held by Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the present Prime Minister. I have endeavoured thus to show the House, through the mouth of representative men in Australia—one the present Prime Minister of Queensland, another long the holder of political authority in Victoria, a third for a lifetime the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in New Zealand; through the mouth of the present Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, and also of the leader of the Political Opposition; through the mouth of the ex-Prime Minister and other representative men in South Africa—that there is at the present time a growing desire on the part of the great colonies to enter into close commercial relations with the Mother Country and with each other. I might quote Sir Julius Vogel and other eminent exponents of the feeling of the colonies. But it is not necessary. I urge, then, upon the House—in our own interests quite as much as in colonial interests—that early opportunity should be taken of inviting the self-governing colonies to confer with the Imperial Government, not upon a cut-and-dried proposal, not upon some definite scheme, which might or might not be popular;
  914
  but upon the best means of developing the trade of the Empire. I urge this view upon hon. Members, not only because the colonies expect it of us, not only because it is our bounden duty, but also because the vast growth of inter-British trade compared with foreign trade, now amounting to upwards of £250,000,000 a year, shows that such a union within the British Empire would be commercially advantageous both to the Mother Country and to the colonies. Lastly, I urge it upon the Government, and I do so by reason of the declaration of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall on the 10th November. These were Lord Salisbury's words:—
  "We know that every bit of the world's surface that is not under the British flag is country which may be, and probably will be, closed to us by a hostile tariff, and therefore it is that we are anxious, above all things, to conserve, to unify, to strengthen the Empire of the Queen, because it is to the trade that is carried on within the Empire of the Queen that we look for the vital force of the commerce of this country."
  And not only have we this authority from the Prime Minister of this country; but I find from the latest publication of the Cobden Club, issued within the last few days, by authority, no doubt, of the hon. Member for Rochdale, under the title Fiscal Federation and Free Trade, which ends thus:—
  "The Empire would then be commercially impregnable; the Mother Country, the colonies, and India would reign supreme in each other's markets… Such a fiscal federation would require no adjustment; it would avoid all disputes, all jealousies; it would form a bond of union which would defy the threats or blandishments of any scheming Foreign Powers, and prove more durable than any other that could be conceived."
  I think I am justified, therefore, in asking the support for this Motion of Free Traders and Fair Traders alike, of both sides of the House, and in asking hon. Members, by acceding to this Motion, to do something, at any rate, towards developing the trade of the United Empire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, an early opportunity should be taken of inviting the self-governing Colonies to confer with the Imperial Government upon the belt means of developing the trade of the Empire."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I rise to second the Motion. There are two

  915
  points which are raised by the Resolution. The first is the great desire of the colonies for a closer commercial union with the Mother Country and with each other. What is it that has brought about that desire at the present time? Undoubtedly the trade which they are carrying on, and which is so fast developing in Australia and in Canada, may be, to some extent, a reason for the growing desire that is thus shown. But there is another matter which I think has a much closer relation with this view, and that is, that our colonies have before them, to a greater extent than ever before, as a great object lesson, the prosperity and increasing greatness of the United States of America. The United States call themselves—and, without doubt, to some extent, properly—a Free Trade country. They have a thorough free inter-State trade, and that is one of the points which is regarded, especially in Australia, and to a very considerable extent in Canada, as the cause of that prosperity. They say here are several States which are able to produce everything they can altogether desire. They have no duty at all on goods passing from one State to another. The duties which they levy are on articles brought in from the outside world, and thus raising their required revenue by a tax by means of which they avoid all other taxation. I do not think that could be better illustrated than by a case which was alluded to by Sir Henry Parkes at the Conference held at Melbourne in February last on the subject of the federation of Australia. The State of Maryland allowed Baltimore to levy a Wharfage Duty on all goods coming into Baltimore from other places than those in the State of Maryland. A potato merchant coming in was asked to pay four or five dollars Wharfage Dues, having come from some other State. He refused to pay it, and was taken before the Court, which ordered him to pay. He appealed to the Court of the State, which affirmed that decision. He then went to the Supreme Court, which held that—
  "It must be regarded as settled that no State can consistently with the Federal Constitution impose upon the products of other States more onerous public burdens or taxes than it imposes upon like products in its own area."
  This establishes beyond all doubt the
  916
  doctrine that America is in this sense a Free Trade country, and allows no duties to be levied as between State and State. That is the great object lesson, which is held before Australia and before Canada. Canada is told, "Set yourselves entirely free from the Mother Country, or even keep yourselves still in alliance with the Mother Country, but join yourselves together to levy duties against the outside world, and have an inter-State thorough freedom with us, and you will become a great country." This matter was brought before the Australian Conference last year as one which would direct their minds on the federalisation of Australia. They would see how, by bringing together Queensland and all the other colonies, they might produce a great country, which might have inter-colonial Free Trade levying duties on the outside world. And when a Free Trade State is told that she cannot profitably enter into a federal connection with Protectionist States, there is one part of the Dominion to which I will call especial attention. It is a vrey great illustration of what may be done in this way. I allude to British Columbia. Victoria in British Columbia was a free port where no dues were levied, and they were very much opposed to being brought into the Dominion of Canada and being thereby subject to fiscal duties. She joined the Dominion, however, and what has been the result? I took the trouble to inquire into the prices and into the duties that were being levied in British Columbia, and I find that the people there are in a singularly more prosperous condition than they were during the time that Victoria was a free port. Wages are very much higher, the highest probably that you can find in the whole circuit of the globe. The necessaries of life, although there are heavy dues, are cheaper than are to be found anywhere else. It might have been supposed that at the Australian Conference there would be a difficulty in discussing this question between Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, all Protectionist countries, and New South Wales, a Free Trade colony. But that difficulty was dropped entirely. My hon. Friend, in the second part of his Motion, discusses the desirability of a Conference as the best means of developing

  917
  the trade of the Empire. Can anybody doubt that the tendency throughout the British Empire is to form a federation of the Empire? Can anybody doubt that if this Empire is to hold its own it will be by a closer union between the Mother Country and the colonies? I can only say this for myself: I have gone for many years through the country speaking on different platforms, and I have never, before any part of my countrymen, talked about a closer union with the colonies without finding that it was the one great thing that seemed to interest them more than anything else. The question of the Customs Union must arise whenever this subject comes on, and the question, then, will be; What has England to give, and what has England to gain, by a Customs Union? The colonies will say, "You want customers for your manufactures; look at the M'Kinley Tariff, which is aimed at you," and who can doubt, who has any acquaintance at all with the subject, that the M'Kinley Tariff is aimed at our supremacy, aimed first of all at the detachment of England from Canada? Do not tell me it was a question of the hour. I was in the United States during the Presidential Election in 1884, and the speeches then made by Mr. Blaine were to this effect:—
  "If there is anything that can come into our country which we can produce we shall put a duty on it which shall prevent it being introduced; if there is anything that comes in which we cannot produce, let it come in duty free."
  That was the doctrine of 1884; it is the doctrine of the present time; it is a doctrine which has got an immense hold of the people. It was put forward not as a political action at all, because it has ruined to a considerable extent the man who brought it forward. It was put forward as the steady studied resolve of the American people, and it will remain for years to come. We must, then, face the M'Kinley Tariff as an existing fact. In addition to that, Russia, France, and Germany all have recently increased their tariffs. We may well say to the colonies, "We require your aid to take our manufactured goods from us." England will say, "I have tried all arguments with other countries, and I find I can make no impression upon them, in the sense of making them come to our view of Free Trade." The
  918
  colonies will reply, "You can give us a preference in bringing in our raw material for manufacturers, and in the shape of food. Find out if we in India, in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, and in Egypt produce more than enough to feed you without stint, and when you have found that, say that you will give us a preference to your markets, and we will lower out duties in favour of your manufactures." Sir John Macdonald said to me in 1881 that if England would put but a half-dollar duty on corn coming from all countries, other than colonies he would undertake that Canada would allow a preferential duty in favour of England. That is the proposition that is made by Canada, and that will be made by Australia and the other colonies, and I say we should do very well to accede to it. I feel sure the time is closely approaching when the working men of England will see that if they are to keep up their wages, and retain their places in this country, it must be by getting better outlets for their manufactures, and they can only get that by giving to the colonies an opportunity of selling the goods here. I am glad to know that the news that this Motion is made will reach Sir John Macdonald on his electioneering tour. He is a man who, above all others, has the interest of England at heart, and I am sure everyone will wish that Sir John Macdonald may long'remain Prime Minister of Canada, and maintain the greatness of the Empire.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR,: I have nothing to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield for in the way that he has brought forward the Resolution in regard to the Conference, in so much as he has said; but I have some fault to find with him because he has not told us what is the nature of the subject which he is about to bring before this Conference. He could not invite the whole of the colonies to come to a solemn Conference in England without a basis on which the Conference shall go, and he has given us no indication in regard to that basis. So far as the terms of the Motion go, the colonists might be asked to come and discuss with the Free Traders the benefits of Free Trade, and give their views on Protection. Does my hon. Friend want to make a Debating Society by asking the whole of the colonies to come into a solemn Con-

  919
  ference in this country without indicating a clear and distinct basis upon which this Conference is to take place? He is asking a very serious question—he is asking the colonies to come and confer, without giving the slightest information as to what they ought to confer about. The basis of discussion ought to have been distinctly laid down. In the course of his speech my hon. Friend showed that he was first a Fair Trader—whom I have always looked upon as a Protectionist wearing a domino—and then a Protectionist. What is the object of this Motion? The right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet Division of Kent (Mr. J. Lowther) the other day placed upon the Paper a Motion which throws a bull's-eye illumination upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Motion proposing to invite the colonies to send representatives to a Conference to be held in this country, asserted that there was imminent danger menacing the integrity of the Empire and the interests of all classes engaged in the industries of the United Kingdom, because Parliament has not yet established a differential system of taxation in favour of colonial produce. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will to-night give the House a thorough-going Protectionist speech in illustration of his Motion. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the facts upon which he bases his alarming suggestion as to the danger to the integrity of the Empire and to all classes engaged in the industries of the United Kingdom? The Trade Returns for 1890 show that our trade for that year amounted to some £684,000,000, and showed an advance over that of 1886 of £122,000,000. Therefore the trade of the country is largely increasing. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the industrial and the poorer classes were being injured by the importation of foreign manufactures, but the published Returns show that employment is general throughout the country, that wages are good, and that poverty and crime are decreasing. In my opinion, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not made out that there is any cause for alarm on the ground that our industrial classes are suffering through our free importation of foreign goods, and there is no ground on that score to ask our colonies
  920
  to send representatives to attend a Conference in this country. It would, therefore, appear that the black cloud which the right hon. Gentleman seems to see hanging over this country is visible to his eyes only. What has really frightened my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend is clearly the Canadian elections. There are, no doubt, serious features connected with those elections. There is one Party in Canada which desires to foster the trade with the United States, and to impose differential duties as against British goods. The other Party has a strong feeling of loyalty to England, and desires to obtain reciprocal trade in natural products with the United States. To this England could not have the slightest objection, because the natural products of Canada reach this country free of duty, and if they reach the United States free of duty also all Free Traders would much rejoice. Personally, I am afraid of speaking about the Canadian elections, and I do not think either Party in Canada would thank this House for discussing the subject. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend (Mr. Howard Vincent), who in the Motion that first appeared on the Paper mentioned Canada, has since substituted the words "self-governing colonies," which is much safer and better. Now, when England gave taxing powers to the colonies she gave those powers without conditions. We did not reserve to ourselves the right of insisting that British goods should enter free of taxation. Some of the colonies are Free Trade countries.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Name them.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: New South Wales is a Free Trade country, and so, practically, is the Empire of India. Other colonies are strongly Protectionist, such as Canada, Victoria, and Western Australia. The average duties imposed on imports, for the purpose either of protection or of revenue, vary from 4 per cent. in India to 29 per cent. in Canada. The real object of the Motion of my hon. Friend is no doubt to secure the adoption of the plan which he indicated as having been brought forward with so much ability by Mr. Hofmeyr in 1887. What that means is that all foreign goods of every kind are to be taxed.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg pardon. I did not adopt the proposal of Mr. Hofmeyr.
  SRI LYON PLAYFAIR: But that is the only interpretation we have of colonial views and wishes. What is it he is aiming at? Is it a general Zollverein? Are the duties in the colonies to be of equal value or of varying value? How is it possible to have a general Zollverein? You have the greatest varieties in the colonies. You have different climates, different soils, different products, and different people, and, as a result, it has been shown that, with all the efforts to make a taxation upon a moderate scale, the colonies differ as much as from 4 per cent. to 29 per cent, in the mode in which they levy the duties on goods. That is because taxation suitable to one colony is not the least suitable to another colony. But there was one thing that in the 1887 Conference all the colonies were perfectly and absolutely agreed upon. All the colonies desire that England should put a tax—moderate in amount, it is true—upon all foreign imports, but that all imports from the colonies which were not employed for our Revenue, such as tea and tobacco, should be admitted free of duty. At the same time, the colonies absolutely refused to be bound in any way to lower their duties upon British commodities. Now I come to Mr. Hofmeyr's proposal. He said—
  "We require a Defence Fund for the Empire, and I propose that we should put a 2 per cent. tax upon all foreign imports that either go into England or go into the colonies."
  He was careful to explain that taxation of foreign goods would be of no use to the colonies unless England taxed food and raw materials. If we taxed foreign imports coming into England 2 per cent., the colonies would agree to put 2 per cent. on foreign imports in addition to what they charge now. The product of the tax is to be kept separate, and made into a Defence Fund, and he calculated then and I calculate now that such a tax would produce a revenue of about £8,000,000 [An hon. MEMBER: £7,000,000.] He said £7,000,000, but now it is increased. Therefore, the colonies propose that England shall tax itself for this special Defence Fund. At present we pay all the expenses of the naval armaments. We are to tax the people of England to
  922
  the extent of £6,250,000 for the purposes of this Defence Fund; for if all the colonies agreed to come in, the colonies would not pay more than £1,750,000. But would they all agree to come in? Just look at the matter in the light of common sense. The colonies have the greatest varieties in their dealings with foreign countries. For instance, Australia only imports 10 per cent. of foreign goods. Canada imports more than 56 per cent., and the West Indies, 40 per cent. Do you think the colonies are all going on this simple and equal method, to have their foreign commodities taxed when there is such variety amongst them? The foreign trade of the colonies amounts to less than £67,000,000, while the foreign imports of England amount to £325,000,000. The proposal is that England should put an additional tax on its people in respect of this £325,000,000, while the colonies should only put a tax on in respect of £67,000,000. There was a significant circumstance which occurred in that Conference. Some of the colonies said that a 2 per cent. tax on foreign imports into England was of no use to them; it must be much more than that. Mr. Hofmeyr said that he only mentioned 2 per cent. to begin with; it might rise to 5, 10, or even to 50 per cent. Thus we are gradually to be squeezed up until we are in the firm grip of Protection once more. The colonies are to be perfectly independent to tax Great Britain as they like, but England is not to be at liberty to put anything but a tax on foreign products of all kinds. England, after one celebrated experience, has been chary of interfering with the taxation of the colonies. We once tried to interfere with the taxation of our colonies in North America, and we therefore lost the United States. But what is this that is proposed? It is that the colonies in their turn shall come and tax England; it is that the pelican shall vulnerate itself in order that with its own blood it may feed its young. The House will understand the matter better if I take as an illustration breadstuffs. The United States send to this country 35,000,000 cwt. of grain calculated as flour; Canada sends 4,000,000 cwt. From what hon. Members know of the United States and its desire for retaliation, do they think that the United States would rest satisfied to see this

  923
  country taking the 4,000,000 cwt. from Canada free into this country while harassing the former with all the new Customs apparatus and the duty on the 35,000,000 cwt. which they send here? You know perfectly well that there would be such retaliation immediately as would make us bitterly repent. The whole foreign supply of wheat calculated as flour is 66,000,000 cwt., and of that the colonial supply is only 13,000,000 cwt. Take the case of cotton. The United States furnished us last year with 1,344,000,000 pounds, and the West India Colonies, her near neighbours, send us 500,000. We are to put a tax upon the American cotton. Do you mean to say that the United States would not at once put a retaliatory duty on our cotton fabrics? [Hon. MEMBERS: They do.] They would make the duty prohibitive if you taxed their raw material. The hon. and learned Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) referred to the M'Kinley Tariff. Does he not know that there has been an enormous upheaval in the United States against that tariff? I have studied the question longer than the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have noticed the splendid education that has been going on throughout the United States with reference to the tariff; and now there is a new Congress which is pledged to make a reformed tariff immediately, and it contains a very large majority against the ultra-Protectionists. Suppose we were at once to accept the policy of the hon. Member and put a tax upon foreign commodities in order to please the colonies. What would result? You would bring Canada and the United States into a most critical attitude, because you would give a preference to the exports of Canada. We ought to encourage the United States as much as possible to go on in their career of tariff reform, and bring about much better relations with the rest of the world, and especially with Great Britain. I have the greatest admiration for Canada. It has shown itself a most energetic nation. It has connected the Atlantic and Pacific by an iron band which has given to England a new route to the East, for which we ought to be very grateful. I do not blame Canada for her protective tariff, indeed, I think she is forced into it by the action
  924
  of the United States, and I sympathise with Sir John Macdonald in his efforts to establish with his powerful neighbours reciprocity, for natural products. That reciprocity which continued from 1854 to 1868, bound the two countries together so firmly that, although the United States was engaged in one of the greatest wars which any country has ever had, they did not require one soldier more on the frontier or one single ship of the United States to prevent Canadian Alabamas preying on commerce. Most of us have for years been strongly in favour of political and, so far as we can obtain it, commercial federation with the colonies, but there is much more than that involved. I hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) who runs his politics just as straight as he runs his horses, and who does not hide his views under a bushel, will tell us what his views are. I will tell him what his views were in 1885. In a speech which he made in Lincolnshire, he said: "the monstrous claptrap of the cheap loaf must be described as moonshine." As my right hon. Friend cannot tax moonshine, he is going to tax the cheap loaf by this difference in favour of the colonies. Consider for a moment what better commercial relations we could have with our colonies than we have at present. England is a great maritime and a great manufacturing nation. As a manufacturing nation this country takes all the raw materials and all the food supplies of our colonies free of duty. We convert them into manufactures, and we send them out as cheap manufactures into the colonies. It is the fault of the colonies if those commodities become dear there. The colonies have their own ideas of taxation; England has its own ideas of commercial freedom. This country finds that it has prospered enormously by making its commerce perfectly free, and we are far from blaming the colonies. I think that they will come round to the views of the question entertained in this country, just as the United States are rapidly coming round to those views, and will eventually largely reduce their duties. There is no antagonism between the commerce and the trade of the United Kingdom and the colonies. The economical conditions of the United Kingdom and those of the colonies differ altogether. Their raw materials come to us free; our manufactures do not go to them free,

  925
  but in spite of the duties they enter to a considerable extent. We have a large capital in this country, and we are glad to invest it in our colonies for the promotion of colonial undertakings; and if we leave things as they naturally are, it is to be hoped that the colonies will benefit us and that we shall benefit them. There are few fairtraders who advocate this policy who dare to say on public platforms that they want to tax food or raw materials. When those gentlemen speak they always say that they do not wish to tax food or raw materials, but the proposal of the colonies is that we should tax food or raw materials. With all this difference of opinion, therefore, with the right claimed by the colonies to taxation, independently of a Zollverein with us, there is no basis put forward on which Parliament can ask the colonies to enter a Trade Conference. I think that it is not unreasonable to hope that the colonies, when they consider the whole question, and knowing the determination of England to have untaxed food for her people and untaxed raw material for her manufactures, will see that a freer recognition of the principles of commercial freedom must add happiness to the people and security to the Empire.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down has taken the mover of the Motion to task because he confined his speech to the Motion which stands in his name, and suggested that the Member for Sheffield ought to have extended his speech to another Motion, which does not stand in his name. Now I venture to think that my hon. Friend would have laid himself open to a call to order had he adopted such advice.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: A passed Motion.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: It is a Motion I have been unable to bring forward in consequence of arrangements of business to which I need not refer, but which still stands upon the Order Book. I am bound to say I am under no obligation to decline to answer the straightforward question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asks me in effect whether I adopt the programme which has been mentioned to-night as instituted by Mr. Hofmeyr, and I reply that the pro-
  926
  gramme of Mr. Hofmeyr is one which in no shape or form am I prepared to endorse. I have not heard of any person in any way responsible for the movement represented on this occasion by my hon. Friend (Mr. Vincent) or who takes an interest in the matter who is prepared to endorse in its details the programme of Mr. Hofmeyr. I have no doubt that Gentleman expressed views on this subject in general agreement with my own. I am disposed to concur with him in his general object, but as to details I most distinctly decline to be bound by his utterances. What did my right hon. Friend go on to say? He said that the supporters of this Motion advocated a system under which this country is to be bound by certain definite obligations to the colonies, while the colonies are not bound by any definite obligations to the Mother Country. Where did he derive that information from?
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: From the Conference of 1887.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Then all I can say, knowing the care and attention my right hon. Friend has bestowed upon that Conference, is, that he must have eliminated chance sentences from the remarks of one or two speakers, and mistaken them for the unanimous opinion of the Conference. I venture to protest against such an idea as that. We have always insisted on something altogether different. We advocate absolute liberty of action, both for England and the colonies, as to the duties imposed on the introduction of all goods into their territories, with this solitary exception—that such duties as are imposed upon any goods coming from another part of the British Empire shall be met with an increased duty upon similar goods coming from other parts of the world. My right hon. Friend mentioned other matters I certainly have never suggested. My right hon. Friend says that there is to be taxation on wool, which, so far as I have ever heard, has never been so much as suggested, although as to bread stuffs I certainly hold that we ought to be independent of all sources outside the British Empire; and I think when the system comes to be fully considered it will be found that the people of this country will have the advantage of obtaining food supplies from within the limits of the Empire, which.

  927
  are sufficiently wide to include food-producing territories almost boundless in their capacity, and the cry of dear food is a bug-bear we may discard from our minds. My right hon. Friend proceeded to talk with that moderation and good sense which always distinguishes him upon the subject of Free Trade and Protection, an example which might, with advantage, be followed by others who take his view of these questions. My right hon. Friend has convinced himself that Protection is dead in the United States. Well, I thought it was only the other day that the M'Kinley tariff was proposed—an enactment far exceeding in its Protectionist tendency anything that any other country has attempted. My right hon. Friend is labouring under a delusion if he thinks that because the details of that measure have caused dissatisfaction therefore there is any feeling in the United States in favour of Free Trade. There is none whatever—absolutely none, in the sense in which the term Free Trade is used in this country. There is no Free Trade Party in the United States worthy of the name. We have been told that no person is fit to be at large who denies that Free Trade is a universal panacea for all human ills—that the man who doubts Free Trade is a person who doubts the rotundity of the world, or who denies that two and two make four. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale is not present, or I would thank him for supplying me with an unlimited amount of literature in which these and similar sentiments are eloquently enforced. What is the feeling of the world on this question? I presume that we shall not now be told that all the wise men of the world are the advocates of Free Trade, while the advocates of Protection are fools. For what are the facts? All the leading men of all political parties in all quarters of the globe, with one solitary exception, have during the last 25 years or more been staunch and avowed Protectionists. All the statesmen of Germany and Russia have never for a moment swerved from the doctrine of Protection. If my right hon. Friend doubts that statement of mine I will supply him with an authority presently which I think he will respect.
  928
  In France during the reign of the late Emperor Napoleon there were tentative steps taken in the direction of Free Trade. We used to be told that the despotisms of the world were depriving the people of the great blessings of Free Trade. What has been the case with France? The moment the French people gained popular representation steps in the direction of Free Trade were promptly abandoned, and now in France Protection rules supreme. I might go the world through and point that out. I will go to no less an authority than the Member for Mid Lothian to show that Free Trade is on the decline and Protection advancing. At a presentation which took place to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—a presentation in which I would cordially have joined were it not confined to a Political Party—the Member for Mid Lothian, in making the presentation, made some remarks which recall the idea of a skeleton appearing at a feast, and lead one to suppose that he was a doubtful addition to the hilarity of the entertainment, for he said—
  "I think we certainly must recognise—I hope you will forgive me for introducing matters that are not those of congratulation—how much ground has been lost by the doctrines of Free Trade within the last 25 years. It is a great and heavy disappointment. I have no doubt that the dreadful militarism which lies like an incubus, like a vampire, upon Europe, is responsible for much of the mischief, but not for all. You must not forget that in other countries where there is no such militarism Protection is gaining ground. It is gaining ground in America, and I regret to see that it is gaining ground also in our own colonies."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "When we pass over the countries of Europe together with the great Republic of America, we see that, although the doctrines of Free Trade have never been unconditionally accepted in any of these countries, yet there was a kind of qualified progress towards them. That progress was then exchanged for a stationary condition of opinion, and of late that opinion has been actively retrogressive. But I know of two subjects for consolation—at least, I remember only two at this moment in that survey. In some of our own colonies the principles of Free Trade are still cherished."
  These were the statements made by the Member for Mid Lothian in a speech delivered on May 12, 1890, and I advise hon. Members to refer to that speech and read it in detail. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in one of the colonies—New South Wales—the colonists had steadfastly,

  929
  under circumstances of great difficulty, gallantly adhered to the cause of Free Trade. But if the right hon. Gentleman had made that speech in 1891 he would have had to recognise the fact that at the last election in New South Wales, Political Parties upon this subject were so evenly balanced that I am told on unquestionable authority that at present the majority is only 4 or 5 in the Legislative Assembly there in favour of the doctrine of Free Trade. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about France; but again, I say, if the right hon. Gentleman had to refer to the fiscal policy of France in 1891 he would have to add to that eulogy of Free Trade in that country, that at no period in French history has the policy of Protection been so rampant as at the present time. A proposal involving the addition of a minimum duty of something like 25 per cent. on all British manufactures is now before the consideration of the French Legislature. I will not weary the House with detail, but I think I have shown that my right hon. Friend is, I was going to say, premature—but distinctly he is speaking a day after the fair. Can my right hon. Friend name another colony besides New South Wales, to which I have referred, where Free Trade principles are in the ascendancy?
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: India.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I must ask my right hon. Friend as a candid man first to remember the distinction always drawn between our colonies and our great Indian dependency, and that India acts in this matter as the British House of Commons wills. But I will also ask him to remember that not many years ago Members of this House used to have their attention probably called to the fact that for revenue purposes in India duties were levied on Manchester goods, a condition of affairs which was only changed after strong protest from those responsible for Indian administration. I have shown that in New South Wales the majority in favour of a Free Trade policy is very small. India we may omit, because the people have no voice, and rightly have no voice; they have not the machinery for suggesting their own fiscal policy, think I have shown, and I think it is admitted on all hands, that the policy of Protection has rapidly superseded that
  930
  of Free Trade throughout the world. Only in our own country is there retained a decided prejudice against the introduction of Protective Tariffs. The Mother Country, England, is the only part of the world where this doctrine, which falsely passes under the name of Free Trade, is accepted as a dogma. Sir Gordon Sprigg ex-Premier of Cape Colony, to whose speeches my hon. Friend has referred, and himself a Free Trader, has said that when he went out to the colony, he soon found that Free Trade in the colony was considered to be made for man not man for Free Trade, and Sir Gordon Sprigg went on to say that in the colony it was regarded as a system, to be defended by argument, but by no means to be regarded as a fetish. Now, I ask the House to consider the position in which we stand. If we are prepared to say that in no circumstances whatever will we even allow the colonies to place their views before us in a Conference, and state what suggestions they have to make for the development of trade between us and them, the sooner we give up prattling about the British Empire the better. The policy which is promoted by the leader of the Opposition in Canada—of entering into close fiscal relations with the United States and discriminating against the Mother Country—I am happy to think a large patriotic Party declines in any shape or form to assent to is one which, if adopted, must end in the breaking up of the British Empire, and the fact is that if the Mother Country is not prepared to consider some modification of pre-conceived fiscal opinions, the burden of Empire must fall from our hands. What I understand to be the object of this Motion is, not the laying down of any hard and fast line within which alone a Conference should proceed, but that, speaking broadly, it is suggested that it should proceed on the lines of a preferential fiscal system. But I never would presume to dictate to the colonies as to the details by which they should be bound in such a Conference. The House is not asked to express to-night an opinion as between Protection and Free Trade. I do not ask Her Majesty's Government to afford any indication as to which direction their personal views may incline. I do not ask them if they are of one mind on the subject. But

  931
  what I do ask them is whether they are prepared to entertain this question, as not only a practical question, but an urgent one, without committing themselves to laying down at present any definite programme, without pronouncing at present the exact time or circumstances under which this Conference is to be convened; but that this subject, which is engaging so much attention throughout all parts of the Empire outside these Islands, shall receive some consideration, and that promptly, at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. During the last quarter of a century, I would point out to the House that, of late years a marked change of feeling has taken place in the country on this question. We know that the balance of power has shifted during the last quarter of a century. I have personally incurred no responsibility with regard to that transfer, and, therefore, I may speak with perfect freedom upon the point. But the House knows well that, whereas the old £10 householder was for the most part connected with the retail trade of the country, and as a middleman, he was easily taken in by the specious cry that the producer must be left to take care of himself, and that it was only the consumer towards whom we ought to show any regard. The power has been transferred from the consumer to the producer, and those who possess the power have no hesitation, as I think is borne out by the attitude of hon. Members below the opposite Gangway, in advocating measures which they believe will redound to their individual advantage, however much they may offend against the doctrines of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, as evidence of which I may remind the House of the Motion unanimously adopted upon Friday last regarding Government contracts, which, a few years since, would have been denounced as tending to deprive the people of the blessings of cheap lodgings and cheap clothing. The working classes have, however, realised that they have the means of securing their full share of increased prices, and that labour derives advantages from what formerly redounded only to the benefit of capitalists and landlords. There has, moreover, grown up a strong Imperial feeling among all classes of the people,
  932
  and I think the Government may rely upon it that the old clap-trap cries which at one time used to prevail have lost their hold upon the electors, and that there is now among all sections of the inhabitants of these Islands a firm determination in every possible way to advance legitimate intercourse between Her Majesty's subjects in all parts of the globe, and to promote the true interests and greatness of the British Empire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I could have wished that the chances of the ballot had placed this Motion somewhat later, because, in some respects, it would have been better that the Canadian elections should not have been alluded to during the present Debate. It has been said that if this Motion were to pass, it would be a cordial message to Sir John Macdonald, but whether this Motion be passed or withdrawn, the sentiments of the House of Commons with regard to the Canadian struggle would remain precisely the same. I know that I shall be expressing the unanimous feeling of the House when I say that no inferences should be drawn from the present Debate, or from whatever may happen to the Motion, that we should in any way desire to influence the Canadian people in voting on the one side or on the other. I am disposed to think that we should—I will not say resent, but should dislike during our elections any such influence coming from any of our colonists to us; and I trust that all Parties, whatever happens in the present elections, though we have our predilections, and strong predilections, on the one side or the other, will feel convinced of the loyalty of the Canadian people towards this country. There are some respects in which I may say I cordially agree with the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir L. Playfair) sufficiently appreciated the bearings generally of this question. If it were a question of Protection and Free Trade—if it were simply a question of that kind—then I can quite conceive that he would be perfectly right in almost every word he said, though not in all. But the issue is far wider. I believe, with many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and a great many hon. Members on the other

  933
  side, that the feelings of this country towards the colonies during the last 25 years have become warmer, and that a great desire for nearer relations with our colonies has become distinctly a political feature of the present time. I would be prepared to acknowledge that the statements and sentiments which have fallen from the leading statesmen of the colonies deserve the respectful attention of this House, and that we should certainly endeavour to consider how far this fiscal question may be a political question in the very widest sense. I have from the commencement of my political career been one of those who have always held these views with regard to the colonies. There was a time when those of the extreme Radical school of Free Trade could scarcely be brought up to the proper mark with regard to consideration for the colonies, and when it was thought the colonies might be simply a burden to this country. They used to add up the expenses caused by the colonies and make an arithmetical calculation in respect to imports and exports, and then to consider whether the balance was in favour of our retention of the colonies or not. I am glad to think that any such ideas have ceased to be prevalent. Now, a fair appeal may be made to the country at large to consider fairly what are the interests of the colonies, at the same time with the distinct belief that there are common interests, and that this Empire is more powerful the more closely our colonies are knitted to it. Of course, all this may be difficult of proof, but it is the less necessary to prove it now than it was in times past, because it has become more accepted as a political axiom. I will concede to my right hon. Friend who spoke last that in another respect, too, there has been a change in public opinion. I was much struck by the remarks he made as to the change of sentiment with regard to the item of cheapness which has taken place in the country generally. I think hon. Members opposite will have felt that he was justified in saying that doctrines which used to be held almost as sacred—the doctrines of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill—have no more that strong hold over the opinions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they used to have. Being myself one who does
  934
  not hold that those doctrines ought to be banished to Saturn, but who is convinced that they have rendered great service to this country and will continue to do so, I feel that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have lost much of the firm ground on which they stood, because in so many directions they have abandoned those sound doctrines one of which was Free Trade, but others of which no longer command their adhesion and scarcely their respect. That being so, I must advise them to furbish up all their arguments for defending that sound position in which they still believe with regard to Free Trade. My right hon. Friend was perfectly correct in saying it will no longer do to speak of certain views as simply clap-trap. In these days not only Smith and Mill but every authority in the world has to submit to be questioned; the advocates of orthodoxy in every direction are obliged now to look to it that they are able to defend their case; and the sublimest truths of religion are questioned in sceptical and frivolous conversation. My hon. Friend brings forward this Motion with a view to bringing the colonies and the Mother Country closer together. The right hon. Member for Leeds connected this Motion with one made last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet. But there is another Motion with which it may be connected, one made in another place about a week ago, and which not only embraced the question of drawing closer together the colonies for the sake of trade, but which extended the object to the desirability of providing a fund for the common defence of the Empire. My hon. Friend has to-night laid no stress whatever upon that point, and those who supported him scarcely endorsed that view; but it is one of the points which has laid hold of the imagination of the colonists, that possibly they might by some re-arrangements of their fiscal systems contribute somewhat to the naval defence of the Empire. I hope I shall not offend any one by saying that I hope the colonial movement as it is called—that is, a movement for closer union with the colonies—will not be prejudiced by any suspicions that its champions have got a kind of sneaking desire to promote Protection at home. The right hon. Member for Thanet carries his badge upon his sleeve; others have not

  935
  been quite so open. I am bound to say we must endeavour to scent out Protection, if I may say so, because Protectionists lurk in many places where you would scarcely expect to find them. Some of them mingle with the bi-metal-lists behind their silver robes; others join the Imperial Federationists and wrap themselves round in the folds of the Union Jack. I trust we may be able to keep separate this question of closer union with the colonies, because I am afraid, being in favour of that closer union myself, if it is suspected of too much of the Protection taint, it will not have that influence on the masses which we desire. I am anxious to keep the whole of this great question, in which I feel as deep an interest as any man, out of those questions which may prejudice it when we come to have it argued on platforms. The hon. Member for Staffordshire spoke of what he said on the platform; I presume he was able to put it to his constituents in this way—"Will you pay in the shape of somewhat dearer bread for the consolidation of the Empire?" I think it possible that the advantages of the consolidation of the Empire may be so great that, if the increase in the price of the loaf is extremely small, the producers, with whom the power now lies far more than with the consumers, may not object. I am not so absolutely certain of the answers to be given if the matter was considered at an election time, because the one Political Party would say, "You are going to increase the price of the loaf." If it were made a political question, if it were put as a question of making bread dearer, I am bound to say that no such plan would enter into the region of practical politics. That is my strong belief. But, on the other hand, I cannot deny that I think this country may well be prepared to pay something for continuing the union of the Empire. I hope our colonists will thoroughly understand that you could not put, in my judgment at least, a duty upon corn without raising the price of bread. The feeling among some of my hon. Friends is this. The area devoted to the production of wheat in the colonies is so immense that they would be able to provide for this country with the assistance of our own farmers, so that we might be independent of all other countries. I understand
  936
  my hon. Friend to say that although the proposed change might increase the price of bread, the advantages gained in the greater consolidation of the Empire will be worth the sacrifice made. I ought, perhaps, to say that, in my judgment, it must raise the price of bread. What is the grievance of the Protectionists with regard to bi-metallism and the imports of wheat from India? It is that the wheat of India, with the bounty given it by silver, has lowered the price of wheat all over the world. What is the converse of that proposition? If the accession of India to the wheat-producing countries is sufficient to lower the price of bread, does it not stand to reason that the withdrawal of Russia or America from the wheat-producing countries from which we purchase will raise the price of bread? I am anxious to carry conviction to the minds of some of our fellow-subjects in the colonies, who think we might legislate in this direction, the extreme difficulties of such a course. What can we do? There are two great systems—one, the system of Customs Union; and the other that of imposing differential or discriminating duties. The hon. Member for Staffordshire pointed out that the United States of America is practically a Free Trade country, because there are no barriers of Customs between the different States. If our colonies were prepared for a Customs Union in that sense—that there should be Free Trade with no barriers of Customs to keep out English goods from the colonies or colonial produce from this country—if that were the case, I should say, "The colonies mean business, and let us see how far we can re-construct any portion of our fiscal system which militates against such results." I should say the difficulties would be enormous, though they ought to be faced for the sake of the great objects to be secured. I differ from the right hon. Member for Leeds, who supposed that if we had any Customs Union or arrangement by which favour was shown to the colonies, that the United States would have a right to interfere. I do not think the United States would have a right to remonstrate or interfere in the way he suggested. The right hon. Gentleman suggested England would be brought to her knees; but I must enter my protest against such an extreme application of the view, that

  937
  under no circumstances could we make fiscal arrangements with our colonies without injuring other portions of our trade. If we find we could make the whole Empire one as regards Customs, surely we have the same right of Zollverein Union with our colonies as Germany has with Bavaria, or the United States among themselves. I claim for ourselves the same right. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not deny that we have the right; but how near are we to any such consummation? What chance or hope have the colonies held out to us that they are prepared to move in this direction? The most they would do in the way of approaching this suggestion is that they will keep a wall 10 feet high against us and make it 11 feet high against foreigners. Supposing we made immense sacrifices to effect a Customs Union with the colonies, it might be that the opening made for our goods was on such a small scale that it would be but a slight relief against the immense sacrifices of trade we should be obliged to make in other directions, because of the imposition of dues. We ought to have securities from the colonies, not merely that they would put a 5 per cent. extra tariff upon foreigners, but that their tariff itself should be such as would be likely to protect this country from loss. In some articles their business might be sufficient in the quantity of goods taken from this country, but in many cases their tariff might be so prohibitive that the exports from this country might be lessened. What portion of foreign goods would be excluded, and what portion of our goods would be admitted in its place? I am afraid the portion of foreign goods which ours would displace would in many cases be very small. It is suggested that we should put on some duties in this country; but if we were to do that, they must be discriminating duties as against the foreigner. But how can we manage that with our present tariff and with the present items of consumption which we tax? What do we tax? We tax tea, tobacco, spirits, and wine. These are articles which are not produced in any quantity by our self-governing colonies, by Australia or Canada, and therefore it would not affect the position of those colonies as regards those articles. What should we have to do there-
  938
  fore? We should have to have recourse to other articles; we should not be putting a discriminating duty, but we should be putting on a duty for the first time, and there is the great difficulty. There are very few articles which are imported in so great a quantity from our colonies as to really affect their trade largely, with the exception of food stuffs, wheat, and wool. Supposing you put a duty on wool——
  An hon. MEMBER: No, no!
  MR. GOSCHEN: I certainly agree with that. Supposing you put a duty on raw materials—on wool—would not our manufacturers in Bradford and elsewhere have to pay 2 per cent. more for their wool than now?—and, in fact, from the falling off of competition they would have to pay 4 or 5 per cent. more. How then would they be able to compete with the manufacturers from abroad whom they are endeavouring to displace? If we endeavoured to secure a greater output for our manufacturers by imposing duties on raw material which hampered the industry, we should shatter a part of our commerce without getting that increase of manufactures by our colonies which we should all unanimously desire to see accomplished. I think I have put some formidable arguments before my hon. Friends. I do not mean to say that if the colonies came forward with proposals which meant large changes some alteration in our fiscal arrangements might not be brought about; but we have had no proof whatever of a desire of that kind on their part. None of the declarations of Prime Ministers or speeches made in the colonies show that the colonies would be prepared to do more than pay an addition of 5 per cent. on the small amount of imports which they take from foreign countries, or, as Mr. Hoffmeyer said, 2 per cent. That is all they propose, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds was justified in what he said with regard to the defence of the Empire. The arrangement suggested under the Hoffmeyer scheme is such that this country would have to pay £6,300,000, while the colonies would only pay £1,300,000. At the same time, I respect the view of the colonies that something should be done for Imperial defence. I have thought it right to say what I have said, not by way of throwing cold water on the desire

  939
  of the colonies to come closer to this country, but it is only following a will-o'-the-wisp if we simply utter general sentiment, without pointing out some of the first conditions necessary to closer commercial relations, and some of the difficulties to be overcome. I confess, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing would be pleasanter to me than to see the taxpayers of this country relieved of some of those gigantic sums for naval defence which they almost alone contribute at the present time. I am bound to say that the amounts contributed by the colonies towards naval defence in its broadest sense are extremely insignificant. The cost of defence has increased enormously; every ship, every gun, every article of war, has increased in expense to an alarming extent, and this country bears almost the whole of that increase, while we do protect our colonies, and they know that they can rely on our Navy securing the highways of commerce, and that right of access to all parts of the world to which our fellow-subjects in the colonies believe themselves quite as much entitled as any subject of the Queen living in Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore, I should be only too glad that colonial statesmen should approach the idea that there should be a wider area over which the cost of our Imperial defence should be spread. To come to close quarters with the Motion, I may say that nothing would give me greater pleasure personally than if representative men connected with the finances of the various colonies conferred together, and with me, as to what changes, if any, might be made on both sides. But to invite a formal Conference of all the representatives of the colonies without some basis or ground which would lead us to believe that some progress would be made, and to ask them to meet here without first principles having been settled upon which any arrangement could be come to, would seem to me to be a course which must end in disappointment, and would be unlikely to lead to any practical result. But I can assure my hon. Friends that Her Majesty's Government shares with them their desire that some means should be found to bring the colonies closer to this Empire; and we shall neglect no opportunity of seeing whether, out of the discussions which have taken place, and out of future discussions,
  940
  some good may come, and such changes may be made as will, if they do not realise the dreams of my hon. Friend, at all events, result in good to all classes of the country. I do not deny that I am glad that it has been put forward to the people of this country, upon platforms and elsewhere, that our Colonial Empire is a matter of supreme importance; and I think the people may be fairly asked: is the House of Commons—are your leaders—prepared to make any sacrifice of convenience or pocket in order to contribute towards the solution of this question? The first thing is that we should decide what is our real object. I think the greater part of the House are agreed that if we could have closer commercial relations with our colonies it would be desirable. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds would be glad that we should have closer commercial relations with the colonies. But do not let us ignore the tremendous difficulties, or encourage the colonies to believe that we can achieve impossibilities, or ask this country either to tax raw materials or take any steps which will substantially raise the price of living to the people.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: This Motion, on the face of it, looks a somewhat harmless one; but I am inclined to think that it is not so harmless as it looks, and I sincerely hope the House will not give it much sympathy. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone quite far enough; but I should like to add a word or two to the forcible arguments against the Motion which have been brought before the notice of the House. We are asked to invite the self-governing colonies to confer with the Imperial Government upon the best means of developing the trade of the Empire. There are two doctrines in this country on the subject of the best means of developing the trade of the Empire. There is the party—who overwhelmingly preponderate amongst our mercantile classes—who believe that the best means of developing trade is by an unrestricted interchange of commodities—in fact, by Free Trade. On the other hand, there are the Protectionists, represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—the party who speak about "the

  941
  clap-trap of the cheap loaf." I would give one example of what that clap-trap means. It means that in France, with an Import Duty upon wheat, the artizan with a wife, and, say, four children on an average spends £4 10s. per annum, or 2s. per week, more upon flour than the artizan spends in England. To talk, then, of the clap-trap of the cheap loaf is simply monstrous, and I sincerely hope that that style of argument will not be indulged in. Why should we invite colonists to come here and confer with us as to the best means of developing trade? We set them already the best example by admitting all goods free. They, on the other hand, impose on our manufactures very onerous duties. Duties are levied either for the protection of native industries or for revenue purposes. Are we to dictate to other countries the mode of taxation they are to adopt? Are we to say, "You shall depart from your indirect mode of taxation and adopt a direct mode—an Income Tax or something of that kind, though it may be wholly unsuited to you." Let me present to you two examples: Victoria sends wheat, wool, and meat to this country, and the Argentine Republic sends wheat and meat. The Argentine Republic imposes duties on our manufactures for revenue purposes only, but Victoria imposes duties upon us largely for the purpose of protecting her own industries. Therefore she is much the greater sinner of the two. Are we, then, to adopt the measures proposed in favour of a colony which treats us in this way? If we do, what would be the result? Why the Argentine Republic, whose products were taxed by us, would retaliate by raising the duties on our goods or putting an Export Duty on goods sent to us. It is impossible that we can deal with the colonies in the way indicated It would necessitate the breaking of our engagements with foreign countries who have given us the most favoured nation clause in our Commercial Treaties. The whole policy indicated in the Resolution is utterly unsuitable to this country as a large manufacturing nation, largely dependent upon foreign countries for its food supplies.
  MR. COOKE: I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield will withdraw his Resolution. I should like to vote for a closer union
  942
  with the colonies, but not at the cost of having to adopt a system of Fair Trade. Who brings this Motion forward? The hon. Member for Sheffield, the hero of the celebrated Conference held at Oxford, where he submitted a resolution in favour of Fair Trade, and got only one supporter. The Conference met again at Wolverhampton, and the hon. Member brought forward his Resolution once more, but he did not dare to put it. The previous question was carried against him.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: No, no.
  MR. COOKE: At all events, something happened which the hon. Member very much disliked. That not satisfying the hon. Gentleman, he became Chairman of the Land and Labour League, which advocated the principles of Protection. Members of that League came down into the county in which I live, and, in one town, finding me in the street, they asked me to take the chair at a meeting. I did so, although I told them I was opposed to every proposition that was likely to be brought forward. They held meetings of a similar character throughout the county, and I was not surprised, not long after, to receive from the secretary an application for a subscription to help to defray a debt of £20 they were unable to pay. Having, I hope, established the proposition that this Motion comes from a truly Protectionist source, I must congratulate the House on the altered tone in which Protectionists are now being addressed by Free Traders. To a great extent the cry for Protection is to be attributed to the tone in which the Free Traders are in the habit of addressing Protectionists. It would be better if instead of saying to them "Thou fool," we said, "Come, let us reason together." I am opposed to any proposition to re-impose Protective Duties, for Great Britain is an artificial country, which cannot live on its own resources. We are compelled to manufacture in order that we may live. We cannot supply ourselves either with sufficient raw materials for our manufactures or with enough food for our ever-increasing population. As to our trade with the colonies, it is very good now, and I doubt whether it would be any better under a system of Protection. The amount of trade we do with the colonies, and its character, was forcibly put before me the other day

  943
  by a person who did me the honour of serving in my household very usefully for some years, and who went to the colonies two years ago. I asked her whether it was not a great change to go to Australia, and she said—"No, it was like being at home. If you went to the cupboard there was Column's mustard and Cadbury's cocoa staring you in the face, and if that is not like being at home, what is?" I do not think the colonies are likely to take any more of our exports under a system of Protection. My hon. Friend was not, I think, quite fair in the quotation he made from a Cobden Club leaflet. I hope that the "forcible feebles" of the Cobden Club will be able to do a little better than shower pamphlets of this kind among people who do not want to be convinced. I get any number of them myself, but I do not think they circulate among the masses of the people. My hon. Friend, in citing the pamphlet, did not say he quoted from that part of it which referred to fiscal federation based on Free Trade. He omitted the sentence "In any other market we should then compete successfully with all Protectionist rivals," and led the House to conclude that the paragraph actually supported the system of Protective Duties. Now, Sir, is it likely that the colonies will reduce their Protective Duties for the sake of drawing closer the bond between them and the Mother Country? What do they impose Protective Duties for? In order to develop their resources. Our position is very different from theirs. Our mineral and other resources are already developed, and we are in full swing as a manufacturing country. The colonies have not yet developed their mineral resources, and the staunchest Free Trader will admit that it is legitimate to impose Protective Duties in such cases in order to foster new industries. The colonies teem with mineral wealth, and they wish to become manufacturing countries in the course of time. Under these circumstances, it is, I think, hopeless to expect that the colonies, for the sake of drawing closer what is, after all, a somewhat sentimental bond, will so far neglect their material interests as to reduce their Protective Duties against the Mother Country. I do not wish to talk out the Motion, and I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw it, so as
  944
  not to put us in the invidious position of appearing to vote against that which we all wish to support—a close union between the Mother Country and the colonies—when we are really voting against the imposition of duties on goods imported into this country.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: After the sympathetic speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!"]
  Question again proposed.
  The Previous Question, "That that Question be not now put,"—(Mr. William. Henry Smith,)—put, and agreed to.

MOTIONS.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to amend the Law relating to Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 220.]

  ASSESSMENT OF TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to Regulate the Remuneration payable to Clerks to Commissioners of Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties, and to Assessors thereof, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 221.]

  BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL.—(No. 118.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Brunner.)
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c., SITES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 3.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.](No. 37.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it seems somewhat superfluous in me, after now some years of disappointment, to raise this question again. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government gave me two days at the time of the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill, so that I was enabled to introduce an Amendment which would have made all other Bills on the subject unnecessary. In 1886 I ventured to trouble the House on the subject. I was most courteously treated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I wished that nothing but his Lordship's speech should appear in the Report, but Mr. Hansard insisted upon reporting the whole of my speech, whether I wished it or not. I would remind your Lordships of the way in which this question has been dealt with in India. On one occasion I laid on the Table of the House a measure upon which M. Bignon had made a speech in the French Chamber of Deputies as to the persecution of women, and I know that that was extensively circulated. On this occasion I shall lay upon the Table of the House the report of an address to the Undergraduates of the Madras University by the Principal of the College there. The words which he uses are most impressive. He says: "To educate men you must also educate women." This, my Lords, is a very comprehensive Bill, and it would do away with the necessity for another which I introduced with regard to the power of women to vote at Municipal elections in Ireland, because it embodies that power. In reference to that measure, I could only get an answer two years in succession, from the
810
Lord Privy Seal that it was intended to introduce a very extensive measure of local government for Ireland. That measure has not yet appeared. The late Duke of Buckingham said that it was a step in advance towards women's suffrage, but it appears to me that was a very great mistake, because no woman with a £10 ownership could have the privilege of voting. But I have not been careless of the effect of this measure, because I do not forget that in the Local Government Act there will be a triennial election for all County Councils. It was a very great evil that the hasty way in which the former Bill was passed prevented all due consideration by your Lordships' House of that measure. A speech was made for me by the reporters, not one word of which did I utter. However, the opinion of the majority of the House was in favour of the measure. I am not going into that question again. The system adopted in reference to the Grand Committees impairs the usefulness of every Member of this House, and your Lordships have not the same control as if you were satisfied in Committee of the whole House. It is open now, through the great and useful change in the Standing Orders, for noble Lords to say whether matters shall be so dealt with or not. It is a very narrow system to have these elections to Grand Committees; you do not know what they are doing, and it is impossible for business to be conducted on a sound basis unless every Member of the House has an opportunity of seeing what is done. I humbly venture to differ from the objection of the noble Marquess that measures affecting the interests of the other House of Parliament should not originate in this House. What was the Septennial Bill, which was originated by the ancestor of the Duke of Devonshire, in this House? That was a most useful measure, and if it were not that it exists we should have a General Election this year. Sometimes there is a difficulty with the Clerk of the Table about money Bills, but it is really not at all in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. I may remind your Lordships that one most important measure was a money Bill, because it gave a salary to six paid members of the Judicial Committee. I trust that if Mr. Haldane's Bill comes to this House it will have due consideration.

811
I think that every Bill should have the fullest consideration from this House by whomsoever it may be introduced. I am at very great disadvantage in bringing forward this question. I have been always blamed for doing so; but at the same time I thought I obtained the great support of Lord Carnarvon and Lord Wentworth, and I certainly was not without a teller. But I am not one to be discouraged by being alone in any measure that I venture to advocate. The abrogation of Standing Orders by Resolution has been an evil in this House since the year 1856. Both sides of the House agreed in passing measures which afterwards fell to the ground. But it is not known at the time what noble Lords are present in the House, that can only be ascertained from the Journals of the House on the occasion of a Bill being carried to a division. I am really anxious that there should be reciprocity between the two Houses, and I believe it to be possible that we may by communication with each other very much shorten the duration of Sessions of Parliament. I am sorry again that this question will benefit nothing from the feeble advocacy by which I have endeavoured to support it. I may say in reference to the present Bill that I have ceased to receive petitions from duly qualified women, but I know that Miss Becker was particularly anxious that there should be agitation in the House of Commons in order to carry out this measure. Why should it be said that your Lordships are unwilling to allow women householders to vote if you admit ladies into the Gallery and treat them with courtesy? And surely they are better judges of the qualities of candidates for membership of Parliament than many who now have votes. We have given votes to our servants who occupy their own houses. In 1869 there was a change made as to the right of women to vote at Municipal elections, and more power was given them in unincorporate than in corporate towns. I humbly beg your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this measure, and I hope it is not presumptuous in me to suppose that you will carry it. I know from my correspondence with the noble Marquess that he would be desirous to equalise the Municipal franchise for all women. The lodger franchise is possessed by those
812
who do not pay rates, but women are often householders paying rates and taxes. There is a question also as to married women voting. Certainly if women pay rates and taxes there should be no objection to their having votes. They have many duties in which they are associated with men. I believe also that they are strong political partisans. There would be much less difficulty in getting Irish enthusiasts to cease agitation if they could see that we know how to get rid of agitation ourselves. I am a very old man and I hope that nothing I have done will affect your decision in this matter. I feel that I have done my duty with impartiality in this respect. I have often heard Mrs. McLaren, the sister of John Bright, in Edinburgh, and Mrs. Fawcett in London, and I am sure that their counsels can always be acted upon although they do not wish to appear in Parliament themselves. In the old times the abbesses were represented in Parliament by proxies, and I am very sorry that proxies are no longer used in this House, because I think the opinion, of the best men in the country is in favour of voting by proxy. However, that is past. I have introduced a measure against lengthened speeches and I hope I have not occupied your Lordships' time much beyond the hour when Debates formally begin. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, there are very few subjects which the noble Lord has not touched upon in the course of his speech. I shall not imitate him in its discursive scope, but will confine myself to repeating the reason which I have previously had the honour of laying before your Lordships, for rejecting this Bill, that it is against the comity of Parliament for one House to undertake the reconstruction of the constitution of the other House. I should think it very unwise, and very unbecoming for us to set the example of departure from so wholesome a rule. Without expressing any opinion on the main question involved in the

813
Bill. I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888. (MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government as to the powers and duties of a Medical Officer of Health appointed by a County Council under Section 17 of the Local Government Act, 1888; and to move for a Return of the medical officers appointed, and the Councils appointing them; and also for a Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations, said: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board whether he can give me some definite information as to the powers and duties of Medical Officers of Health appointed by County Councils; and I should be glad if, at the same time, he could also give me some information as to the powers of the County Councils in the matter. We may be preternaturally stupid in requiring any information on the subject, but it appears to me it is very difficult to gather from the Local Government Act what the powers of medical officers appointed by the County Councils are, or what powers the County Councils themselves have. That Act states that the County Councils can appoint Medical Officers of Health, and it is provided that by arrangement with the District Councils their services can be rendered available; and pending the institution of District Councils they could make, I presume, some arrangements with the Urban or Rural Sanitary Authorities. But what those arrangements were, the Act does not specify, and it is impossible to find out. As far as I can gather from the Act, the only action the County Council can take on a Report of a Medical Officer of Health appointed by it would be similar to the action it can take in
814
reference to the report of an ordinary district Medical Officer of Health; that is to say, it can make a representation to the Local Government Board. Of course, any other body or individual can make a representation to the Local Government Board. If an individual does so, the result I fancy generally is that he obtains a large amount of explanation to a minimum of action— the minimum amount of results which can be obtained from the maximum amount of correspondence. I do not mean to challenge the action of the Local Government Board in all cases, because if the Board were to exercise practical supervision over all bodies in all matters which may be brought before it, it would have an amount of work to do which it could not possibly perform. But if that is the only power which the County Councils have in the matter, I do not think they have the power they should possess. The County Councils should have the means of rendering their opinions effective, and it does not appear to me that what the powers of Medical Officers of Health are is at all apparent from the Act. I wish also to move for a Return of the medical officers appointed and the Councils appointing them; and also for a Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations. I do not imagine the Return would be very voluminous, and I hope the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board in this House will have no objection to granting it. If the noble Lord can give me, now, the information I want, I shall be very glad to receive it in that shape, instead of in the form of a Parliamentary Return.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this question of my noble Friend's seems to be a very practical one, and I trust that the Government will give the Return that he asks for. As far as I am aware, Section 17 of the Act has never been acted upon, and remains a dead letter. Living in a populous county, the County of Kent, I am able to state what is done there. The Medical Officer of Health is appointed by and for groups of Unions; he reports to those Unions separately, and they take action in the matter if they think fit; but, as far as I am aware

815
neither in Kent nor in any other county has action been taken under Section 17. And, indeed, if action had been so taken, and medical officers had been appointed by each County Council in England, I am very doubtful whether any Report under Section 19 would have any effect whatever, because, as my noble Friend has pointed out, under Section 19 of the Act, only "a representation" can be made to the Local Government Board; but it does not say that any action can be taken by the Council. Being myself a member of the County Council of my county, I am anxious to know how far this clause has been acted upon, and I trust, therefore, that the Motion of the noble Lord for a Return on the subject will be assented to.
LORD THRING: I can state that in the case of our County Council, in the County of Surrey, at all events, a Medical Officer of Health has been appointed. I agree that the section requires amendment, and that the powers possessed by the medical officers must be put in proper form, and, as far as necessary, increased.
LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, in answer to the question of my noble Friend, asking what has been done under Sections 17 and 19 of the Local Government Act of 1888, it is quite true that under the 17th section of the Act, the County Councils have the power to appoint one or more Medical Officers of Health within their jurisdiction. The Local Government Board are aware that such appointments have been made by some of the County Councils, but there is no obligation whatever on the part of any of the Councils to report to the Local Government Board as to any appointments they make. We have, therefore, no complete list at the offices of the Local Government Board of the cases in which Medical Officers of Health have been appointed. The statute, too, does not in any way prescribe the duties which are to be performed by these officers; nor has the Local Government Board any power whatever to define their duties. In each case the duties must be such as the County Council may choose to lay down when making the appointment. I have no objection to offer on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the Motion of the noble Earl for the Return he asks for of the medical officers appointed, and of the
816
County Councils appointing them under Section 17. Then as regards the question respecting Clause 19, as to representations that have been made to the Local Government Board under this section. Such representations by County Councils have been made from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and by the County Councils of Wiltshire, Surrey, West Suffolk and Durham. These representations have had reference in every case to the sanitary defects which have been specified in reports of the Local Medical Officers of Health. With respect to four of those districts, the Local Government Board have directed an inspection to be made by one of their Medical Inspectors. In other cases, they have been in correspondence with the Sanitary Authorities and with the County Councils. This correspondence is still proceeding in the majority of cases, with regard to the districts concerned. If the noble Earl wishes to move for a Return of these representations, as he suggests, I, on the part of the Local Government Board, will consent to their being granted; but while I give that consent, I must remind the noble Earl what I have said already, that the correspondence upon the subject is still very incomplete.
LORD THRING: I would also ask the noble Lord whether the Government are not prepared to amend the section of the Local Government Act of 1888 relating to the duties of County Medical Officers of Health. At the present moment several counties—as I have said before, for example, the County of Surrey—have appointed these medical officers because they think it their duty in the interests of their counties to take a step towards improving the sanitary condition of the districts under their jurisdiction. But it is, I think, the duty of the Government to supply a manifest defect in the powers of the medical officers. No proper powers are conferred upon them. They ought to have jurisdiction given them over various sanitary matters. The extent of that jurisdiction is a question for Her Majesty's Government, and what I desire to ask the noble Lord is whether the Government are or are not prepared to amend the Act of 1888 for the purpose of extending and defining the duties of Medical Officers of Health.
LORD HENNIKER: I must ask my noble Friend the noble Lord opposite to

817
give me notice of this question. I can hardly take upon myself to give him an answer to it without notice.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I should be glad to have the second of the Returns I desired as there is no objection made, because I think the correspondence which has been going on with the Local Government Board has been terminated for some time. I did not quite clearly understand the noble Lord as to whether he could give the Return which I first asked for as to the Medical Officers of Health that have been appointed by the County Councils, and of the County Councils who have appointed them. I understood him in the first instance to say that the Local Government Board had of necessity no cognisance of those appointments. Am I right in understanding that?
LORD HENNIKER: Yes.
Ordered to be laid before the House,
"Return of the Medical Officers of Health appointed by County Councils under Section 17 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Councils appointing them; and Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENin rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to the fishery question in Newfoundland, said: I must apologise to your Lordships for intruding so much upon the golden silence which generally pervades this House, but I think this matter (which I will allude to very briefly) is of some importance. I will not for a moment go into the general question, more than a century old, of the difficulties with regard to French fishery rights in Newfoundland, and I will not touch upon the fascinating theme of the modus vivendi, or even indulge in a few remarks upon interesting questions in Natural History as to whether lobsters are fish or birds or wild beasts, or anything of that kind. Your Lordships will be aware that in Parliament, and I think throughout the country generally, or at any rate among those Members of Parliament and other individuals in the country who are aware
  818
  of the existence of our Colonies, there has been considerable interest excited of late by accounts of a somewhat sensational character which have appeared in the newspapers. A great deal of excitement appears lately to have been raised in the Island of Newfoundland on the subject. I have seen extracts from the local papers, and from Canadian papers, stating, for instance, that it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government to cede absolutely to France a large portion of territory, a considerable peninsula in the Island of Newfoundland; and according to the newspapers the legislature in Newfoundland has quite recently passed Resolutions strongly condemning the whole action of Her Majesty's Government in refusing assent to a Bill to make operative certain provisions entered into by Newfoundland and the United States with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, and which were satisfying to Newfoundland. Those are matters important of themselves, and with which obviously great principles of local self-government and freedom are connected; and I think it would be well that some definite information upon the subject should be given—that Parliament and the nation should be put in the way of obtaining some information upon these points. If the noble Lord who represents the colonies can give information on these points, I shall be very glad. If on the other hand he considers it inadvisable, pending the production of Papers, to give information to the House, I can only say that I hope the correspondence upon this subject will be laid upon the Table of this House as soon as may be convenient. I would only add that in asking the question I wish to be clearly understood in saying that I should be the last man in the world to ask for any information the statement of which would be in the slightest degree premature, or that could in any way add the slightest difficulty to the very complicated matters, which have arisen out of this Newfoundland Fisheries question. If the Papers can be laid on the Table without any detriment to the public interest I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take the present opportunity of doing so.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I am not surprised at the noble

  819
  Earl's bringing this question before your Lordships. There can be no doubt of the importance of it. I think it hardly necessary to refute the rumours to which the noble Earl alluded with respect to Her Majesty's Government proposing cession of any part of the colony to France. I may inform him, in reply to his question, that Papers on the general questions affecting Newfoundland are in preparation, and will be laid on the Table, I hope, in a few days, in continuation of the Paper which was presented in June last with respect to these questions. I think the number was C, 6,044. As to the other point, the draft Convention between Newfoundland and the United States, I may also inform the noble Earl that we are preparing Papers to be laid before Parliament. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state that considerable misapprehension has arisen in Newfoundland as to the exact position of Her Majesty's Government with respect to that Convention, and that the misapprehension which prevails accounts for the Resolutions which I dare say your Lordships have seen in the newspapers, couched in very strong language and condemning Her Majesty's Government for having broken solemn engagements and obligations to sanction the convention. Let me say that there can be no breach of any solemn engagement or obligation, inasmuch as no such engagement or obligation has been entered into by Her Majesty's Government. I will explain to your Lordships how this misapprehension has arisen. There is no objection in principle to a separate negotiation between a foreign Power and an individual colony with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. It may be quite possible in some cases to be able to secure to the colony the advantages, which it desires, by an arrangement without interfering prejudicially with the interests of other parts of the Empire which are not parties to that arrangement. But the mere fact of consent being given by Her Majesty's Government for the time being to a colony to negotiate a separate arrangement is always subject to a well-understood and well-recognised principle, condition, and reservation, that when draft terms have been settled
  820
  between the Representative of the colony and a foreign State, then Her Majesty's Government must consider those terms, and see how far they affect other interests, British or Colonial—that is to say, the leave given to negotiate does not carry with it an obligation or an engagement to sanction the arrangement when made. Now, it was subject to this well-understood condition that Her Majesty's Government, at the request of the Newfoundland Government, readily assented to Mr. Bond, who was one of the colonial delegates here, and who is also one of the Government of Newfoundland, going to Washington. The visit was unofficial. Mr. Bond had no instructions from Her Majesty's Government, but it was made for the purpose of communicating with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to see what terms and what arrangement could be entered into which would be acceptable to the United States as well as to the colony. Certain terms were agreed upon and drafted, and then, as I have pointed out, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider those terms, and to see how far, if at all, they conflicted with the interests of other British colonies. Accordingly, the Government communicated with Canada, and the Dominion Government very strongly protested against that Convention being concluded. I will not now dwell upon the nature of that protest, or on the reasons which the Dominion Government advanced, because they will be found in the Papers which we shall very soon present to Parliament. But Her Majesty's Government, after full consideration, have arrived at the decision that the Convention, as to the feasibility of which Mr. Bond was permitted to consult informally with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, cannot at the present time be concluded. In arriving at this decision Her Majesty's Government have broken no engagement or obligation; and I trust I have satisfied your Lordships on this point, and made it clear that it is a misapprehension as to the position of Her Majesty's Government that has brought down these very strong Resolutions of the Newfoundland Legislature condemning Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies whether the Correspondence with regard to this Convention is to be included in the Papers to be laid before us, because it would, of course, be very wrong and indeed impossible to form a judgment upon the matter without knowing precisely what form the negotiations took. I quite comprehend the position laid down by the noble Lord—namely, that all these agreements must be subject to the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that in order to prevent friction in negotiations which must always be very delicate in their nature, it is desirable to ascertain as far as possible beforehand, whether it is likely that the Convention which may be proposed is one which could be sanctioned. Of course points may arise afterwards which could not be anticipated or considered at first, but in these cases there is always very great danger of the colony, if they find that Government ultimately disapproves of what has been done, being very dissatisfied, and saying that it ought to be assented to. I quite agree with the principle which the noble Lord lays down, that Government could not beforehand pledge itself to accept any terms which may be arrived at in such circumstances; but I am sure the noble Lord will be of my opinion that it is necessary to avoid friction as far as possible. I entirely abstain from offering any opinion upon what has taken place except to regret that the Legislature of Newfoundland should have felt offended at what has occurred, but I shall be quite prepared to find that the noble Lord has done everything in the matter. My object in rising really was to ask the noble Lord whether those Papers can be included in those which will be presented to your Lordships.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I am afraid I did not quite make myself understood. I answered the Question put that the Papers on the general subject will be presented, and then also that the Papers relating to this Convention for which the noble Earl asks will be presented in a separate Paper. I fully recognise the importance of the remarks he has made, and I regret that there should
  822
  have been any friction in this instance between ourselves and the colony, but I deny that we were in the wrong.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.