Sitting of 22 June 1891

QUESTIONS.

  THE CEYLON PADDY TAX.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has now come to a decision as to the abolition of the paddy tax in Ceylon, and the substitution for it of taxation which does not press upon the most impoverished class of cultivators in that island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government have not yet completed their consideration of this difficult question.

  MADRAS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONdeferred his question to the Under Secretary of State of India as to whether the Government will print and lay upon the Table the Reports of the Governor of the Madras Presidency on the progress, resources, and capabilities of that portion of Her Majesty's dominions?

  SCOTCH HIGHWAYS.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the administration of the highways under "The Local Government Act, 1889," Section 77, it is competent to the

  1055
  County Council of Zetland to constitute the whole county one district for highway purposes, not with standing that the county contains more than six parishes, and has been divided into districts for the purposes of the management and maintenance of highways under the Local Road Act in force prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act of 1889.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have not yet received information to enable me to answer this question.

  INSPECTORSHIP OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AT MARGATE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Inspector of Weights and Measures at Margate was dismissed some weeks ago, and that the Town Council have not yet appointed his successor; whether he is aware that, in the meantime, a large number of the Margate tradesmen are waiting to have their scales stamped under the recent Act of Parliament, and that, as the season is now commencing, the matter is urgent; and whether he will communicate with the Town Council, and urge them to appoint an Inspector at once?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member is aware that the Inspector of Weights and Measures is the officer of the Local Authority, and not of the Board of Trade; but I have communicated with the Mayor of Margate and he informs me that there will be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Town Council in taking steps to insure that the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts are properly administered in their district. Since the vacancy referred to by the hon. Member, one application only has been made for stamping a weighing instrument.

  GAMBLING IN THE ARMY.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return, if moved for, of all the cases of non-commissioned officers and men who have been punished by reduction to the ranks, or otherwise, either for allowing card playing or gambling to take
  1056
  place, or for taking part therein with those of inferior rank to themselves?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The Return could only be given by calling upon every corps in the Service to search through all the defaulters' sheets for an indefinite period, and I hardly think the value of the information would justify the labour involved in its collection.
  MR. COBB: I omitted in the question to ask for a Return for three years only. May I ask whether these punishments would not be mainly by court-martial; and whether it would not be easy to obtain a Return of them for three years?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: That is a new proposition. I will consider it.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consult with the Commander-in-Chief as to the desirability of calling the special attention of officers in the Army to those of the regulations which relate to gambling, and of informing them that in future they will be strictly enforced?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The regulations upon this subject are well understood in the Army, and are strictly enforced, and I therefore see no necessity for an order calling special attention to them.
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether I was right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say last week that in the case of one officer of very high rank the regulations were not understood, and that this caused him to commit an error in judgment?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The order in question relating to gambling has not, I believe, been broken in any respect.

  SCOTCH LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Sheriff of Caithness has issued an order for Caption against the Procurator Fiscal of his Court for the non-production of certain papers given out of his custody by order of the Crown Agent; whether it is true that, in the case out of which this action against his Procurator Fiscal originated, the Sheriff of Caithness appended the following note to his interlocutor, authorising the abandonment of a summary complaint:—

  1057
  "The Sheriff has granted this motion to the extent aforesaid, only at the request of the Lord Advocate. He is hopeful that his Lordship will still relieve the rogue money of this county, now the general assessment of the expense of a trial by certifying, by his deputies or otherwise, the charge against Exchequer;"
  whether it is proposed to act on the suggestion put forth in this interlocutor; and, if so, under what head of the Estimates the sum certified against Exchequer would be included; and whether the expenses of the Procurator Fiscal, incurred in defending himself against imprisonment at the hands of the Sheriff for obeying the order of the Crown Agent, will be defrayed out of moneys voted by this House; and, if so, under what head of the Estimates?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The fact in the first paragraph and the quotation in the second paragraph of this question are correctly given. Whether the expenses referred to will fall to be defrayed out of moneys voted by this House depends on the result of legal proceedings now sub judice, and this question has not, therefore, arisen.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether such divergence of views has arisen among the Chief Officers of Justice in Inverness-shire, namely, the Sheriff Depute, on the one hand, and the Sheriff Clerk, Procurator Fiscal, and Chief Constable, on the other, as to involve incriminative reference by the first mentioned to the Secretary for Scotland; whether he feels at liberty to indicate the nature of these differences; and whether he can give assurance that he has taken, or will take, all steps open to him, to ensure that the carrying out of justice, law, and order in Inverness-shire be not in any way prejudiced or hampered?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certain differences of opinion have arisen between the Sheriff of Inverness-shire and some of the county officials, but I do not think it would be for the public interest for me to indicate the nature of those differences. There is no reason to fear that the carrying out of justice, law, and order will be in any way prejudiced or hampered.

  ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALE AT WORCESTER.
  SIR E. LECHMERE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a sale, held at Worcester, on the 21st of April last and five following days, which was advertised by circular as a private treaty sale by command of the Court of Bankruptcy, but which proved to be fraudulently so advertised, the Inspector General in Bankruptcy having no knowledge of the alleged order of the Court, or of the firm to which it was stated to relate; whether such advertisement is a contempt of Court; and what course will be adopted to prevent such fraudulent abuse of the name and authority of the Court in future?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am advised that it would not be probable that any Court would hold that the publication of such an advertisement would constitute a contempt of Court, and that the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in the matter. If my hon. Friend is correct in applying the term fraudulent either to the advertisement or to the transactions which followed from it, I apprehend that the attention of the Public Prosecutor should be directed to the case by some person aggrieved.

  THE SUPREME COURT.
  MR. BRISTOWE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why compulsory retirement at a fixed age, and promotion by merit as recommended by the Legal Offices Committee, 1887, and the Order in Council of 13th August, 1890, has not yet been introduced and enforced in the Central Office of the Supreme Court?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am assured that due regard is paid to the consideration of merit in all promotions made in the staff of the Central Office. It is more than doubtful whether the terms of the Order in Council of August 13, 1890, apply to the staff of the Central Office, but I am in communication with

  1059
  the Lord Chancellor upon the other matter referred to in the question—namely, the compulsory retirement of officers after a fixed limit of age.

  POST OFFICE PROMOTIONS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the case of a first-class sorting clerk in the Birmingham Post Office, named Westmorland, who was, in January last, appointed to the post-mastership of Goole, and, a few weeks afterwards, to the more lucrative post-mastership of Chorley; whether the appointment to Goole was offered to Westmorland by a letter from the third Secretary to the General Post Office, without the heads of the Department and his official superiors at Birmingham being consulted, and was afterwards confirmed without their sanction, although Westmorland has been passed over in making promotions about 30 times on account of alleged incompetency, and, on the last occasion, as recently as August last; whether, on occasions when Westmorland has been passed over, the local postmaster has reported to the General Post Office the reasons for passing him over; whether the vacancies in the post-masterships at Goole and Chorley were announced by a notice in the weekly official circular; whether he is aware that the appointments have caused great dissatisfaction among the other clerks in the Birmingham Post Office, many of whom are of higher rank, as to whom no incompetency has ever been alleged, who were in every way fitted for the vacant post master ships, but who had no opportunity given to them of applying for the posts, and were thus passed over by Westmorland, who was junior to them; and whether he will make full inquiries into the cases, and state what steps it is proposed to take?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the several questions of the hon. Member, I have to state that it is the fact that I appointed Mr. Westmorland to be postmaster of Goole, and shortly afterwards transferred him to Chorley, which, instead of being a more lucrative office, is of less value, the salary at Goole being £200 and that at Chorley £170. Reports were obtained from Mr. Westmorland's superior officers
  1060
  at Birmingham; but their sanction to an appointment made by me is not required. The Postmaster of Birmingham has reported when vacancies occurred in his office his reasons for not recommending Mr. Westmorland for promotion, but those reasons would not hold good in the case of appointment to a small post office; and, in fact, the reports made it desirable, in my opinion, to move Mr. Westmorland from the Birmingham office. The vacancies at Goole and Chorley were not announced in the Post Office Circular. I am not aware of the alleged dissatisfaction at Mr. Westmorland's appointment, and so far from any eagerness having been displayed for such promotion, the post was refused by another officer to whom it was offered, on the ground that Goole was not a desirable place to live in. Being so familiar with the facts, it is not my intention to make any further inquiry.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the detailed and precise information given by Mrs. Bishop as to the failure of the Sublime Porte to carry out (in accordance with the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878) the ameliorations and
  "Reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds, and to periodically make known the steps taken to this effect by the Powers, who would superintend their application,"
  from which failure has resulted within the last few months grievous oppression, rapine, and murder of the Armenians resident in the North-Eastern Provinces of Asia Minor, and in view of the expected armed interference by Russia, Her Majesty's Government will take into-consideration the duty of applying practically, in concert with the other Powers, the adequate careful provision against future misgovernment in those provinces which was made by that Treaty, as started by the Marquess of Salisbury in his Despatch to the Secretary of State, enclosing a copy thereof, and dated Berlin, 13th July, 1878?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Her

  1061
  Majesty's Government have no ground for believing that the European Powers would be willing to join in a forcible intervention in Armenia. Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte has always reminded the Turkish Government of its Treaty obligations in this matter whenever such a representation appeared to him to be required, or to be likely to lead to practical advantage.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think that the information which has unfortunately come to us recently may show the need of redress?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I do not think that any change has taken place.

  IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Alien Act of William IV., which provides for aliens on their arrival at British ports producing their passports and making a declaration as to their names, nationality, &c., is still in force; and whether, if these provisions are enforced, a Return can be laid upon the Table, founded thereon, showing the nationalities and number of such aliens as come to this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed that the officers of Customs do not require the production of any passports which may be in the possession of aliens, but the declaration required by the 2nd section of the Act is always made at certain ports and forwarded to the Home Office under Section 5. These declarations are sent by the Home Office to the Board of Trade, and the information they supply is tabulated by that Department, and appears in the Statistical Tables relating to emigration and immigration which are presented to Parliament from year to year. There will be no objection to a Return giving the number and nationalities of destitute aliens who have arrived in this country without through tickets to America at certain ports during any particular month or months of the present year, and I shall be happy to confer with my hon. Friend as to the exact form of his Return.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that these Returns are usually very imperfect, and whether, if the powers of the Government are inadequate, further powers will be asked for?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no intention of asking for further powers.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Then I beg to give notice that I will put a further question to the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject.

  ENGLAND AND THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement of the Berliner Tageblatt is correct, that England has taken diplomatic action favourable to the renewal of the Triple Alliance; whether any communications have recently taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, or with any Agent of the Italian Government, or with any other Foreign Government, or Agent of any other Foreign Government, in respect to the policy of England in the event of Italy being involved in war owing to her being a member of the Triple Alliance; and, if so, whether he will communicate them to the House; and whether Her Majesty's Government is aware of the terms of the Triple Alliance, and will, if so, communicate them to the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government having no part in the Triple Alliance have taken no part in connection with it. I can add nothing to the statements already made in regard to our foreign engagements. The hon. Gentleman can hardly be serious in suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should communicate to the House any matter which could only have become known to them confidentially, and which the Governments concerned have not thought fit to publish.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from the Governor of British Guiana, since his appointment, with reference to the

  1063
  granting of a charter to Georgetown; and, if not, whether, provided a Petition to Her Majesty be received from the Mayor and Council, unanimously supported by the inhabitants, the Secretary of State will give the same his favourable consideration?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The communication referred to has not been received, and the Secretary of State can express no opinion on the subject until the Petition has been transmitted by the Governor with his Report.

  TRINIDAD.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a change in the Governorship of Trinidad is about to take place; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state if a new appointment has yet been made?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No steps have been taken with respect to the appointment of a new Governor to Trinidad. In the ordinary course the present Governor's term of service would extend to October next.

  NEWFOUNDLAND ARBITRATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if steps have been taken to proceed with the Newfoundland arbitration and push it on as rapidly as possible, in view to the continued strained relations between the Newfoundlanders and the French on the Newfoundland shore?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The actual state of the case is that when the Agreement for arbitration was signed both Governments reserved the approval of their respective Parliaments before the arrangement was put into execution. Her Majesty's Government have obtained the approval of the Imperial Parliament. The French Government have as yet only obtained the approval of their Senate, and have, up to this time, abstained from bringing the Agreement before the Chamber of Deputies. Her Majesty's Government are doing what is in their power to bring the negotiations to a speedy and satisfactory issue.

  HIGH BUILDINGS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether
  1064
  his attention has been drawn to the great height to which a building is being carried in High Street, Kensington, bordering on Kensington Gardens; and whether he has any power to limit the height to which buildings may be carried which are immediately contiguous to the public parks, and which are likely to prove an eyesore, and decrease the value of the amenity and lessen materially the enjoyment of the parks by the general public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): My attention has for some time been directed to the building in the High Street, Kensington, mentioned in the question. I have only indirect means of exercising any control in such cases: but such as they are, I have employed those means, with the result that the intended height of the building has been reduced by about 20 feet, and I have obtained some further concessions from the owners of the house.

  THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of Sir John Fowler to the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway as to the bridges, includes a Report as to the stability of the bridge over the Thames; whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a General Order, under the provisions of Section 32 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," directing the companies to furnish a statement of the condition and stability of the bridges, and as to the dates of the inspection and testing of such bridges; and whether, having regard to the evidence that the bridge which failed at Norwood Junction had not been inspected from below for 10 years, he will represent to the companies the urgent necessity of adequate inspection of railway bridges every year?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member will find in the Report of Sir John Fowler—a copy of which was presented to Parliament on Thursday last—that it is stated that
  "The Victoria Bridge is a strong and good bridge in every respect, and will be so for very many years. The timber of the permanent

  1065
  way now requires renewal, and this is being done; being an arched bridge, passing trains cause a movement which may be termed a 'vibration' as distinguished from a movement or deflection of an ordinary girder bridge, which has less vibration although probably more movement. No anxiety whatever need be felt about the Victoria Bridge."
  In 1885 the Board of Trade issued a Circular calling the attention of all Railway Companies to the subject of railway bridges constructed of iron, and it appeared from the replies to that Circular that the companies were carefully and continuously watching the bridges. During the period which has elapsed since that Circular was sent, the Railway Companies, generally, have, to a large extent, renewed and repaired the bridges upon their systems. The whole subject is now receiving my careful consideration, and I may have occasion to address a farther Circular to the companies generally on it.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the point which the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating the propriety of calling the attention of the company to the desirability of a periodical inspection?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have in-formed the hon. Gentleman that I am considering the propriety of addressing a further Circular to the companies.

  3RD BATTALION OF THE WELSH REGIMENT.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him that the supply of ammunition recently sent down for the 3rd Battalion of the Welsh Regiment was only sufficient for class firing; and if he will order an additional supply for practice also to be provided?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. Gentleman will repeat the question on Thursday, it is probable that the Report which I have called for will have been presented.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a woman, named Lydia Cook, of Rayleigh, Essex, as reported in the Daily Chronicle of the 19th instant, who was sentenced by the Magistrates to pay a fine and costs,
  1066
  amounting to £1 7s. 6d., with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour, for an offence against the Vaccination Laws; and whether he will inquire into the case, with a view to remitting the fine and costs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Lydia Cook was sentenced to pay a fine of 1s. and £1 3s. 6d. costs, to be levied by distress, and in default of distress seven days' imprisonment, without hard labour. I am in communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the Division, who has interested himself in the case, and am expecting a Report from the Justices. On receiving it I will decide whether any action can and should be taken.

  NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has decided to grant the application of the Committee of the National Institute of Preventive Medicine to become incorporated under the Companies Act, with the omission of the word "Limited," in view of the amended proposals which have been placed before him?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amendment of the proposed Memorandum of Association referred to by the hon. Member (by which it is made clear that the grant of the licence now asked for would not in any way imply approval by the Board of Trade of experiments upon living animals or of any application to the Home Secretary for a licence for that purpose) is no doubt an important change in the proposals of the Institute, and will probably meet the objection stated to the deputation which lately waited upon me. There are, however, one or two other points requiring consideration, but I hope shortly to be able to arrive at a decision on the subject.

  ACTIONS AGAINST THE CROWN.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, when in an action or question between the Crown and any of Her Majesty's subjects, in which judgment is for the Crown with costs, the fees paid to the Law Officers or other counsel appearing for the Crown are reduced upon taxation between party and party, the amounts dis-

  1067
  allowed are returned by the counsel or paid by the Treasury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In the event of the very exceptional case arising which is referred to in the hon. Member's question, the fees would be paid by the Treasury.

  SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether he is aware that there are in England and Wales as many as 160 School Boards and 89 School Attendance Committees in which the standard for partial exemption is Standard II., and as many as 936 School Boards and 481 School Attendance Committees in which the standard for total exemption is Standard IV.; whether he is aware that such low standards for partial and total exemption are contrary to the law and practice of Scotland; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of availing themselves of the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the Assisted Education Bill to raise the standards for partial and total exemption in England and Wales at least to the level at which they now stand in Scotland?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member has correctly quoted from the figures given in the Return lately presented to Parliament, from which it is clear that the practice in England and Wales is more indulgent than that followed in Scotland. He will, however, have every opportunity of eliciting the opinion of the Government on the point in the course of the Debate upon the Elementary Education Bill.

  ACCELERATED MAIL SERVICE TO IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now make any statement with reference to the establishment of an accelerated mail service to and from the North of Ireland by Lame and Stranraer?
  SIR J. ELLISalso asked the Postmaster General whether it is the intention of the Post Office authorities to divert the mail service from the
  1068
  main line of communication between Dublin viâ Portadown and Londonderry and Belfast, in favour of the North-Western route through England viâ Stranraer; and when the long-desired acceleration of the mail service may be expected?
  MR. SEXTONfurther asked the right hon. Gentleman what is the result of the negotiations respecting the mail route viâ Stranraer and Larne?
  *MR. RAIKES: I am glad to be at length in a position to make a definite-statement on this subject. After the most careful and exhaustive consideration, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that, while the important industrial interests of Belfast have strong claims on their consideration in the matter of swift and efficient postal service, nothing should be done in any way tending to detract from the efficiency and completeness of the excellent mail packet service which has been for so many years established by the route of Holyhead and Kingstown. On the contrary, the views of the Government are that efforts should be made to improve that service, and I have with pleasure found that at moderate outlay an accelerated arrival to the extent of 55 minutes at Belfast and 1 hour 5 minutes at Londonderry can be effected by that route. Accordingly, and subject to a single stipulation as to the cost of special trains, I am about to make arrangements with the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland for carrying out an alteration under what I should describe as scheme No. 2, and under which the mails will be due at Belfast at 9.30 a.m., and at Londonderry at 11.10 a.m. It is only right to state that under a scheme submitted as No. I the company have offered to effect a still further acceleration, but, irrespective of the additional cost involved, the departure of the mails from Dublin would take place at so early an hour as to endanger, in the opinion of my advisers, the punctual and proper performance of the service. At the same time, the Government are not insensible to the importance of providing for the City of Belfast and large towns in the North of Ireland, not only an alternate and in some respects an improved service for the conveyance of London letters, and also for the swifter exchange of letters

  1069
  between the North of Ireland and the northern and midland towns of England, and I am prepared with this object, and subject to a limitation of the contract to five years, to enter into an arrangement for the establishment of a regular mail service by the route of Stranraer and Larne, a statement which, I trust, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member and to all who are interested in the improvement of the postal communication with the large and flourishing towns of Ulster. The combined services when put into operation will raise the maximum interval for replies at Belfast from 5 hours 5 minutes to 7 hours 50 minutes, and at Derry from 1 hour 25 minutes to 3 hours 40 minutes. I trust the House will allow me to take this opportunity of expressing my acknowledgments of the fair and courteous spirit in which the respective corporations with whom I have been in communication on the subject have so far met the views of Her Majesty's Government on this somewhat complicated question.
  SIR E. HARLAND: Does the answer indicate that there is to be no subsidy whatever paid in respect of the route by Larne and Stranraer?
  *MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; there will be a subsidy to each line.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the arrangement been completed, or is it only contemplated? If it is contemplated, will the right hon. Gentleman state the terms?
  *MR. RAIKES: The arrangement must be subject to the ultimate decision of Parliament; but the present conditions in regard to the Larne route may be regarded as complete except as to the time over which the contract is to run. I have received a telegram from the North-Western Company stating that there will be little or no difficulty in arriving at an arrangement upon that point.
  MR. SEXTON: What is to be the annual payment?
  *MR. RAIKES: I think I had better defer an answer to that question.

  THE IRISH CENSUS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in estimating the population and number of houses within the municipal boundary
  1070
  of the town of Lisburn, care has been taken to include that portion which is situated in the County Down?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish Census Commissioners report that since the publication of the preliminary Parliamentary Abstract, it has been ascertained that the figures given therein for Lisburn town are incorrect, as the portion of the town in the County Antrim has not been included. The correct figures, as shown by the enumerators' abstracts, are:—in County Antrim, 1,785 inhabited houses; population, 9,517; in County Down, 525 inhabited houses; population, 2,732—total, Lisburn town, 2,310 inhabited houses; population, 12,249.

  DR. J. T. RYAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Dr. J. T. Ryan, of Portumna, County Galway, was, on the night of 13th October, 890, called in by Dr. H. O'Farrell, acting-medical officer to military stationed there, to assist in an urgent surgical case which could not be treated without extra surgical and; and that Dr. Ryan paid several visits to the patients; and if the very moderate fee duly applied for by Dr. Ryan on the form supplied by the principal medical officer will be granted by the War Office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There has been some irregularity in this case, which is being inquired into.

  TRAMORE FISHERMEN.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, considering that there is no accommodation for fishermen at Tramore, County Waterford, and that the pier, partly built by local contribution, which has been destroyed, was planned and constructed by the Board of Works, what assistance may the locality expect from funds at the disposal of the Irish Government in an effort to provide suitable accommodation for the fishermen of Tramore?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): It is estimated that there will be a balance from these funds, but at present there is no realised balance. I am afraid that

  1071
  there may be charges on the funds which will leave nothing available for the accommodation of the fishermen at Tramore. I have made inquiries, and I certainly cannot find at the disposal of the Irish Government any funds for such a purpose.

  NAAS TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution which was unanimously adopted at a recent meeting of the Naas Town Commissioners, in which they express their opinion that in allocations of public money towards the promotion of primary and technical education the claims of the Christian Brothers to recognition and support are entitled to the consideration of the Government, and that a portion of Ireland's share in the surplus should be applied in providing technical instruction in Ireland; and whether in the proposed Bill he will introduce a clause giving effect to the above resolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A copy of the resolution of the Naas Town Commissioners does not appear to have reached the Irish Government. But, as I have pointed out in reply to previous questions on the subject, it is quite open to the Christian Brothers' Order to take advantage of the public grants for primary education by putting themselves under the general regulations of the National Education Board, a course which various Orders of Monks, including the French Order of Christian Brothers, find no difficulty in adopting. As regards the suggestion with respect to technical instruction, I am, of course, most anxious to encourage it; how far it can be done as part of the general scheme now in preparation is a matter for careful consideration, and will in part depend on whether the scheme for freeing education leaves any available surplus.

  CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three young men, named Patrick Rahilly, Jeremiah Healy, and Michael Healy, of Headford, County Kerry, were summarily
  1072
  arrested on the 1st instant for an alleged assault on a man named Williams, of Brewsterfield; and that, after being remanded for eight days, Mr. Rahilly was discharged, there being no evidence against him; whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the trial, from which it appears that Williams had assaulted Jeremiah Healy, and was fined £3 and bound over to keep the peace for 12 months; and whether it is intended to take any action with regard to the conduct of the police in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The three men named in the question were arrested on a warrant on sworn information. One of the defendants was discharged, and the other two were fined. Williams was fined for assaulting Rahilly.

  EXTRA POLICE IN WATERFORD.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what number of extra police are now stationed in the County Water-ford, and at what annual cost to the ratepayers; and what were the number of cases returned for trial at the last Quarter Sessions and County Assizes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The extra police force now attached to the County Water-ford is 30 men. The cost is about £800 per annum. At the last Quarter Sessions there were three cases for trial, and at the last Assizes five cases.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it intended to continue the extra police force in those parts of Ireland which the Government think now ought not to be proclaimed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that each county should be dealt with on its own merits.

  PRIMARY EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether, in the case of the additional funds in aid of primary education in Ireland, he will proceed by Bill or by Supplementary Estimate; if he can now state definitely the amount which the Government will propose as the Irish capitation rate; and whether the principles of distribution embodied in the English Bill will be submitted for provisional application to Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No final determination has been come to with re-

  1073
  gard to the particular method of dealing with the funds at the command of the Irish Office in consequence of the measures taken in England for freeing education; but the desire of the Government is to proceed by Resolution, not by Bill, if such a course be practicable. With regard to the second question, I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum available in the course of the present year is between £80,000 and £85,000. With regard to the next paragraph, which I understand to embody a suggestion that we should bring forward a short preliminary education measure for distributing the money among the school authorities in Ireland, I think such a measure might lead to grave complications and difficulties when the final arrangements come to be made, and I should not be prepared to recommend it to the House.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE ATHLONE UNION.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board declared the site chosen for a labourer's cottage in the Athlone Union, in place of an unsanitary cottage at present occupied by a labourer called Doolan, to be unsuitable; and whether the said site was chosen by an ex officio and an elected Guardian?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Inspector reports that the building site selected is unsuitable, owing: to its situation with regard to the main road. I have no information as to the persons who selected the site.

  DUBLIN POSTMEN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the Treasury have agreed to the recommendations he made to them lately with reference to the Dublin postmen; and whether, in connection with those recommendations, consideration will be taken of the fact that, while extra pay for Sunday duty has been allowed for other employés in the Dublin General Post Office, no increase of pay has been granted to the postmen whose Sunday duty is none the less arduous?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have not yet been favoured with the Treasury reply to my
  1074
  recommendations on the subject of the postmen's memorials. The question of additional pay for Sunday work was one of those raised in the memorials, and it has, of course, been considered along with the rest.

  DISTRESS IN WEST DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Lord Bishop of Raphoe, appearing in the National Press, of 1st June, and of the reports published in the same journal on the 12th and 13th June, in which it is stated that North West Donegal has been excluded from all participation in relief works; whether a line of railway from Letterkenny to Dunfanaghy and Gweedore was amongst the lines scheduled by the Lords Justices in Council as desirable to have constructed and approved by the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal; and why, having regard to the admitted failure of the potato crop and the destitution of the people, and the increased mortality produced by such destitution, have no relief works, such as the construction of railways, and piers and harbours, and the making of roads, been instituted in North West Donegal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say that the letter of Bishop O'Donnell and reports published in the National Press as to the distress in Donegal have been brought to my notice. It is perfectly true, as stated, that the line of railway from Letterkenny to Dunfanaghy and Gweedore was amongst the lines scheduled by the Lords Justices; but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind, in the first place, that a much larger number of lines were necessarily scheduled than there was money forthcoming to construct; in the second place, that the line he refers to was not accepted by the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal; and, in the third place, that the County of Donegal has obtained a full share of the money voted by Parliament for the purpose of constructing light railways. The condition of the people in the north-west of Donegal has been the object of the constant and anxious attention of the Government. On the whole, we have been of opinion that no destitution existed of a sufficiently severe character

  1075
  to justify the institution of relief works. I have not been able to obtain information enabling me to compare the mortality during the present spring with that during previous springs, and to discover that any mortality arising out of the destitution of the people and the partial failure of the potato crops exists in the district.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence to show that a large proportion of the population is invalided, that the death-rate has more than doubled, that the Relief of Distress Fund is administered on the principle that no relief is given to any family a member of which is able to work; and whether the principle of administering that fund cannot be relaxed in the case of persons able to work but who are unable to get work to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that the Relief Fund is confined to families in which there is no able-bodied person capable of earning money, or else to families precluded by severe sickness among its members from work. The hon. Member has been misinformed as to his facts, because the information in my possession does not bear out the view as to the amount of destitution and sickness in West Donegal. A large number of members of families are either in Scotland, or on the way to Scotland and the Eastern Counties for the purpose of obtaining agricultural work.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to give the House some indication as to the order of business during the later portion of the week. I may draw attention to the fact that the first Notice for to-morrow is a Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) expressing the opinion that it is desirable steps should be taken with a view to the adoption of regulations as to the immigration of foreign destitute paupers. I wish to know whether the Government intend to adhere to their right to take to-morrow for other business; and, if so, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded to the House for expressing an opinion on this subject, in respect of which there is an increasing popular
  1076
  feeling. Will the Government afford an opportunity for a full discussion?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that the Government cannot give the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman desires. The Government must take to-morrow for other business, and they cannot pledge themselves as to when the subject indicated may be brought before the House.
  DR. CAMERON: What course is proposed to be taken in regard to Order No. 5 on the Paper—the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill? The question is one of considerable importance to the shipowning community, as regulating the conditions under which cattle are to be shipped. My shipowning constituents are anxious that it should not be pressed forward until they have had time to examine the Bill. I therefore hope that it will not be taken to-night.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill will not be taken before Thursday. Assuming that the Second Reading stage of the Education Bill is concluded to-morrow evening the Army Estimates will be taken on Wednesday, and on Thursday the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think that one day is a very short time to allow of Amendments being put down on the Education Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I would also ask for more time.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will report what has passed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who will be in his place to-morrow, and who, no doubt, will consider what the general wish of the House is. I may point out, however, that the Government are pressed from one quarter to proceed with the Bill de die in diem as soon as it is before the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: On the contrary, the statement was that the Bill should be proceeded with de die in diem after the Committee stage had begun.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 107.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 261.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  NEW WRIT.
  For Carlow County, v. James Patrick O'Gorman Mahon, esquire, commonly called The O'Gorman Mahon, deceased.—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
MOTION.
  DESTITUTION IN NORTH WEST DONEGAL.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. MAC NEILL, Member for South Donegal, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the destitution of the people in North West Donegal, and its perilous aggravation by reason of the failure of the Government to institute works for the relief of distress in that district; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. MAC NEILL: I must express my thanks to hon. Gentlemen for having supported me in bringing forward this Motion at a time when a most important Bill is about to be discussed, and in which they are vitally interested. The matter which I wish to bring before the House is, however, of such great importance that I hope I may be excused for any temporary embarrassment I may occasion. I trust that I shall show my appreciation of the indulgence of the House by occupying its attention for a very short time. My attention has been directed to the question of distress in North West Donegal by a letter in the National Press from the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, a most distinguished Prelate, and the friend of everyone in the community in that district of Ireland. The Right Rev. Prelate has felt it his duty to call attention to the destitution which exists among a population of 21,561 persons, and to the fact that that enormous dis-
    1078
    trict has been exempted from the relief works, although it is one of the most congested to be found not only in Donegal but probably in all Ireland. The Government have received many notices of the impending distress in Ulster. I myself have frequently addressed questions to the Government with reference to the failure of the potato crop; and last autumn the Chief Secretary received an official Report on distress in Ireland, which stated that North West Donegal was threatened with great distress on account of the total failure of the potato crop. In September last the clergy of Letterkenny and the district met first at Letterkenny, and subsequently in Dublin, and passed various resolutions calling attention to the impending calamity; but in a letter written on October 3 the right hon. Gentleman declared that there was no distress, and that such as might occur the Poor Law was abundantly able to meet. The right hon. Gentleman added that the country was not seriously to consider a panic that was obviously got up for political purposes. For my own part, I have never discussed these questions from a political point of view, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will not seriously suggest that Dr. O'Donnell is likely to be actuated by political motives. At the same time, I think there ought to be a strong feeling of indignation against any Government which fails to discharge the primary duty of a Government, the protection of the lives of the people from starvation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) went to Ireland to investigate the matter personally, and he wrote to the Chief Secretary suggesting that he should examine the condition of affairs for himself. In his answer the Chief Secretary rather reproved the right hon. Gentleman for dictating what the conduct of a Chief Secretary ought to be; but surely the man who has practically despotic rule over Ireland is bound to look after the welfare of the population he governed. But a change soon came over the spirit of the dream of the Chief Secretary. After the right hon. Gentleman had declared that there was no distress except what was got up for political purposes—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind]—the

    1079
    right hon. Gentleman received an application from Mr. Hamilton, a landlord's agent in the centre of the North West Donegal district, telling him that the potato crop had absolutely failed; and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who had been travelling there, and was filling the position since occupied by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), namely, that of correspondent to a London daily paper, wrote to the public Press about the distress in the locality. He said there could be no doubt that the potato, as the source of the people's food, had collapsed. That was early in November, and the hon. Member pointed out what we all saw, that distress in the locality was imminent, and that it was likely to be most acute. Then came the question what ought to be done, and the remedy that was pointed out as adequate to provide support for the thousands of distressed people was the construction of a railway from Letterkenny to Gweedore. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, addressing an Unionist meeting, referred to this very railway, and urged upon the Government the necessity of constructing it. He stated that the railway system in Donegal was absolutely incomplete, unless there was a line in the northwest of the county—meaning thereby a railway through the congested districts from Letterkenny to Gweedore. There were Petitions for the rail way, which was sanctioned by the Privy Council; and a deputation from the Grand Jury waited on the Board of Works and on the Chief Secretary in support of the railway, and received favourable assurances. When the Chief Secretary was in Gweedore, Mr. Olphert strongly urged upon him that in the interests of the community at large this railway should be constructed. The Bishop of Donegal, in the discharge of his duty, recently issued a pastoral to his clergy, and in the strongest language urged that some works should be instituted; that, in order to keep up habits of industry among the people, and to ensure a proper and healthy tone of self-respect, an opportunity should be held out to them to maintain their independence by hard work. The construction of a railway would have relieved these numerous and unhappy people. Then, I ask, why
    1080
    were not piers and harbours constructed so that the people might get an opportunity of reaping the harvest of the sea? Take the parish of Gweedore, which the right hon. Gentleman was only in a few hours and left in the gloom of the morning. The parish contains 1,000 families, or about 5,000 persons. I find from Father M'Fadden's statement that no fewer than 800 families are supported by credit, or four-fifths of the whole number, and that the outstanding debts of the people come to about £10,000. I find that the average valuation of holdings in this country is £1 per individual, whilst the average valuation for each individual in Father M'Fadden's parish is about 3s. If a pier were built out into the sea it would enable deep-sea fishing to be carried on in rough weather. The construction of a harbour there was recommended by the Board of Works in 1888, but not a single pound has been expended upon it. I should imagine that of all places in the world Gweedore would be the place the right hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to help. It is a place where the right hon. Gentleman's administration has been characterised by terrible horrors, by the degradation and prostitution of justice, by armed military occupation, by passports, and by domiciliary visits. I have simply summarised what has taken place, and I am sure many Members of the House will testify that I have not exaggerated it. Take the question of the roads in Gweedore. Father M'Fadden is a practical engineer, and he made this offer to the Government early in January last—that he, by the use of his own skill and experience, would construct 20 miles of road for £5,000, and would out of that sum keep alive and well some 300 families for six months, whereas no Government contractor could do it for less than £15,000. Of course this offer was rejected because it came from a Catholic priest who had the interests of the people at heart and was acquainted with all their wants. I am inclined to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a fair spirit on this point, because I am bound to say that since he went to Donegal himself there has been a very considerable change in his spirit and tone when talking of the distress. He now admits

    1081
    that distress exists, and says he will personally examine into any cases that are mentioned. I come now to the question of mortality. Dr. Smith, the medical man of the parish of the Rosses, has under his charge no fewer than 13,000 people, and he says that the illness in that vast district has, during the last year, more than trebled, and the mortality has increased 2½ times. I have obtained a great deal of the information I am using from the letters which have appeared in the National Press from the Commissioner of that paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to get another dispensary doctor appointed in the district, because Dr. Smith is seriously overworked. The Castle Relief Fund is being distributed there, but the right hon. Gentleman very well knows that that Fund ought only to be an auxiliary to the larger work of relieving distress. The Castle Fund is a charitable fund, pure and simple, and we are not satisfied, unless it be in very exceptional circumstances, that any of our people should accept charity. The fund is distributed in accordance with a very peculiar system. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that no family is entitled to any relief from the fund if it contains one healthy member able to work. That, no doubt, is a very proper rule, but the difficulty is that there is no work for them. It is pitiable to see a strong', healthy man with his hands in his pockets, and his poor miserable children gathered around him, and to hear him say, when he is asked why he is not working, that there is no work for him to do. I gave the right hon. Gentleman a statistical record respecting every family in that parish, with the amount of debts due from each, and how the head of the family was employed, and so forth. There is one poor creature called Harvey, who, when the Castle Fund was being distributed, was working away from home. There was, in consequence, no able-bodied member of the family at home, and relief was given. Harvey, however, came home sick; and directly he did so, the relief given to his family stopped. The family would now be absolutely destitute except for the few shillings
    1082
    given to them by the parish priests and the charitable people in the neighbourhood. Certainly, if one wishes to see real charity and generosity, one must go amongst the poverty-stricken Irish peasantry. I do not think it was right or fair that any political complexion should be given to this Castle Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was a most liberal subscriber to that fund, and as large a sum as £1,200 was on one occasion subscribed to it at a meeting presided over by the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), and at which the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) spoke. I was very much surprised to notice that Lord Salisbury spoke of the fund as if it were a political organisation got up for political purposes by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The hon. Members for Carnarvon and Flint, in handing over the subscriptions to which I have referred, urged that the fund should be distributed by persons having some local control, and possessing the respect and sympathy of the people, and not by police officers or resident magistrates. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the distribution to the Poor Law Guardians or the parish priests, or to some person having the confidence of the people. The quarter-acre clause has worked in an awful way. Every poor man who has in his own possession—in physical occupation—a quarter of an acre of land is unable to get out-door relief, but must go into the workhouse, and the moment he does so the landlord has a free hand to deal with his property. On the eve of the famine the tenants went into the workhouse, and no fewer than 55,800 men in this way were driven by stress of circumstances out of their holdings, for on coming out of the workhouse they found their farms in the possession of their landlords. This quarter - acre clause has paralysed the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, and no matter how much they desire to give out-door relief to the poor tenants they are unable to do so. They see before them the small farmer to whom temporary relief in the shape of food would be of the utmost importance, and they see him pause in making his choice of alternatives—either to lose his holding or to die of famine. In connection with Donegal

    1083
    there is a painful state of things which the English people cannot realise at all, that is to say, the physical condition of the place. Go into any congested district of North Donegal and you will find what I have witnessed with my own eyes—and, mark you, a "congested district" here does not mean what it would mean in England. Very frequently there may seem to be a sparseness of inhabitants in a district, but the sustenance for the people is so small that the congestion may be severe though there may be only one man, or, at the most, two or three men to each square mile. The cottages are of the most humble description. You enter one of them, but for two or three minutes you are unable to see anything. You have a smarting feeling in the eyes produced by the smoke which rises from the miserable peat fire which is smouldering, not in the hearth—for there is no hearth—but in the middle of the floor of the but. Then, when you have become to some extent accustomed to the smoke and can see, you observe in the cabin a tall, gaunt man and woman, in rags, with an absolutely hopeless expression of countenance, pallid and hungry looking. You see besides several miserable specimens of humanity in the shape of children huddled together. In Donegal you see less joy written in the people's faces than you see in any other part of the world. The children seem prematurely old. I have never seen a child smile in any of the miserable, famished districts of Donegal. They are wizened, dejected, pitiable creatures. Lord Salisbury once in one of his speeches—a speech which ought never to have been made, as it was unworthy of a person in his position, and of his antecedents—compared these poor Irish peasants to Hottentots. All I can say is that they are worse fed than the Hottentots, whom I have seen in their own homes. The food they have when the potato fails them is Indian meal—a dreadful mess—and seaweed. This seaweed I have myself seen in use, and out of courtesy when it has been offered to me I have myself endeavoured to eat it. But it is like leather. Such is the normal condition of these people when things are bright. They are not educated in the English language; they have no idea of reading or writing; they have little knowledge
    1084
    of public affairs, and they are unacquainted with matters affecting their neighbours as they do not read the newspapers. Their condition is hopeless, and their constant endeavour merely to stave off famine, and famine comes whenever the potato crop fails. That is the condition of 21,000 human beings in Donegal at present. I thought I should not be discharging my duty to the country if I did not place these matters clearly before the House. I am fully sensible of the kindness and attention with which I have been heard by Members of the House on all sides. What I plead for is a mere matter of justice and humanity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who replies to me to deal with these people, not as machines from whom rent must be extracted, but as beings with the same feelings and affections as ourselves—even though they may express them in uncouth language. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some hope with reference to the condition of these people. I claim on the ground of Christianity, justice and mercy for people whose lot is extremely miserable, and I trust I shall not appeal in vain to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his power in order to bring them some relief in their great necessity.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I venture to think that however much hon. Members may be disappointed by the displacement by this Motion of the first Order of the Day, they would, had they personally witnessed the condition of this district, readily admit that the Members for Donegal are justified in the action they are taking. After all, the saving of the lives of the people should be the first business of this House, and I venture to assert that special and prompt steps must be taken if the lives of the people of Donegal are to be saved. This is the most remote and inaccessible part of Ireland; on the one side it is bounded by mountains; on the other side by two arms of the sea. It is in area about 330 square miles; it is a bare, barren, waste district, and yet its population numbers 25,000. The representations which we have made from our places in the House, the representations which have been

    1085
    made by the Bishop of Raphoe, and the clergy, and by large numbers of people who have visited the district, ought to have secured active and practical relief for the terrible distress now prevailing there. The distress is prevalent not only in Gweedore, but also in the Rosses and other parts of the county. Gweedore itself is not a small out-of-the-way parish. It is a district 68 square miles in extent; it has a population of 5,600, and these people, at the best of times, can only manage to make a bare living. But when their staple food fails they are immediately reduced to great destitution, and to the danger of starvation. The valuation of the land in the occupation of the tenants is only £1,283, and as there are 960 families, this gives an average of about 3s. 6d. per head. The average valuation of land in the occupation of tenants is 7d., and of that 7d., at least 5d. has been created by the industry of the people themselves. A generation back the state of things was not so bad, because in those days the people had every inch of the 44,000 acres. But the landlords have appropriated for themselves much of the most fertile land, they have turned the people off 24,000 acres, and have relegated them to rugged barren lands, for which they have to pay £1,600 a year as rent, compared with the £660 they formerly paid for the whole 44,000 acres. If it had not been for this wholesale robbery by the landlords, the tenants would not to-day be in this deplorable condition. The only thing which has saved 800 families in the Gweedore district from starvation has been the generous and charitable credit extended to them by the shopkeepers. But the shopkeepers can no longer afford to give credit; they cannot afford to furnish the means of subsistence on credit, and I know of instances in which people in the last few days have tramped miles and miles in order to get on credit a small bag of meal for their children and themselves. The debts owing to the shopkeepers in the district amount, I am told, to £10,000, or more than £10 per family, and those families literally possess nothing in the world. Not only did their potato crop fail last year, but so also did the oat crop, and whereas in an ordinary season 120 tons of oats are ground at the mills in the
    1086
    district, and considerable quantities sent away in addition, this year none could be sent away and scarcely any was ground at the mills for consumption in the district. Every year these people have to draw upon credit to a certain extent, but this year, instead of beginning to get credit only in the month of May, they have been living on credit since October last. Now their resources are totally exhausted; their credit is at an end, and the situation is extremely grave. These people do not ask for charity; they are too proud to wish their Representatives in this House to adopt a tone of beseeching charity; they are desirous of paying with the labour of their hands for food which they need, and they ask that in the next two months they may be employed on works which could be carried out: with great advantage to the district. That would carry them over the most critical period. In other places, which have not been visited so severely by the destruction of the crops, and where the people have a variety of means of occupation, public works and railways have been promoted, but absolutely nothing has been done for Gweedore. Yet the people have had reason to hope that something would be done for them. You have sent Inspectors, engineers, police, and relieving officers to take stock of the district and to report on it. But no result has followed their visits. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will tell us that the accounts of the distress have been exaggerated; but I have been there myself; I have seen the condition of the people, and if words have not told the story, it has been visible in the pinched and drawn faces and tattered clothing of the population. I feel impatient when I hear it asserted that the reports are exaggerated. Look at the very nature of the country. Why, it is a wonder how people can live at all in such districts as Loughamona, Derrynamoncha, and Rathanatas. The people cannot be kept alive without some great effort. A man had to carry home from school the other day a little girl who had fainted for want of food. Surely it is not too much to expect the Government to take steps to relieve the distress. The right hon. Gentleman says that from information supplied to him he has no reason to believe there is any extreme

    1087
    or dangerous distress. No doubt he believes that to be the case; but we say that he has been seriously misled. He must not imagine, because he drove through the country once over one of the two roads which run through it, that he had an opportunity of judging from the highroad the misery and destitution which lurk in the cabins among the rocks two, three, four, and five miles away. He might just as well attempt by a survey of Piccadilly to appreciate the distress in the East End of London, as to judge from the neighbourhood of the Gweedore Hotel the condition of the people living on the broken rocky lands of Rathanatas. The Government are, no doubt, full of good intentions, but the people cannot live on the assurances and solicitude of Governments; they must have food, and I abjure the right hon. Gentleman not to refuse the inquiry we ask for. Some of his subordinates are unwilling to let the real state of things be known, because it would be at variance with their previous reports. Why should a relieving officer say to the representative of a newspaper, "I will not give you information, because you are associated with Father Sweeney." Father Sweeney is the very man upon whom a whole population has been dependent for subsistence from week to week. I have here a letter in which the writer describes the case of a woman and her child on the tramp. The child actually died of starvation before assistance could be obtained. What is asked for is sworn inquiry by an independent person, and if that is conceded I am prepared to go over the district, and walk every step of the way from house to house, in order that the truth of the allegations made may be tested. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman will only send an independent officer he will see the necessity of taking prompt and effectual means of relieving the distress.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no reason to complain of the action taken by the hon. Members for Donegal, nor of the tone in which they have laid their case before the House. Their action is not animated by any motive of hostility to the Government; they evidently desire to bring before the House what they believe to be the true state of the case; and I will endeavour
    1088
    to meet them in the spirit in which they have addressed themselves to this difficult and important question. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the North-West of Donegal is one of the poorest and most congested districts in all Ireland. Undoubtedly there are spots in that district where the poverty and the congestion are as great as are to be found in any part of the West of Ireland; but I am not prepared to admit that the poverty is greater in the North-West than in the South-West of Donegal. If all the resources of the population are taken into account—what they make out of their holdings, out of fishing, out of labour in Scotland, and out of agricultural labour during the summer months in the East of Donegal—it will not be felt that the population stand much in need of special assistance from the House or otherwise. If I consulted my own personal convenience I should be prepared to start relief works wherever there is any strong local demand made for them, made through Members who will take Parliamentary trouble on the subject. It is not my own convenience, it is not for the sake of ease in the position I occupy, that I have felt myself compelled steadily to resist in certain cases the starting of relief works, but it is simply because I believe we should never lose sight of the fundamental axiom that relief works should never be started in any district in order to deal with chronic poverty, but should be started only to deal with serious and exceptional poverty. Therefore I have felt it my duty, where otherwise I should have set works on foot, to refuse the relief asked for. There is no foundation for the statement that I have refused to provide relief against destitution resulting from the failure of the potato crop. In August last I asked the House of Commons to sit up one whole night for no other purpose whatever than that of providing by Bill for the starting of relief works where such failures might occur; but it is true that I did what every man in my position would have done—I refused to accept the conjectures of various persons not in responsible positions with regard to the possibility or probability of destitution from this cause. It was not possible so early to say what the potato crop would

    1089
    be, nor to estimate the extent of failure until the end of October or the beginning of November. Indeed, it was not always possible to say so even then. I stated that it was my duty to discourage appeals based upon anonymous representations, but I took every possible precaution, should there be a failure in the potato crop, to guard against a catastrophe in the winter or the spring. The hon. Gentleman stated that I indicated a promise of a railway which I have not fulfilled. There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. I was met by a deputation at Letterkenny asking me to promote a line, and I told that deputation, and another which waited upon me since, that I hoped the time might come when the Imperial Parliament would grant this railway; but I did not conceal from them that by other railway schemes, of which Donegal would have its full share, we had exhausted the not illiberal grants already made, and that I could not hold out any hope that further grants would be made. There have been only two specific cases of distress brought before the House. In one of the cases a man named Condy Harley had deserted his wife and family by going away to Scotland. The man returned, but did not remain long at home; he departed for Scotland again a few weeks ago, and his family were again placed on the relief list. The other is the case of a beggar woman, whose name and residence have not been given, who was found about 30 miles away in very destitute circumstances. But these eases afford no indication of the general condition of the poor in the district, nor would they be a justification for starting relief works. It is perfectly true that there has been scarlet fever in the district, but on May 25 a Medical Inspector, appointed to make inquiry, reported that he could find only two cases of scarlet fever. Everybody who knows anything of the West of Ireland is aware that, while at first sight it seems a very easy thing to discover the true condition of the people, nothing is more difficult. Even the most sceptical are constantly deceived by obvious signs which they would be inclined to interpret in the first instance as indicating very serious destitution indeed. In the parish of Gweedore, for instance, no less than
    1090
    £500 has been spent on the purchase of seed potatoes, £250 has been paid in ready money by the people, and £220 was, I believe, obtained by Father M'Fadden. By this large expenditure of ready money the people obtained the full advantage of the percentage which accrued on the purchase of seed potatoes out of the Church surplus to those who bought for ready money. Since the end of October, last year, £112 had been contributed by the people on the occasion of 15 successive funerals. As the House is aware, it is the custom in that district to show respect for the dead by making contributions in the case of funerals. Again, the other day a purse of £124 was given by his grateful parishioners of Templecrome to Father Magin.
    MR. MAC NEILL: That did not come from the starving people, but from the prosperous shopkeepers of the town.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but the shopkeepers existed simply by the custom of the starving people. I believe Father Magin's services obtained beyond the limits of the town substantial recognition. In the same parish of Templecrome there existed a large trader, who, in the last few weeks, became bankrupt. I have done my best to investigate this case, and some very curious facts have come to light. This trader, a lady, was in the habit of receiving deposits from the people, and a list of her creditors was given in a well-known Irish circular, issued by Stubbs. Out of £9,000, the total amount of liabilities, some £2,300 was in respect of deposits made by small farmers of the district, for which they were to receive 5 per cent. And while these people were depositing money at 5 per cent., they were obtaining goods from shops on credit. It does not appear a paying transaction to deposit at 5 per cent. and pay 20 or 30 per cent. to the shopkeeper for credit. But that seems to be the financial principle in Templecrome. Two more facts. There is the Stranorlar Railway, on which the Directors of the line have expressed their willingness to give employment, but not a single demand for employment has come to them from the district in question since the works were opened.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman might as well talk about their going to work on a railway in Asia Minor.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These able-bodied men go to Scotland in the season, and workers go to the east of the county in search of employment. Why should they not seek this labour market on the line of Stranorlar, which is nearer? Some light is thrown on this question by the Poor Law statistics. In the district we are considering there are two Unions—Caroonagh and Dunfanaghy. In the latter in 1890 the indoor relief was 24, and in 1881 29; the outdoor relief in 1890 was 1, and in 1891 6; the provisional relief was 24 in 1890, and 65 in 1891. In Caroonagh the indoor relief in 1890 was 24; in 1891 29. The outdoor relief in 1891 was only 5. Therefore, by looking at the Poor Law statistics the indications are similar to those derived from other sources available—that the distress is not of a kind which ought to be described as approaching famine point. I may remind hon. Gentlemen with reference to the Irish Distress Fund relief in this district that 2,465 persons are actually at this moment being supported out of the fund, and I think we may confidently say that this number includes every family which has no able-bodied breadwinner to work for it. I find that the children have already gone to the eastern counties, where they earn summer wages; and that wages in respect of hiring engagements—wages on which credit is given by the shopkeepers—will probably this year be above what they have been during some years past. Besides, 550 heads of families have already gone to Scotland, and I believe that the remainder will go this week or the following week. I think I have shown to the House that I, at all events, have done my best to make myself acquainted with the condition of this district, and that I have made out a good case for the course which the Government have adopted. It would be absolutely fatal to the future of those districts to start relief works where they are not absolutely required, and I am convinced, great as the pains are which I have taken in every part of Ireland with reference to this subject, that I have erred by excess rather than by defect.
    1092
    The independence of a district cannot be kept up by starting relief works at the public expense, and there is a danger, unless in case of dire necessity, of making those districts chronic beggars of the Imperial Government. I implore the House not to put any pressure on the Government to start works unless the necessity for them is conclusively shown. It would, no doubt, ease my position were I to feel that my responsibility was shared by the House of Commons. Though I should be grateful to hand over to hon. Members opposite the administration of these public funds, I am convinced that a worse course for the future interests of Ireland could not be conceived by Ireland's worst enemies.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) cheered the concluding portion of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Why, the hon. Member, in one of the series of letters to which reference has been made, said that this was not a case of tubers being diseased, but that the tubers were not there at all. His testimony must be regarded as conclusive, yet I find it difficult to reconcile what he has said with what he has cheered to-day.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: At the time the relief works were proposed, I objected to them as most demoralising, and where they have been set up they have done infinite mischief already.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman, in his published letters, advocated the construction of railways, piers, and harbours to develop the fishing industries on the West Coast, and said the Government would be guilty of criminal neglect if they did not execute these works. They have done nothing, and the evidence of the hon. Gentleman against the Government is, therefore, most conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Poor Law statistics. I decline to take the administration of the Poor Law as a test of the condition of the district. Out of 960 occupiers in Gweedore there are only six who have holdings above £4 annual value. Besides, the Board of Guardians is in the hands of Mr. Olphert, an evicting landlord, who would have to pay the rates if relief were given. I maintain that the distress in this district is not only

    1093
    exceptional bat chronic. In this district in the first week of November last the right hon. Gentleman delivered a speech which encouraged hopes, now cruelly disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be some consolation to reflect that these works would not only conduce to improvement in the permanent condition of the people, but that they would administer to their immediate necessities as well. Bat the relief works which have been promised have not been carried out. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the works were to be directed to exceptional, and not to chronic necessity.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My proposition was this: that if you are going to start works for the sole purpose of relieving exceptional distress, of course, if those works permanently ameliorated the condition of the districts as well as relieved exceptional distress, so much the better.
    MR. SEXTON: If you have no kind of works, what becomes of it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What speech is it?
    MR. SEXTON: It was a speech delivered in the true spirit of paternal philanthropy at Letterkenny on the 17th November. The right hon. Gentleman was then arranging a railway scheme for Donegal.
    MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman was replying to a deputation of his own friends, who urged him to construct a railway in North-West Donegal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said then, and what I said before, both here and out of the House, was that while the railways would be for the permanent benefit of Ireland, they would do much to alleviate the present distress.
    MR. SEXTON: A fact I feel bound as a matter of duty to throw into the foreground to-day is, that whilst money available under the light railways and relief works scheme has been liberally expended in other districts, not a penny has been expended by means of relief works in this particular district, although I believe there is no district in Ireland which has a better claim to consideration. Will the Chief Secretary deny that
    1094
    Donegal is a most congested county? Will he deny that the County Inspector has borne testimony to the fact that this is the most congested district of the county? Will he deny that another expert, Mr. Hammond, has testified that this is probably the most congested district in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to institute a comparison between the North-West and the South-West of Donegal. The average valuation of holdings in the different townlands in South-West Donegal is from £2 to £5; while the average valuation of holdings in the North-West is £1 to £2. The annual value of the land in North-West Donegal per head of the population is lower than 3s. 6d., and it is in regard to such a district that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it decent to quote such facts as he has narrated. It is argued that there have been no applications for employment. I always thought it was regarded as a fundamental condition that relief should be brought to the doors of the people. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect that these men will go 30 or 50 miles to work? What wages does he pay them? I think they are about 6s. a week. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: 12s.] Assuming they are 12s., when a man is obliged to leave his home, live in lodgings, and provide separate maintenance, the earnings are valueless for the support of his family. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Lodgings are found.] I do not know that the people have been aware of that. The fact that the work is miles from the people is sufficient reason why the people have not gone to it, especially as a line of railway was actually scheduled which would have run through a most congested district, a line which would have developed the fisheries, and have conformed to every condition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary has spoken of men going to Scotland and children going to the Laggan. I can inform the light hon. Gentleman that the men have not gone to Scotland and that the children have not gone to the Laggan. I have information from the clergyman of the district that to take a child from this district to the Laggan would cost 4s. or 5s. Where is that to be had? To take a man to

    1095
    Scotland costs 15s. or £1; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the bulk of the population have this year remained in the district, and that it will not be possible for the men to go to Scotland or the children to go to the Laggan unless some work is provided out of the earnings of which they will be able to save something for the journey. I affirm on the evidence of witnesses whose credibility is not open to question: firstly, that a large percentage of the people is invalided through hunger; secondly, that serious sickness is prevalent; and, thirdly, that the death-rate is more than doubled. On one day a priest attended 21 persons who were seriously ill, and gave nine of them the last sacraments of the Church. That indicates a terrible state of things. Now, challenged as he has been, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to institute forthwith a sworn inquiry into the condition of the public health of the district, as to how many persons have been invalided, how many are seriously ill, and what has been the death-rate in the past year as compared with former years? I may also lay claim, after the semi-sarcastic allusions the Chief Secretary has made to the bankruptcy of a female trader and the income of the parish priest, to an inquiry at his hands into the condition of the people of the district in regard to the amount of stock and moveable property in their possession, and in regard to the amount of debt they owe. I have a Return carefully prepared by competent persons on the spot, and in regard to it I have to-day received a telegram from an excellent clergyman in the district, a man who is spending his life in the service of the people, and the rev. Gentleman assures me that the statements in the Return can be verified on oath—a Return which, taking the case of ten householders at random in every town-land throughout the whole of the district, shows that the amount of debt which they owe to the shopkeepers, not for luxuries, not for comforts, but for the rudest and poorest article of human diet. Indian meal, is double, treble, quadruple, and in some cases actually ten times the utmost value of the stock and of the moveable property in their possession. In the face of one crushing, overwhelm-
    1096
    ing fact like this, what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman attempting to conceal from these countries the true state of the facts, and to mislead the judgment of the House of Commons by observations as to the amount of money found on the plate at a funeral months ago, or as to the sum given for seed potatoes? Such arguments are evasions, and I must say in frankness they seem to me to lend force to the feeling which certainly exists in the district, that the reception of the right hon. Gentleman has tended to produce in his mind an indisposition to respond to the demand of the people. The question is a limited one. The whole population is only 50,000. Ail of them are not in want of relief, but the bulk of them are. The period, too, is brief. There are only two months to cover. The potato will be ripe in August, and if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to help the people in the next two months he will find the task easy. A railway is, perhaps, too heavy a work to undertake, but there are two piers which have been recommended; they were recommended years ago by a Royal Commission. A moderate sum placed in the hands of Sir Thomas Brady would enable that gentleman to do the greatest good in assisting the people, Nothing would be easier for the Government than to make a subvention in aid of this wretched district, and which, by giving them the means of work, would not destroy the self-respect of the people. I greatly regret the callous and pedantic tone the right hon. Gentleman has thought proper to take in regard to a question of real and cruel misery, and I can only tell him that if he persists in his refusal to apply some remedy to the case moderately laid before him, he will incur the guilt of which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has warned him of criminal neglect of what, in my judgment, is the primary and most imperative duty of any statesman, and that is the duty of preventing the destruction of the lives of the people by the want of the necessaries of life.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: I am sorry to interpose between the House and a discussion upon national education, but I would point out that at this moment

    1097
    there is no compulsory education in Ire land, and children of eight and nine years of age in North-West Donegal are going to a district called the Laggan to find work in order to keep themselves from absolute starvation. I have asked the parents how they can send their children away for six months at a time, and they have told me it is not for the sake of the shilling or two they bring home, but it is simply to keep the children from absolute starvation. I can quite understand the Chief Secretary finds some difficulty in dealing with Government money. Donegal, I believe, has had more than its fair share of the money voted by Parliament, but the great bulk of the money given to Donegal has gone to the south-west, a district of a totally different character to the northwest. In the latter district the potato crop has totally failed, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to consider whether immediate steps cannot be taken to spend a small sum of money in improving the facilities for fishing. There is great need of piers on this coast, and I think we may reasonably ask the Chief Secretary to undertake the construction of at least one, and thus do much to develop the fishing industry.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I think we ought to bear in mind what the proposal made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion is. It is simply that a sworn inquiry should be held by some impartial person to get at the actual facts in this case. This is not the first time a proposal of this kind has been made in reference to this very district. What I cannot understand is why the Chief Secretary should refuse a suggestion of this sort, because, supposing the result of the inquiry is to prove that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are wrong, what will become of them and the people on whose behalf they speak? The Chief Secretary has on previous occasions failed to submit the testimony of his own informants to this impartial tribunal which is asked for. That which we see now has happened again and again. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to believe the evidence of the constables of Gweedore and Donegal to that of hon. Members of this House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of
    1098
    insisting upon bringing this Debate to a definite issue. Are the Government, or are they not, going to submit the evidence in this case to a sworn inquiry? We make statements on evidence that we believe to be reliable, to the effect that there is a considerable amount of sickness, and that there have been a large number of deaths, and that there is a great need of relief in these districts; and the right hon. Gentleman acting, no doubt, on information which he believes to be credible, meets us with denial and contradiction. We tender evidence on oath, and I think it scarcely respectful to the House that a proposal like that should be passed over in silence from the Treasury Bench. For our part, we have no desire whatever to put the House to the trouble of a Division. My hon. Friend would be quite willing to withdraw his Motion if we got an assurance from the Government that they would accept our challenge. I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government are confident of their case, the best thing they can do is to submit it to an inquiry. If our allegations are disproved, so much the better for the Government. If, however, they are confirmed, so much the better for the Government also, as it will relieve the right hon. Gentleman from the responsibility of refusing relief, where relief is required, for the purpose of saving life and putting an end to acute distress. The Debate is closed on our part, but I hope it will not be closed on the part of the Government without some answer being given to our challenge.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may, with the leave of the House, point out that a Bill would be required to appoint a Special Commission for an inquiry of this kind, and we could hardly under take, in the present condition of business, and at this period of the Session, to propose such legislation.
    MR. SEXTON: There might be a, sworn inquiry by means of Inspectors.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They could only investigate particular facts.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; investigate facts as to Local Government.
    (6.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 303.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 355.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
    MR. PICTON: It is a peculiarity of this Bill that both sides of the House seem to compete in eagerness to get it passed. But there appears to be great confusion of ideas as to what is intended by the Bill, and what will be the effect of it if it is passed in its present form. In fact, there has been so much misunderstanding about it that it has been confounded with another Bill. In some papers it has been stated that certain Radical Members have put on the Paper a Notice of Motion that the Bill be read a second time six months hence. Nothing could be further from the intention of hon. Members on this side of the House. There is no doubt as to what we desire; we are all anxious that the principle of free education shall be recognised. It is an odd circumstance, however, that this Bill has no distinctive name. It seems as if there has been a difficulty in the Ministerial ranks in giving a name to it. The truth is that the Bill is not the legitimate offspring of Toryism at all. In this respect it is like an illegitimate child, and so, not knowing exactly what to call it, the Government have given it the general name of an Elementary Education Bill. A significant letter on the question appears in the Times this morning from a gentleman of considerable eminence in the educational world—the Rev. Mr. Diggle, Chairman of the London School Board. Mr. Diggle tells us that the primary principle of the Bill is not the rough-and-ready distribution of a few millions of pounds amongst various schools, but the concession to all parents of the right to demand free education for their children at the cost of the community. I am very pleased, indeed, to accept that definition of the primary principle of the Bill, and I earnestly hope that the view of a gentleman of such large educational experience may prove to be right. But the Bill is
    1100
    a double-barrelled measure after all; one object of it is to diminish school fees, and the other is to stop the advance of School Boards. As to the diminution of school fees, I cannot help thinking that my own side of the House is more anxious to secure that object than the other side; but as to the second purpose—the stopping the advance of School Boards—it is based entirely on a misconception of the work done and the blessings conferred on the population by the School Boards, and will prove to be utterly impracticable. I must say that the right hon. Baronet the Vice President in his speech was thoroughly candid in explaining the process of his conversion on this question. No one, I am sure, would wish to taunt him with his change of opinion; but when I observed the stolid patience with which his account of his conversion was listened to by hon. Members who sit behind the Treasury Bench, and who, in 1886, denounced free education in nearly all their election addresses and speeches, I think I had good cause for wonder. To bear in mind what they said in 1886 one would have thought they would have adhered to the principles they then advocated as closely as they adhere to their skins. But the Tory Party have had so many changes of skin lately that they have become almost like eels, which are said to be used to the operation of skinning. At any rate, while the right hon. Baronet was speaking they tried to appear as if they liked the change of front on the part of the Government. But there are different kinds of conversion; the conversion of principle and the conversion of policy. When a great statesman—as, for instance, in the case of one of England's greatest statesmen, the illustrious Sir Robert Peel—is converted to a political truth which he has previously denied, he not only courageously accepts it in all its consequences, but is grateful to those who have been the means of converting him. It is well remembered how Sir R. Peel generously acknowledged his obligation to Mr. Cobden. But I notice no desire on the part of the Vice President and hon. Members opposite either to acknowledge the labours of those who contributed to their conversion to free education or to accept the principle in all its consequences. I have heard no reference

    1101
    whatever to a volume by an hon. Member on this Bench, entitled The Struggle for National Education. I have heard no acknowledgment of the services by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Sheffield and Newcastle, which generosity should have demanded from the right hon. Baronet. The fact is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite want to limit the principle, to grudgingly shut it up in the narrowest limits possible. In 1871, and for some years onwards, I was a colleague of the First Lord of the Treasury on the London School Board, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not now present, because I could have reminded him of the struggles that then took place on that Board on the question of foes, and of the resolutions that were moved by him for the purpose of safeguarding and guaranteeing the sacred institution of school fees. I could have reminded him how I invariably spoke and voted against his resolutions. I would have asked, Is he ready now to acknowledge that the arguments I then put forward have at last begun to bear fruit? But the beginning of this controversy goes much further back than the institution of the London School Board. In 1807 the then Member for Bedford, grandfather of the present Member, brought in a Bill to ameliorate the condition of the poor. It consisted of four parts, and one portion dealt with the subject of national education. Every one who reads the speech then delivered must derive great benefit and information from it. The speaker was careful to show that he had not the slightest idea of diminishing the influence of religion, and that he was most anxious to regard the rightful privileges of the Established Church. The House of Commons passed it, but in the House of Lords it was thrown out, mainly owing to the opposition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who denounced it because it left little or no control, he said, over education to the clergyman in his parish, and would go to subvert the first principle of education, which was, he maintained, that education should be "under the control and auspices of the Establishment." Another noble Lord, a representative of whose family holds office in the present Government as Secretary for War—Earl Stanhope—
    1102
    protested immediately the Archbishop sat down against what he called the abominable principle that no part of the population of the country should receive education unless it was given in the interests of the Established Church. This illustrates the indubitable fact that from the beginning of the century there have been two parties in regard to national education—one which desires to subordinate education to ecclesiastical control, and the other party which would subordinate everything to the common good of the nation, namely, education. They put education first, and ecclesiasticism and sectarianism after it. It has been insinuated that Nonconformists want to spread their denominationalist beliefs at the expense of the National purse. I hold that they have in the past been remiss in not seeking to limit national education entirely to secular subjects. They have not, in fact, had the courage to do that in the past, but I do not think they can be fairly charged with seeking to promulgate their beliefs at the public expense; they have only sought to have such lessons taught as are suitable to the age of the child, and not those which are peculiar to their own sect. The right hon. Baronet, in his speech the other night, referred to the educational work done in past days by denominationalism. But may I point out that the British and Foreign School Society was founded before the National Society for teaching children in the principles of the Church of England; that the British and Foreign School Society was from the beginning purely sectarian, and that the success of Joseph Lankester almost frightened the prelacy and the parochial clergy, who made representations in consequence at Court, so that there is little wonder that the National Society eventually, like the cuckoo, edged the other fledgling out of the nest. Although the friends of purely national education have hitherto been in a minority, they are coming to the front now, and the Nonconformists, without any desire to push their own sects by means of the schools, are more and more favourable to education in the national schools being limited to secular subjects. There are two points in this measure to which we strenuously object. First, we object to the retention of fees in any form, or in any class, or with any limit

    1103
    of age in elementary schools; and, secondly, we object to the exclusion of local and representative control over the administration of public money. It appears that fees are to be retained for infants below five years of age and for children, above 14 years. I very much regret it. Unfortunately, there are at present but few children who remain at school after 14 years of age, and this proposal of the Government to make no allowance in respect of pupils over that age will further discourage their attendance. Still more do I regret the exclusion of children under five years from the scope of the grant. The Vice President justified this exclusion on the ground that children under five years learn very little. But much may be done, and is done, in training the faculties and cultivating good habits in such infants, who derive immense benefit from attendance at the infant schools. The years between three and five are as fruitful as any others, if not more fruitful, in the evolution of character and the formation of habits. Those are the years in which the child's mind is most plastic; yet the right hon. Gentleman would risk the exclusion from our elementary schools of 120,000 children of that age. The School Board for Leicester has 15,313 children on its books; of these 5,161 are infants and 1,484 are between the ages of three years and five years. In the denominational schools there are probably 992 more infants of that age, so that in Leicester alone 2,476 children will be affected by this provision. These figures indicate what a large number of infants throughout the country this provision in the Bill will affect. I greatly fear that the effect of this exclusion of children under five years from the benefits of the measure will lead to a diminution of such children attending school, and that the statement of the Vice President that they learn little or nothing will induce parents to keep them at home, instead of sending them to infant schools, from which I firmly believe they derive very great benefits. Hon. Members who can afford to employ governesses and to furnish their nurseries with the requirements for the Kindergarten system of instruction should pause before they wrong these little ones by driving them from the school into the streets. The
    1104
    right hon. Baronet justified himself by saying that the law did not compel parents at present to send these little ones to school, and that the compulsory period was from 5 to 13. But the system of education which we now support and advocate is not based on this or that age. It is in the interests of the nation that our schools have been built and are maintained. True, we have felt it would be unreasonable by law to compel mere babies to attend school; but if national education is to be what it ought to be, it is desirable that they should attend, and the necessity of such attendance has been recognised by the enormous investment of public money in the erection of infant schools. Yet, under the operation of this Bill, half the space provided at such great cost may be left vacant. It seems to me the policy is mean and short-sighted. Compare this with the very different system followed in Switzerland and in Germany. I confess that I feel ashamed that my own country should be so far behind these nations in this matter. There is another point to consider in the application of this principle of free education—the amount of public control over the administration of the public funds. Hon. Gentlemen say of the voluntary system that it is largely supported by subscriptions. Yes, there are these subscriptions, but they are diminishing as State aid is given; and while in 1876 the proportion was 9s. 6d. per child, it was in 1890 only 7s., and that proportion is continually decreasing. In 1876, when that Conservative Educational Act was introduced, the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale objected to some of its provisions, especially to the raising the proportion of contributions to the grants made by the State. "If this is carried out," he said, "they may be denominational schools, but they will be voluntary schools no longer." The same thing was said by Bishop Temple before the Royal Commission, that it is essential to the healthy management of the schools if they are to be voluntarily managed that a considerable portion of the expenses should be raised by those in favour of the particular denominational school, but this contribution is, I say, a I vanishing quantity. I know it is said and thought by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we speak in this way out of animosity

    1105
    to the Church of England. We have no quarrel with the Church as a Religious Institution; we desire its prosperity in its good work; but we desire popular control in denominational schools receiving State aid, because we have had experience of such control since 1870, and we find that upon the whole Board schools are 25 per cent. better than denominational schools—and this we attribute to popular management—better in the character of the school buildings and appliances, better in the certificates of teachers, in the average results attained, in the higher curriculum carried out. Take the figures from the last Report of the Education Department. In the Church of England schools the attendance under Standards V. and VII. was 212,406, and in Board schools 199,431. In the Church schools the examinations in special subjects were in the proportion of 8·9 per cent., but in Board schools 24·2 per cent. Then look at the passes for the 4s. grant: in Church schools 16,663 or 88·4 per cent. of those examined, and in Board schools 43,654 or 90 per cent. of those examined. The Church school managers are supposed to have an eye to supplying the main wants of the working classes, yet their percentage of passes in cookery was only 4·7 as compared to 29 per cent. in Board schools. I might go on quoting figures in support of my statement, but in truth the superiority of the Board school system is notorious. It is an entire misapprehension to suppose that we want to do anything against religions teaching; it is easy to settle that question in a reasonable way. No one wants to destroy the religious teaching in these schools; if they pass under a Board of Public Management, let the religious teaching be given by the clergy of the church, whose function it is supposed to be to provide religious instruction for the people. You talk about Board schools being irreligious, why, how many secular School Boards are there? I think about 59, and 50 of them are in Wales. Is Wales a Godless part of the country? Are the Welsh a nation of infidels? No, it cannot be said that the Welsh are careless of Divine worship and neglect religious observances. Where School Boards exclude theological instruction it does not follow that they are opposed to religion. We are
    1106
    not in the least degree. The hon. Baronet says if we allow Board schools to have their way we shall all be reduced to one dead level. But all levels are not dead, and a higher table land offers many advantages. I would level up to Board schools, and I do not think you can show it is a dead level at all. It was a strange argument from the Vice President in relation to this religious difficulty when he said that free education in America had led to the multiplication of purely voluntary schools. One reason for that is that the religious difficulty still exists in America; one section of the Christian Church will not have their children taught in schools which are purely secular, so they provide schools for themselves. Then it is said the social difficulties in the way of the bringing of different classes together will prevent the working of a universal system of Board schools. Of course, you will not get over this difficulty all at once, but by tact and intelligence you will remove prejudices in this matter, and this has been done, and is being done, by the great Board schools in the country, and with the best possible results. The neglected, ragged children are gradually improved, while, if left to themselves, they remain ragged and neglected to the end. The opponents of the Board system find comfort in the reflection that the expense of the system will be so great that it will never be universally adopted; but rates and taxes are not the only source of revenue. There are huge endowments left from past times, and many of us think they are very improperly used, and might be better applied to purposes of popular education. In spite of what the clergy are so fond of describing as the pest of Board schools, I think if it can be shown to the agricultural labourers that free education, under popular management, can be provided without adding another 1d. to the rates, if only the funds available are devoted to this national purpose, I think there would be appreciation of the prospect of free schools under popular control. You think you have a good election cry, but here is yet a better cry, and the time is not far off when it will be raised. The effect of the present proposal must be this: that, when once a free school is established in one district, surrounding districts will

    1107
    insist on having like advantages, and I look to the fact that Englishmen will not allow public funds to be spent entirely without public control, or locally without local control, and I think I may say, as did Cromwell at Dunbar, "The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." Since the Bill has been printed there has been much expression of opinion, and it has been shown to me that, according to the Forms of the House, were I to move the Amendment standing in my name I should be forcing myself and others to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, which none of us want to do, and therefore, because of this, and only because of the Forms of the House, I abstain from moving the Amendment.
    MR. BARTLEY: The speech we have just heard shows the direction in which things are going. The hon. Gentleman talks about our being delivered into his hands; and when he speaks, as he has spoken, about Church property, I think some of my hon. Friends behind me may well doubt if the attitude they have taken is altogether a wise one. I regret very much that it has fallen to me to move an Amendment to this Motion; but as the giants on the Front Bench have deserted the position they occupied a few years ago, one of the humble pygmies below the Gangway will do his best to maintain the position then taken up, and which I still believe to be right and best for the welfare of the country. I intend to move, as an Amendment—
    "That this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees, but declines to accept a measure which, while it throws on the general taxation of the country the whole cost of elementary education of children whose parents can afford to pay a part of the cost, and imposes a large additional burden on the country, does not secure any increased educational efficiency, and is a source of danger to the continuance of voluntary and denominational schools under which the majority of the children of this country are now educated."
    If I find a Teller, of all the scores, and even hundreds of Members behind me who took this view a few months ago, and if the Forms of the House will allow, I shall certainly divide. The reasons which I gave for objecting to the measure on a former occa-
    1108
    sion are that it is not likely to conduce to the improvement of education or to regularity of attendance at school, and I cited a number of authorities in support of that view. Those remarks were received by the Member for West Birmingham as old-fashioned, and no doubt the new authorities of the Birmingham school think differently. The Member for West Birmingham has a preponderating influence with the Government, while the opinion of those who are their staunch supporters are not of great weight. People talk about free education as a new matter. It was my lot 20 years ago to write a somewhat large book on the history of elementary schools, and so I became acquainted with the facts in their history. Practically, all the systems of education in this country began by being free. The old grammar schools were practically all free. Some of the old deeds of foundation go into language very quaint and precise to provide that fees should not be charged in any form. Then, coming to more recent times, the national school system was started upon the basis of free schools; there were a few exceptions, where there was a fee of 1s. a quarter, but the great bulk of the national schools, as started by Dr. Bell, were free schools. In 1828, however—and this is the instructive point on the present controversy, Dr. Bell, founder of these schools, urged that, in consequence of the laxity of attendance and the falling off in the number of students, fees should be charged, and the next year the National Society actually recommended in its Report that weekly fees should be charged to induce parents to send their children with greater regularity. In 1834, in the Report on charitable endowments, which went very largely into this subject, the importance of charging fees to secure regularity of attendance was dwelt upon. With regard to the British schools, the hon. Member is very much in error in saying that Dr. Lancaster did not receive the support of great people. George III. visited the schools, and took a great interest in them. He is reported to have said, "I would to God every one of my people had such an education." It is not correct to say that the national

    1109
    schools had all the patronage of the Church and the British schools had none.
    MR. PICTON: If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, what I said was that in after years it was with drawn from the Lancastrian schools, and given to the national schools.
    *MR. BARTLEY: I do not agree with the hon. Member in that. In the early history of the British and Foreign School Society, a great number of Church of England people were on the Board of Management, and largely assisted in the management for a long time. A considerable proportion of the first British schools did charge a small fee, but this was soon given up, and the greater number, early in their career, were free schools. But, again, there is the remarkable fact that in 181G the Report stated that the Committee had with pleasure remarked that in several places the plan of receiving a small weekly payment from parents had been successfully adopted, and schools were cited in the Report as Sheffield, &c., showing that the attendance had thereby increased and the discipline improved. A weekly fee was charged, almost universally, both in the National and British schools by 1830, and it was found that the attendance became more regular and the progress of the children greater. The case with the Wesleyan schools was very much the same. In 1854 the Committee directed that fees should be charged for some purposes. The Congregational schools show a similar experience; and, at a meeting in Sheffield in 1849, the Report stated that one point of importance was the desirability of making education more a matter of self-support, and fees were imposed very largely. These four great movements, in spite of some rather sneering remarks, were the pioneers of education in this country. It is a very remarkable thing that the history of this movement shows that free schools were given up in order that fees might be charged in those days when it was simply a question of the education of the country, and not a matter of gaining votes. Are we to throw this experience away for the sake of a Party cry, especially for a Party cry which I believe will be a bad one for the particular Party in which I am interested? My views of relieving parents of all foes for the education of
    1110
    their children were considered old-fashioned when, on a former occasion, I expressed them upon the social aspect of the question, the reduction of the parental authority and responsibility, but those views are derived from personal knowledge of the people among whom I have lived and worked for many years, and I say emphatically that maintaining and strengthening rather than diminishing parental responsibility is of great value, and that the social mischief of this measure would be very far-reaching. Education is an enormous benefit, but self-reliance is a greater benefit still, and although education may be silver, self-reliance is golden. There is no true system of education unless it teaches people to be self-reliant and self-dependent. The present system of charging fees is a fair one. Parents who can afford to pay pay one quarter of the cost, and parents who are too poor to pay have their children taught for nothing. This surely is more than fair, it is liberal and generous. The method by which relief is now given to poor parents may be mended, but that is no reason why the whole of the present system should be swept away. The cost of this proposal will be £2,000,000, and the ultimate cost, when voluntary schools are destroyed, will become an enormous burden on the community. In my judgment, nothing is more important to the social condition of the people than that their wages should not be reduced by an extra amount of taxation. The people are, as a whole, better off than they were in 1870, viewed either from the standpoint of wages, accumulations in the savings banks, or reduction of pauperism. Enormous strides have been made in the improvement of the condition of the poorer classes. I also say that the increased taxation and the increased burden which will result from the measure will make the education far from free. It will throw on the thrifty and hard-working part of the community the burdens of the thriftless and careless, and they will have thrown upon them, in addition to the burden of paying taxes for the education of their own children, an additional burden of taxation in respect of the children of other persons. In this way that large portion of the community at the bottom of the middle class will be enormously

    1111
    affected. Well, these arguments I used, and dwelt on at some length, in the House on the last occasion the Bill was before us, but no one attempted to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not condescend to do so. No one has ventured to say that they are not correct—most persons, even political opponents, agree there is much force in them—and yet, for all that, we are to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council has not attempted to reply to them. He is certainly one of the parents of the Bill. We heard a very remarkable expression from the hon. Member opposite about the measure being an illegitimate child. I was a little surprised to hear that remark made, for it seems to me a puzzling thing to make out who are the parents of the Bill. I think we may fairly say that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council is the mother; but who is the father? I think we must go to the other side for the father, after the knowledge that a certain right hon. Gentleman showed of the scheme before anybody had seen it. This measure will affect the voluntary and religious schools. I assorted, on a previous occasion, and I assert again, that it will destroy the voluntary and religious schools, and if I wanted an argument for this I should go to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton) delighted in the introduction of this Bill, and chuckled at the thought that it would lead to universal School Boards.
    MR. S. BUXTON: Hear, hear!
    *MR. BARTLEY: The hon. Member cheers that. He and hon. Members behind him know very well that the system of this Bill means the establishment of universal School Boards, and if we are to have universal School Boards we cannot expect to continue to have voluntary schools at the same time, at any rate in anything like their present numbers and strength. As far as I understand the measure, it divides schools practically into three classes. First, there are the schools which pay 10s. a year in fees, which means, roughly, 3d. a week. The schools with a 3d. fee will practically remain financially as they are, except that the whole cost (for voluntary subscriptions are likely seriously to
    1112
    decrease) will be paid by the State; and can the most sanguine hon. Member suppose that the system will last in which the whole cost of the school is to be paid out of Imperial Funds, and the management is to be left in the hands of managers as at present? [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer that remark, and, as one who takes a deep interest in the maintenance of these voluntary schools, I say it is impossible that the proposed state of things can last. Next, there are the schools where the fees are less than 3d. Those schools will receive more than they lose in fees; and can it be conceived that such a system will last—nay, will the proposal live—long enough even to get through the Committee stage of this Bill? I say it is impossible to imagine that we are going under this Bill to hand over to all these schools a sum larger than the fees they are losing without requiring something for it. I do not say this as a Party man, but as an educationalist, and one who takes a common sense view of the matter. The third class of schools are those in which the fees are higher than 3d. They are to be allowed to continue to charge a fee amounting to the difference between 3d. and the fee they actually charge; and is it conceivable that the House will go on year after year voting millions of money for education, in order that the popular idea of free education may be carried out, and allow those schools to go on charging this fee and getting the fee grant as well for any length of time? I do not believe this can possibly last. But if we do get rid of these provisions the House will be sweeping away the safeguards which have been so much spoken of, with the result that the safeguards which the clergy believe to be bonâ fide safeguards for the voluntary and religious schools will be abolished, possibly some of them, even before the Bill is through Committee. The consequence of this Bill must be to give popular representation to all intents and purposes. The Tory Party occupied a position which, perhaps, was not logical before, but having now receded from it we find that the enemy have occupied it; and the consequence of this Bill will be that voluntary schools must receive some kind of representative control. Why is

    1113
    the Member for Northampton so keen for this measure? Why did he ask the Government the other day to keep the Bill going de die in diem? We never knew the hon. Member for Northampton as a keen educationalist. I do not believe that in his wildest moments he would claim to be an educational authority save, perhaps, in educating us in truth. Why is the right hon. Member for Derby so keen for it? He is not known as an educationist; but these Members are anxious to have this measure because they know that this is an attack on the voluntary schools which they will not survive, and through those schools an attack on the Established Church. They know perfectly well that we are walking into their trap, and most of us feel that we are doing so. I look upon popular control as the natural consequence of this measure. It seems to me that I hear a sort of murmur of the future coming softly in the distance. I believe that before many months are over we shall see the President of the Local Government Board, who has a bantling of his own, come down and tell us that it is his opinion no better authority can be found to look after voluntary and religious schools than the County Council. And when I oppose that—as I shall do—I suppose I shall be looked on with the disfavour which has been accorded me lately on account of my present attitude in objecting to free education. As to the political advantage which the Tory Party hope to gain from this measure, I would point out that the offer of free education for children from 5 to 14 years old has already been capped. The hon. Member for Poplar has said that it is monstrous to require fees from infants under five years. Hon. Members opposite will thus go about the country and, instead of praising us for giving free education, will denounce the Tory Party because it will not give free education to babes in arms, making free crèches of the schools. We shall then have pathetic appeals not to insist on these children being taught secular subjects without proper natural aliment, and we shall then have a cry raised for free rations, free feeding bottles, and free everything of the kind. We shall lose
    1114
    the credit of what is now proposed, and shall be denounced all over the country as "the Tory Party who refuse free education," and we shall have the labourers of the country, encouraged through their wives perhaps, to rise up against us because we will not allow their babes and sucklings to receive free education. But why is this question being so discussed? The truth is that both sides of the House think that they are getting a political advantage out of it. This is not a question as to which Members of the Tory Party should follow their leaders like sheep, or should vote as they are told. They ought to have a higher and nobler aim; and they ought to take a high standpoint on those social questions. The only reason for which I oppose the Bill is that the aim it has in view is not a high aim. The real goal to be striven after ought to be so to order affairs, and so to legislate, that the mass of the community may earn sufficient to pay for their wants, and for all the duties which they have taken upon themselves. An hon. Member said to me the other day, "This Bill will be an enormous boon to the agricultural labourer, because he only earns 13s. a week." Parliament is, therefore, to bribe the agricultural labourer with free education, instead of so legislating as to make his earnings sufficient to pay for his children's education? The real purpose of education is—first, in the interest of religion; and, second, to the making of good citizens. I believe that the present Bill will do harm to religion, because it damages the denominational schools; and it will further be injurious from a secular point of view, by making men less accustomed to rely on their own efforts. To my mind, relying on one's own efforts is the most important of all secular things that we can possibly teach our children. I say that it is the teaching of self-reliance that has made this country great, more than all the grammar and pedagogy in the world. To my mind, this measure reduces the tendency in this direction, and for that reason I strongly object to it. I have addressed many meetings of working men where I knew that any reference to State-aid would have provoked a cheer; but I have always told my audience to learn to rely on themselves, and the advice has, it is true at

    1115
    times, been received in silence. But I know that hundreds of these men have taken my advice, and some of them have come to me years afterwards and told me that a few simple acts of self-denial and self-reliance, which I urged on them then and which they adopted and made a habit of, have been the making of them. That ought to be the aim of the Government, and the Bill retards such an aim. With the idea of catching a momentary popularity, the Government are doing a great injury to the national prosperity by encouraging people recklessly and carelessly to undertake responsibilities, knowing that other people will provide for them. Like a hook on the line, the Bill is baited with the attractive fly gaudy with the word "free" conspicuously painted on it. This fly is a popular one now I know; but its freedom is a delusion, for the thrifty poor will have to pay not only for themselves but for their thriftless neighbours, and also because it really means the abolition of the denominational schools which alone supply that religious teaching which the great bulk of the people really earnestly desire. I am told that my attitude on this Bill will lose me votes; but even were I to lose my seat, would it be a reason for voting for something which in my heart I believe cannot promote the people's welfare? Members of Parliament seldom lost votes by voting straight. The constituencies do not like the chameleon politician or a man who merely votes as he is told, and then tries afterwards to explain away his vote. When the results of this measure are known, however, and the School Board rate in London has risen 2s., as it will do in five years, when the denominational schools have been killed, and the extra burden has been thrown on the people; and when the natural consequences of the present Bill have followed—free meals, free clothes, and free everything—then politicians will begin to think that the time has come for some change. Parliament is repeating the action which existed previous to 1832 in connection with the old Poor Law. Then additional relief was continually given, until at last the burden became too great to be borne any longer, and the system was changed to the enormous benefit of the masses of the people. I am sure that none of my
    1116
    political opponents will say that I oppose this measure because I oppose education. Few men have worked harder—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield will corroborate me in this—than I have for the promotion of popular education. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!] The Government cannot say that I have not been one of their regular and loyal supporters. I simply oppose the Bill because it will do immense mischief; and I warn my hon. Friends that they make a great mistake in supposing that the measure will help them at the next election. They are offending many people, and they are not gaining a single vote. The Government are, like the first parents of mankind, tasting if they are not eating of the forbidden fruit, of social bribery. They have been assisted, would it be too much to say they have been tempted to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The result of the transgression in the case of Adam and Eve was that they were turned out of the garden of Eden. If it is not too much to compare the joys of Eden with the fruits of office, I fear that the same punishment may await the Government. In almost the words of the last stanza of Paradise Lost, the result after the next General Election may be that "they"—that is, the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—"hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow, from Eden will take their solitary way."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees, but declines to accept a measure which, while it throws on the general taxation of the Country the whole cost of elementary education of children whose parents can afford to pay a part of the cost, and imposes a large additional burden on the Country, does not secure any increased educational efficiency, and is a source of danger to the continuance of voluntary and denominational schools under which the majority of the children of the Country are now educated,"—(Mr. Bartley,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words-proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. C. E. BARING YOUNG: In seconding the Amendment, I wish to say that I feel very strongly on this subject. I have always been opposed to free education, and I do not see why I should change my opinions because I am told that free education is inevitable. It is not denied that the Bill will largely increase the cost of education, and it is notorious that Board schools are much more costly in their management than voluntary schools. It is said that there are safeguards for the interests of the voluntary schools; but those who trust to these safeguards are relying upon a very rotten plank. Those schools whose fees are over 10s. are not likely to survive very long. Those schools where the fees are under 10s. may last a little longer, but will give way in time before the general demand for popular control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham deprecated popular control, but he suggested a form of popular representation. It seems to me that before long popular representation must lead to popular control. Whatever safeguards you may devise for denominational schools, the Party opposite, when they come into power, will remove them as easily as Samson broke the cords by which the Philistines sought to bind him. The Government, in introducing this measure, have signed the death warrant of the voluntary system. But my chief objection to the measure is that it is a step towards State Socialism. The artisan who earns £100 or £150 a year, and who is perfectly able and willing to pay for the education of his child, is now told, "Whether you like it or not you shall pay nothing directly for the education of your child, and you shall have nothing to say directly as to the education of yeur child." We are told that this measure is inevitable. I do not see, however, why it is inevitable, except for the reason that the Government consider it to be inevitable at this particular moment. It was not considered inevitable by a large number of Members on this side of the House a year or two ago, and it was not considered inevitable even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian six years ago. And some time before the
    1118
    General Election of 1885, a distinguished statesman gave sound advice to a number of Conservative candidates with regard to endeavouring to outbid the Radicals in matters of reform. He said—"If the people want Radical wares they will go to the Radical shop to get them." But that statesman is now at the head of a Government which considers it expedient to hold out this bribe to the electors. The bribe has not been very successful hitherto, and I am certain it will ultimately fail of the object it is designed to achieve. The number of Members who are determined to resist this proposal form only a very small band, though I believe a large number of people outside the House are opposed to the Bill. For myself I can only utter my protest and say I shall certainly follow the Member for Islington into the Lobby if he proceeds to a Division. (8.5.)
    MR. CHANNING: We have had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for North Islington, which, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House must have listened to with satisfaction, even if they dissented from some of the propositions contained in it. But he will not succeed in averting the acceptance of the principle of Free Education. We on this side of the House intend to give the heartiest support to the Bill of the Government, and I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman succeeded in demonstrating—and with greater force than usual—the strength of the position which he says—and, perhaps, rightly says—his Friends on the Treasury Bench have abandoned, but which he, as a stalwart, refuses to desert. The hon. Member has said that the results of this Bill will be such as hon. Members on this side of the House desire. I accept that statement, but with some qualification, for I hold that the Bill, as drawn by the Government, will postpone those ultimate results as to the arrival of which we on this side of the House have no doubt. But what I heartily and unreservedly agree with in the speech of the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill logically gives popular control, because it makes it impossible for those who have brought it in to refuse to grant that control. That is the position which induces me not to proceed with the Motion I

    1119
    have placed upon the Paper, for reasons somewhat similar to those on which the hon. Member for Leicester has abstained from moving his own Amendment. I wish at this stage to place upon record my regret, as a Member of the Radical Party, that the right hon. Gentlemen who usually sit on the Front Opposition Bench have not themselves placed on the Paper an Amendment to the Second Reading, which, while expressing approval and cordial support of the principle of the Bill, would assert without hesitation the principle which the Radical Party throughout the country attach to the carrying out of free education, namely, that wherever education is made free there shall be popular control. I hope that the abstinence of my right hon. Friends is not to be construed as a sign that they will lower their flag on this essential principle. I am one of those who heartily accept the Bill, and I will do my utmost to support its general principle; but I think it would be pusillanimous and inconsistent with the pledges which I and other hon. Members on this side of the House have repeatedly made in the past two years if we were to accept any proposal with regard to free education without doing our utmost to insure that it should be accompanied by popular control. We have, I think, some reason to complain of this Bill being introduced at so late a period of the Session. Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham moved an Amendment to the Address, the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education apologised for not dealing that year with the question of Free Education for England and Wales, on the ground that the subject was one full of difficulty and complexity, and was not so simple a matter as the proposal then before the House with regard to Scotland. Yet, after the Government have had a year or more to make up their minds as to the details of a measure touching many interests of vast importance to the future welfare of the couutry, they ask us, who are equally interested, to undertake the consideration of the Bill in the last days of the Session, and to decide important issues within a week or a fortnight of the presentation of the proposals of the Government. But, at any rate, we on this side of the House rejoice at
    1120
    the introduction of the Bill. We consider it the greatest victory of Radical principles since the extension of the franchise five years ago. It cannot be claimed as a Conservative victory. I did not notice among hon. Members opposite any very eager desire to challenge the statements of the hon. Member for North Islington. And it is noticeable that in the Conservative Press a good deal of cold water is thrown on the Government proposals. A strong Conservative weekly the other day said—
    "No more disreputable illustration of the degradation of English political life is possible than the adoption of free education by Lord Salisbury. It has been adopted in defiance of the known convictions of the vast majority of his supporters. Even those who approve of this ingenious scheme for dishing the Radicals do not venture to assert that honest conviction has anything to do with the course the Government has seen fit to follow."
    And a correspondent of this same paper (John Bull) also declares—
    "It is far better that Mr. Gladstone should come back to Office than that the nation should condone Lord Salisbury's disreputable efforts to bribe the constituencies."
    I may also refer the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President to an article in this morning's Standard, if he desires a more official Conservative condemnation of his proposals. And the worst of this business for hon. Gentlemen opposite is that we Radicals are not dished. So far as I can judge from the course of recent bye-elections, Radicalism bids fair to become universally triumphant in the rural constituencies. Everyone who listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the other night must have felt that his conduct in this matter had been peculiarly honourable. I agree with a good deal of what he said about not raking up bygones; but I should like to emphasise one point with regard to the course which individual Members of this House have taken. If you look through the speeches and election addresses of 1885, you will find that the objections then raised to free education were not wholly on the ground of the possible injury to voluntary schools, but were very largely and very strongly on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for North Islington. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for War both used language identical with that now used by the hon. Member for North Islington, and we all

    1121
    know what were the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I affirm is, that the proposal of free education was in that year rejected by the Conservative Party on its merits and not merely because of its possible effects on voluntary schools. As I have said, we on this side of the House accept the principle of the Bill. What we quarrel with is partly the limitations and partly the machinery by which the main object of the Bill is sought to be carried out. What we challenge is the motive which has led the Conservative Party to bring in the Bill. I recognise, what, I think, all hon. Members interested in educational questions must have recognised, the tone and spirit in which the right hon. Baronet dealt with this question the other night. All must have felt that he has heen really converted to this policy, not by a mere vulgar desire to catch votes, but because he has realised the loss sustained by the poor through the maintenance of the fee system, and because he has seen, from experience of departmental work, how enormously the carrying out of this principle of free education will contribute to the improved efficiency of education. I see in this Bill the very best spirit of the Education Department. But it is also apparent that that good spirit has been fettered, and to a certain extent warped and changed, by the unfortunate necessities of the situation in which the Conservative Party find themselves placed. The right hon. Baronet has dealt very frankly with the House on this question. He has acknowledged that he comes before it as an advocate of denominational schools. The hon. Member for Croydon told the House that the sole object of the Bill was to promote the welfare and ensure the permanent security of denominational schools. We know that the Prime Minister has used identical language. He said that the object of the Conservative Party was to place denominational schools on such a footing that it would be impossible for a hostile majority to displace them. We have still stronger confirmation of what the inspiring motive of this Bill is in the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he had not in any sense surrendered the social and economic arguments on which in past days he had condemned the proposal of free education, but his
    1122
    desire to promote the welfare of voluntary schools was so great that it had overcome his economic repugnance to the principle. Then we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. We know how he attacked Mr. Forster years ago for giving a new lease of life and more extended endowments to the voluntary schools. And even five years ago, at Bradford, at the National Liberal Federation, he said—
    "To my mind the spectacle of so-called national schools turned into a private preserve by clerical managers, and used for exclusive purposes of politics or religion, is one which the law ought not to tolerate."
    Yet we have him now sheltering the voluntary schools behind a sort of fictitious Frankenstein of financial terrors, which grew at the rate of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 sterling every time he was trotted out. I cannot, looking at the past history of the question and at the anticipation of Mr. Forster, in 1870, that the Board School system would speedily become universal, agree with some of my hon. Friends who take a rose-coloured view of the present situation. I rather think the Bill will postpone the arrival of a universal Board School system for a considerable period. I wish to emphasise the fact that the authors of this Bill are pledged to protect and to increase the security of the position of voluntary schools. The other day, at a meeting of the National Society, Lord Sandford described this Bill as an honest and straightforward attempt to assist the voluntary system. I do not in the least quarrel with those adjectives, seeing that they give a pleasant sensation to hon. Members opposite. I only quote them as confirmatory of my opinion that the Bill has been conceived more in the interests of voluntary schools than merely with the shallow and narrow design of capturing the votes of the agricultural labourer. We have a right to say that your object is quite plain; that you have determined to do what you can with the machinery at your disposal to strengthen the position of what you know is one of the most potent instruments of Toryism in the country—namely, the voluntary school system. You wish to secure that it shall be dominant in the counties for the longest possible period, and, therefore, you have introduced this Bill. I am not

    1123
    attributing that motive, however, to the Tight hon. Baronet. I believe, with him, the chief consideration is educational. It is for you a dangerous experiment. Our duty is plain. You have adopted one-half of the Radical creed; we must take every opportunity in the course of the Debates, so long as we do not imperil the passage of the measure, to insist on the adoption of the other half which the hon. Member for North Islington pointed out was the logical and natural concomitant, popular control in all State-aided schools. If it is votes you want, my experience of rural constituencies leads me to think that you will get as many or more votes by giving such control and freeing the schools from sectarian denomination than by simply abolishing the fee. By this Bill it seems to me they are seeking to strengthen the financial position of the voluntary schools without any conditions, securing increased educational efficiency, and the removal of the just grievances of Nonconformists in those districts in which they constitute the large proportion of the school-going population; indeed, you are compelling them to pay more towards the support of a system, and schools which come under the 10s. limit will receive nearly £250,000 of the surplus revenue over and above the revenue which they have up to the present time received from their fees. Taking the rural schools, I find that in Northamptonshire there are 235 voluntary schools which are receiving from fees that are under 10s. a year a total of £7,660, and under the 10s. grant those schools will receive £11,008—a clear gain of £3,348, or 3s. for every scholar; and yet there is nothing in the Bill to require that this money shall be devoted to improving the instruction or to secure to the inhabitants of the towns and villages a corresponding voice in the disposal of the funds. Turning to high-feed schools in big towns, in Preston, according to the last Report, the average amount of fees is 15s. 3¼d., or about 4¾d. a week. The voluntary schools under this Bill will be able, in the first place, to charge 1¾d. fee, to have the same total income as before. Then, in the next place I understand the Department has power under Clause 3 to permit the fees, reduced by accept-
    1124
    ing the free grant, to be further raised, so long as they do not exceed 6d., and provided there are a sufficient number of free places.
    *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): That would happen in very exceptional cases. I admit the reasons for the clause require to be further explained.
    *MR. CHANNING: I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been able to give us fuller information in regard to that clause, because it may possibly lead to a good deal of debate. At any rate, I do not think I am wrong in saying that the schools which charge high fees will be able to obtain not only the total income they receive now by a fee which represents the excess over the 10s., but that they will also be able, if the Department think there are sufficient free places, to raise the fee, and so make a profit. [Sir W. HART DYKE dissented.] Well, if that is not so, I am heartily glad. With regard to the schools which will receive a surplus over their existing fees, there is no doubt that the Government has practically yielded to the demand of some of the hon. Members behind them for a relaxation of the 17s. 6d. limit for the voluntary schools, because the fee grant will be counted as part of the local contribution of the schools, and will, therefore, be a set-off enabling them to obtain a proportionate amount over and above the 17s. 6d. limit. To sum up the matter, this Bill amounts to a carrying out of the recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission on Education with regard to financial subventions to voluntary schools. So far as possible, the Government have carried out all the demands of the denominational party in the subvention to the schools, but they have abstained from carrying out what I think is the essential part of the recommendations both of the majority and of the minority of the Royal Commission, that is that public elementary education ought to be organised under some form of elective authority in order to secure the highest efficiency. I do not grudge the poorer voluntary schools additional funds. Nothing is more pitiable than the condition of some of the voluntary schools in some large towns, and anyone who knows country

    1125
    life must admit the miserable condition of, and starved teaching in, many of the rural schools. We ought all to welcome in the heartiest way anything that will tend to increase the efficiency of the schools in rural districts. But there is no guarantee under this Bill that you will obtain the best educational results in return for the money you will pay. The Government is taking the present course when they have before them the well-known results which accrued from the better treatment of voluntary schools under Lord Sandon's Act. While the proportion of subscriptions to the total income of voluntary schools in 1876 was 28·6 per cent., it sunk to 18·9 per cent. in 1889. That shows that a very large proportion of the advantages given to the voluntary schools under Lord Sandon's Act went to the relief of the subscribers. There is the other important consideration, that we have done nothing to relieve the legitimate grievances of the Nonconformists. It has been said that the fact that education is compulsory justifies Her Majesty's Government in adopting the policy of free education. I should like to know if compulsion is not a strong argument also on behalf of those who are compelled to send their children to proselytising schools? Does not that give them a strong claim to have the schools managed by popular bodies? No one expressed a stronger view on this point than the noble Lord, the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), during the discussions on Lord Sandon's Bill in 1876. The noble Lord protested against the application of compulsion to Nonconformist parents to send their children to Church schools, and he expressed in the strongest possible way the opinion that when Parliament declared that the education of the country was the business, not of individuals, but of the State itself, it became inevitable that sooner or later State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of representatives of the people. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer asked on the same occasion whether, if there was only a Unitarian school in a district, Parliament would compel children of the Church of England to go into it? He believed that in the long run popular opinion would declare against compulsory attendance of children at de-
    1126
    nominational schools, and the support of such schools by public money. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale how they justify the passing of a Bill like this without attempting to relieve the grievances they laid so much stress upon in 1876. At a conference of Primitive Methodists held the other day at Northampton, it was asked whether the Methodists of this country had not, when an increased sum of money was being voted to voluntary schools, the right to go into those schools and follow the course of their children's education. Let us turn to the point of view, of what I may call the Church party, in regard to this question. At the Peterborough Diocesan Conference, two year's ago, the Rev. William Bury, of Northamptonshire, speaking in support of a motion in favour of the abolition of school fees, said—
    "The effect of free education would be that a new departure would have to he taken in the national system of education.…There must be a collapse of the voluntary system. That, in his opinion, was a desirable effect of free education. He would go even further, and say that he thought at the present time the voluntary system, which their Church was pledged to continue, was a great obstacle to educational progress.…The standard of secular education was kept at a lower level by the voluntary system, for Inspectors were obliged to apply a much lower standard to voluntary schools. Wherever the voluntary system had managed to exclude the Board schools in their large towns, education was starved.…The education of this country-would be advanced in no slight degree if the voluntary system were superseded by some such system as the Board.…They could not make churchmen in their national schools, and they had no right to do so in schools which were supported, as they were, by public money."
    That is the statement made by one of the best known educational authorities belonging to the Church of England, and I am glad to say that his view was supported by the then Dean of Peterborough in a most eloquent and forcible speech. He said—
    "As to the relation of the Board and the denominational schools, he must confess he felt very strongly that the School Board system, whether they liked it or not, was the future system of the country."
    He added that—
    "He was perfectly convinced that the Board Schools would swallow up all the others."
    The same point of view was eloquently supported by the great Prelate, whose loss

    1127
    all who knew him so much lament, and who expressed his own view in very strong terms that what they all wanted—and I am sure many Radicals on this side of the House want it quite as warmly if not more warmly than hon. Gentlemen opposite—was the real religious instruction and moral education of the children, and not so much the teaching of dogma. I could quote many other authorities, such as Dr. Perceval and Canon Fremantle, in support of the absolute necessity of introducing a national system of education, and of the opinion that as long as the religious and moral elevation of the children could be secured they would look at the absorption of the voluntary schools by the School Boards as a not undesirable result. What I object to in this Bill is the fact that it will ladle out a large sum of money to the voluntary school managers without securing efficiency in education; and without initiating that organisation of education which both sides of the Royal Commission wished to see carried out. The majority of the Royal Commission looked for a solution of the question in the amalgamation of the Board and denominational schools under District Councils; we desire to see that result attained under educational authorities elected ad hoc. There can be no doubt that the success which has attended the labours of such School Boards as those of London, Birmingham, and Manchester is due to the fact that they have had men upon them whom they could not have got upon Local Authorities elected to deal with roads and sewers, and subjects of that kind, and who would look on education as mere side-work to combine with their other duties. When we have arrived at a convergence of views that the best education can only be obtained by the organisation of the schools under an elected authority, and when the quarrel is only as to the conditions, I think we are within measurable distance of getting a truly national system of education, and I do contend that Her Majesty's Government, in introducing a Bill which gives an immense subvention to one branch of the school machinery of this country, under circumstances which amount to an encouragement of that branch to make war on the School Boards, and to carry out
    1128
    the law of its existence by monopolising as far as it possibly can the control of education in the rural districts and in the large towns also, are setting at defiance that which was best in the Report of the Royal Commission, and are neglecting to provide that organisation of education which can alone remove the grievances of many of the parents and secure the greatest efficiency of education.
    MR. HULSE: At the risk of being regarded as a "lamb" by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) I rise to support the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, because in the city I represent the question of free education is one of great importance, and as its educational wants are entirely supplied by voluntary schools, with the full assent of the majority of the population,. I felt naturally anxious as to how those schools would be affected by this Bill, which I hope will pass its Second Reading without a Division. I think there are two points of view from which the proposals of the Bill should be discussed—namely, that of the educational needs of the population, and that of the influence it will have upon existing schools, their revenue, their efficiency, and their attendance. I am confident the Bill-will meet the educational wants of the working classes, and I do not share the gloomy views of those who think it will tend to shut up the voluntary schools belonging especially to the Wesleyan body and the higher-grade schools of the Church of England, which will not become absolutely free by their acceptance of the 10s. grant. After the Act of 1870 has been in working some 20 years, voluntary schools, instead of having been swept away, as was prophesied, are in a better and a more secure position than they ever occupied before. I am very glad indeed Her Majesty's Government have seen their way to give the grant to all schools under Government inspection, because it would have been very hard upon those schools which possess high educational attainments, and have become so popular in our large towns, if they had been deprived of their fair share in the advantages which are now offered, because their teaching is of a higher character and their fees of a higher grade. Prac-

    1129
    tically, of course, one recognises that this 10s. grant will make all those schools free where 3d. or less is charged per child; and I do not agree with those who say it will have an evil influence on those schools where parents are willing to pay from 4d. to 9d., because there is to be a reduction in the charge actually made. Parents who have hitherto of their own free will been willing to send their children to a school with a higher fee have done so for a reason, probably on account of the class of children they wish theirs to mix with, or a preference for a school of a particular character or denomination. I fully endorse the claims urged by Members of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as of our own, that the acceptance of the free grant will in no wise necessitate popular control. Popular control is a term capable of more than one construction. In the case of hon. Members opposite, who are so anxious to secure it, it means the depriving from the active management of schools those who have erected them by their generosity, and are sustaining them pecuniarily and by their personal care and attention. I venture to think that where the working classes themselves are ratepayers they are as keen and as anxious as the middle and upper classes to prevent additional taxation which falls directly upon their own shoulders, and I am confident that if the agricultural labourers were in the same position as are so many of the working classes in the towns, they would look with a very jealous and suspicious eye on the proposition that the Parish Council should tax every allotment and house in the village for the support of a competitive school and the establishment of universal Boards. Popular control may be an excellent thing as an election cry; but if the agricultural labourer once realises that his rent of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week would be nearly doubled for the luxury of popular control and of an nil-sectarian school, I am sure he would prefer the voluntary system—a system which has achieved almost as good educational results at considerably less cost—as the House is well aware. It comes to this, therefore—the 10s. grant will make all village schools free, for I know of none in the counties with which I am associated where so much as 3d. is
    1130
    charged; and, of course, the Government will consider the similar case of those schools in the larger towns which the School Board, and the Church of England, and the Wesleyans have carefully nurtured and got together with the higher grade and with the higher fees. To a great extent these schools have been founded and they have all increased since the inauguration of School Boards, and hon. Members have repeated in their speeches that in France and in America so-called private adventure schools have increased since the system of enforced secular and free education in State-aided schools. You certainly will have a right selection wherever the population is sufficient to justify primary and secondary education. Popular control is not always wise; it is generally extravagant. As a cry in London, it led to the abandonment of an income of £500,000 per annum by the abolition of the coal dues, and the benefit has gone to the coal owners. Popular control means usually a heavy increase of local burdens. In regarding the greatest good of the greatest number, I have no hesitation in saying that this Bill will satisfy the needs of the working classes, who have felt the pinch of the school fee, and have witnessed the difficulties of the school managers and teachers who have had to collect it. The spirit of parental independence will be illustrated and fostered when a parent has the choice whether he will pay or not pay for the education of his child. But after all, ever since the Government made grants to Board and voluntary schools, based on results, every parent who has sent his child to either school has virtually been in receipt of State-aid. For my part, I am so firm a supporter of the voluntary system that I should hesitate to support the Government measure were I not satisfied that under it the interests of the voluntary schools will be duly and properly safeguarded. There are two points of detail which I think should be carefully considered—first, the basis of the grant being on average attendance; and, secondly, the necessity of great care and leniency being exercised in the first computation of fees. It has been pointed out with great force by those who are thoroughly acquainted with the working of schools and the

    1131
    peculiar causes which at times diminish the attendance, that it would and might be to the advantage of the school managers to close the schools at certain times—say, in the case of an epidemic of sickness or a fair—rather than lower too much the school attendance. This should be provided for in the Bill. I hope and I believe that we have now at the Education Department a chief and a staff who will treat with fairness and justice those who have raised and supported a system of national education by an expenditure of £34,500,000 during the present century, and that without half the excitement and clacque of those who pose as friends of education by putting, or attempting to put, their hands deeply into the ratepayers pockets. There is, however, one defect which must and ought to be remedied, and that is the abrogation of the 17s. 6d. limit, which presses unfairly on efficient voluntary schools. I have heard it described as a premium on indifference. It is simply a question of common sense and finance. Children educated in the voluntary schools cost the State about 18s. per head, whilst children taught in the Board schools cost from 40s. to 45s. in addition, from the local ratepayers, and I notice that, under the beneficent and economical administration of the London School Board we shall have the luxury of paying at the rate of 49s. per child. If we form universal Boards, popular control will cost millions of money per annum. If, on the other hand, we pass this Bill, as I believe the House will readily, we preserve the poorest, the most struggling, and the most deserving schools, and I do not believe we shall injure those higher-grade schools, which can be but 10 per cent. of the State-aided schools in the country. By all means, as it has been suggested, encourage parental responsibility and parental interest by giving to a certain number of parents, say two or three in each school, seats on the Board of Management by selection or co-option. This, I believe, will be offered and adopted without Parliamentary interference or enactment. For these reasons, I support the Second Reading of this Bill in the interests of the poor of the country districts and of the schools themselves, and, above all, in the interests of the over-
    1132
    taxed local ratepayer, upon whom, it is not difficult to foresee, are advancing fresh municipal burdens. I trust the Government will be firm in pushing this Bill through before everything else, without accepting Amendments hostile to its spirit; and if hon. Members opposite really welcome the Bill as a boon and an instalment, they can best show the truth of their earnestness by assisting the Ministry to pass the clauses of this short and useful measure without undue opposition, and certainly without the harassing and distressing Debates which characterised the discussion of the Tithe Act and Land Bill. Before sitting down, may I express a hope that Her Majesty's Government, in another Session, will seriously consider the wisdom and propriety of providing, in some form or other, a superannuation fund for those who have spent the greater part of their lives in one of the noblest, yet one of the most trying, of professions—the education of the young and the ignorant?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: If we had not the pleasure of personally knowing the hon. Member who has just sat down, we should gather from the speech to which we have just listened that he represented the centre of educational privilege. His objection to popular control goes to the extent of withholding it from the Municipal Government of the greatest city in the world, for I could not otherwise interpret his reference to the London Coal Dues. The hon. Gentleman knows the condition of educational work in Salisbury, and evidently considers that to be a model for the county; and he appears little to appreciate what the result of this Education Bill will be when he ex-presses the pathetic hope that the result of these discussions will be the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. I have not the unpleasant task of defending the Bill against the hon. Member, for he is a warm supporter of it, but I must, after the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), defend the Bill against those Members on this side who think the Bill will not establish free education, and who think it will not go a long way towards establishing popular control. The hon. Member for Islington has told us two

    1133
    home truths—first, that this Bill adds 1d. to the Income Tax to the end of time; and next, that the immediate result will be to establish School Boards in the most important centres now without them, and the ultimate result will be to establish them everywhere. In the discussion on the Bill of 1870 the House eonsisted of novices in the matter of education, and unimportant matters were discussed at length, and more important matters not at all. But it is different now. We have a House of Commons in which there are a great many Members with a knowledge of educational matters which is a credit to themselves and of the utmost value to the Assembly in which they sit. We have, too, the advantage of the experience of what has been done in Scotland. We see what should be done, we see what should be avoided. The Government, instead of making education a matter of standard, as in the case of Scotland—an evil which the Scotch Members unanimously protested against—have avoided that mistake, and propose to give free education from the age of five to the age of 14. But why should they stop at 14, and why should they not begin before five? When so many gentlemen on both sides have done violence to those ideas they so long entertained, when such great sacrifices are called for from the English taxpayer, should we not make this a clean and thorough job? The simplification of the work of collecting fees, the time and trouble spent in investigating the question of the remission of fees, the advantage to parents of spreading the expense of education over the whole of their lives, instead of concentrating it on one period, when they are hardest pushed, and the feeling that the parent has that if his child heeds education he gets it as the child of a citizen, and not as the child of a pauper, and, finally, the improvement in the attendance, especially in the higher classes. Those are the main arguments for free education, and what, looking to these arguments, is there to be said for enforcing fees at the age of 14? There are only 43,000 children in that position; there will be less than 43,000 if we make the parent then begin to pay fees; but if we
    1134
    make education free through every elementary school and at every stage, those 43,000 will rapidly grow to dimensions which I will not venture to predict, but as to which I entertain a confident hope. Then as to the children under five. The first effect of freeing the lower standards in Scotland was to bring into the school an immense number of little children, and that is a subject of much congratulation. In the towns especially it is of the greatest importance to take them away from that amount of evil which the tenderest children can pick up even before five playing about in the street. When these defects are corrected, as I believe they will be by pressure from both sides, we shall have the right sort of free education so far, and for that reason nothing will induce me to vote for any Amendment which would traverse the Second Reading of the Bill. And next, will this Bill give free education generally? As regards the great majority of rural parishes, it is agreed on all sides that the fees will be met by the 10s. grant, and that the schools will become free. As regards the School Board schools, the same holds good. I doubt if two years hence there will be a School Board school in the Kingdom where fees are exacted. In the North of England, however, not only are there many schools which charge more than the 3d. fee, but a high fee is a usual charge. The parents want a good article, and they can pay for it. I take five schools which stand side by side in a district in our nothern counties. In the case of the first there were 56 children and £54 is paid in fees; of the second, 36 children and £32 paid in fees; of the third, 37 children and £38 paid in fees; of the fourth, 70 children and £75 paid in fees; and of the fifth, 54 children and £49 paid in fees. Will the managers venture to go on charging a 2d. or 3d. fee? The people will say, "Parliament meant us to have free education, and free education we will have," and, being North-Country people, they will very soon find their way to the Department at Whitehall, and I venture to say that all over England, in the North as well as the South, whether by means of this Bill or by means of indirect pressure by the School Board, every rural school will be free within a very short time.

    1135
    And quite right, too; because the land ought to educate the people who live upon it, and the landlord will educate the people, first, by paying Income Tax, and then by paying either rates or subscriptions to the required amount. Lancashire and Cheshire Members are the Members whose constituencies will be really affected by the Bill. It is in the cases where there is no School Board that we come to by far the most important part of the operation of the Bill. Take the case of Stalybridge. In the Roman Catholic school there, with ·327 children in average attendance, £104 of subscriptions, and £198 of fees. I have not the slightest doubt that the subscriptions which already exist will be raised to that small amount which will enable the school to be free, and that will be the case with Roman Catholic schools all the country over. I will take the other great schools—the national schools. There is one school with 480 children, £430 of fees, and £7 of subscriptions. In other instances that may be given the number of children is 254, the fees amounted to £230, and the subscriptions to £10, and again the number of children 282, the fees £250, and the subscriptions £32. The British and Wesleyan schools show just the same scale. They are kept up out of the fees of children and the Government grant, and what will happen? Under this Bill the people will all go to the Department and apply for their share of this great boon. If the rest do not do it at first, the Liberals, who are somewhere about half the popution, will set the example. They wall say they must have what the Scotch now have, and what their brethren in the rural parishes have. The Department will have no School Board school to which to send the children. The Roman Catholic school will be there, but, without appealing to religious bigotry, I doubt very much whether the Department would send the children to that school. They will have to choose among the national schools to which they will send the children, and pledge them to provide their education at cost price. Just let us imagine what the effect would be in such towns as Preston and Stalybridge. One school after another would be dragged in. The
    1136
    struggle for life between the schools would go on, and in the end in all large towns of such counties as Lancaster and Chester, there would, it is quite certain, be a School Board. It is because this Bill will make education free all over the country, and give us down in the northern towns a School Board, that I shall refuse to vote for any Amendment—however much I may agree with the general proposition put forward in the Amendment—that will traverse the Second Reading of the Bill. Before concluding, I desire to say two or three sentences on the ulterior question of how we shall bear ourselves on going into Committee. Up to this I have been talking of the Bill itself and certain provisions as to the Amendment of the Bill which can be raised on its existing clauses. What I now wish to say has reference to the new clauses, or, if these are rejected, to the new measure which will have to be passed at an early date by a new Parliament. There are optimists who look on this as a simple measure. It is an unfortunate feature of the educational system set up in England in 1870, that directly any great change is proposed, it becomes necessary to put the whole system into the crucible. The case of Scotland is very different. The Act of 1870 did not establish School Boards everywhere. The Act of 1872, which related to Scotland, did establish a School Board in every district. It was possible two years ago to discuss and apply the principle of free education in Scotland without any difficulty. Free education fitted perfectly well into the Scotch system; but now, when a similar proposal is made in regard to England, all sorts of difficulties and questions are raised by the defenders of the present system. Newspapers are at present full of letters and speeches from men of great ability and high honour and patriotism, whose great object it appears to be not so much to get the children into the schools as to keep popular control out. Now, let the hon. Gentlemen around me be well advised. We shall have some desperate propositions made in Committee. I will tell them of one that is sure to be made—and we should be very wary not to yield to these proposals. In the Times of to-day there is an able letter from the Bishop of Wakefield,

    1137
    who, seeing the dangers which threaten the voluntary system in Yorkshire, proposes certain methods of avoiding them. The first method he proposes is that Church people shall make further efforts and greater sacrifices to maintain the voluntary schools by giving farther subscriptions. Now, what are these subscriptions in Wakefield that are going to be increased? At St. Andrew's there are 112 children, and £3 11s. of subscriptions; at St. John's they have 165 children, and £8 13s. of subscriptions. In all Wakefield in the parish schools there are 1,665 children, the receipts from the taxes are £2,120, and £162 for subscriptions. That is what the Churchmen of Wales pay for the privilege of monopolising the education. The subscriptions scarcely form a nucleus which can be increased, so small are they at present. The Bishop of Wakefield in his letter next asked—
    "Why might there not be five schedules, the schools in which would receive respectively 6s., 8s., 10s., 12s., and 14s., according to the fee in existence for the last three years?"
    Now, I am going to argue against this, not from the point of view of a Liberationist, not from the point of view of a Nonconformist, but from the point of view which might be held by an out-and-out Church voluntary school man. The unfairness of this proposal appears from the following figures: There are two small rural parishes in Somersetshire, in which there are 173 children; the grant is £171, and the subscriptions £137. The Bishop's proposal is that the people in these Somersetshire parishes who pay all this money to educate their children shall be cut down to 8s., in order that Wakefield, which pays comparatively nothing, shall get 14s. If this is not the proposal of the Bishop I do not understand what it is. To that I have the strongest objection. Let all schools be equally dealt with. Ten shillings a head is what Parliament is prepared to pay to free education, and in Somersetshire and Yorkshire alike free education must be had for the money, and the managers of the voluntary schools must settle the method among themselves. In the great towns of the North popular control will as surely come out of free education as free education came out of compulsory attend-
    1138
    ance. But it is otherwise in rural districts. In rural England the normal condition is that there is only one school in the parish—a voluntary school. If a Nonconformist is the cleverest and best-conducted boy in the school, there is no chance of his becoming a teacher. The school buildings may be grossly inadequate, the teacher may be harsh and un-suited for his duties, but the people have no resource save the nominal right of appealing to a distant Department. The accounts may remain unchecked except by a sham audit, and the people of the district have no control. In Wales especially this state of things constitutes a serious grievance, one the very existence of which we cannot conceive in any country but ours. Let us imagine the Catholic Canton of Lucerne with all the schools in the hands of Protestant pastors, and the Protestant Canton of Berne with all the schools in the hands of Roman Catholic priests. This is analogous to what has been the state of things in rural Wales, and it will be worse hereafter. A great grant is to be made from the taxes, which will in many parts of Wales exceed everything that comes from the fees. To this grant all Welshmen who are taxpayers will contribute. Who is to see that this additional sum will be spent for the benefit of education, and not for the benefit of the Church school managers? There are right hon. Friends of mine on this Bench, and I daresay there are right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite, who are capable of drawing up a clause which will ensure, as far as a clause can, that there will be good education for this new money. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will give instructions to his Inspectors to see that education is improved. Bat these are not effective means of ensuring it. The only effective means of ensuring it is by the daily constant supervision of the inhabitants of the district who are entrusted with the education of the district. To remedy this immense grievance I have only seen one proposal from what I may call the other side of the question, and that appeared in a letter to the Times newspaper from the rector of Woking. I will not read the passage, but it is to the

    1139
    effect that in consequence of the falling off of the money the parents will subscribe more largely, and then he says the voluntary schools will become dependent on subscriptions from parents more than they have been in the past. And this is called the gift of free education! No, Sir; a system under which Welshmen who profess the creed of the enormous majority of their countrymen. [Cries of "Oh!"] I will put it another way. A system under which Welshmen who do not belong to the Church of the very small minority of their countrymen, cannot become teachers in the enormous majority of Welsh schools, is a system which cannot last, and we do not intend that it shall last. There is only one method of securing that public money-shall not be wasted and applied to the purposes of sectarian advantage, namely, by ensuring that the great body of the inhabitants of a district shall have a potent voice in the management of schools, and at the earliest possible moment after the Second Reading of the Bill, and at a very prominent point of the discussion, it will be the duty of some one—I hope from this Bench—to propose a Resolution to gain that object. Within the reach of every parent there must be at least one school, as to the management of which the people will be entitled to have the fullest knowledge, and over which they must have effective control. This was a small demand to make in a free country, and it is a demand which in the course of the Debates on this Bill will be made with emphasis. If it be not granted in the course of these Debates it will be granted, you may be sure, in the not distant hereafter.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: I wish to give my sincere support to the proposals contained in this Bill, and I am glad to say I find myself in the fortunate position of not having to explain away any former speeches, as in 1885 I declared myself in favour of free education, if introduced on the lines followed by the present measure. From the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite one might imagine that in 1885 they were enthusiastic supporters of the principle of free education, yet in the authorised programme issued by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone)
    1140
    in that year there was no mention of it. The unauthorised programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) issued subsequently first declared that free education was part of the programme of the Liberal Party. It is not uninteresting to observe that at that time the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was generally believed to be in favour of universal public control and of charging the expenditure on the rates, and it was because the views of the right hon. Gentleman were understood to be of that character that almost all my hon. Friends around me declared themselves opposed to free education. I looked at the matter from a somewhat different point of view, and on the 24th September, 1885, speaking at Forest Gate, I said—
    "Provided that the denominational system he maintained, I am prepared to vote in favour of charging school pence on the Consolidated Fund, and so giving free education."
    [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Members opposite will, at all events, acknowledge that there is one Member of the Party who is able to say he is consistent. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) has delivered a most admirable speech which, if anything could, would have converted me from the error of my ways. But I do not think he quite entered into the views of hon. Members opposite. He says—
    "We find such prominent Members of the Party opposite as the hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby who have not been remarkable advocates of the cause of education, enthusiastic in support of this Bill, and, therefore, it must be manifest that the measure is in their favour, and against our Party."
    I do not believe that is so. I believe myself that, although free education was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, hon. Members opposite never believed that such a measure would be brought forward at all, and imagined that by persistent—I will not say obstruction, as I do not wish to be offensive, but by constant talking on measures introduced by the Government, they would put it out of the power of the Government to fulfil their pledge. They were astonished on the introduction of the Budget to find that the Government were determined to grapple with the question of free

    1141
    education. They were in this difficulty: If they opposed free education when they went to their constituents the results could not be doubtful; if, on the other hand, they supported it, it would be said that they were supporting a measure introduced by a Conservative Government, and for which the Conservatives would get the credit. They therefore took up a middle position. They said, "This is all nonsense on the part of the Government. They do not intend to persevere with the Bill; it is a pretence, a falsehood, a measure introduced merely for the purpose of influencing the miniature General Election, but we on our side will take care to compel the Government to pass the measure." An ingenious artifice I admit, but it was based on a false assumption, namely, that the Government did not themselves from the first intend to carry the Bill. Here in passing I cannot help expressing my amazement at the petulant wailings of politicians like the hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Howorth), who, before he saw the Bill at all or had any opportunity of forming an opinion as to its provisions, rushed into print and denounced it, and sought to do as much mischief as he possibly could. It appears to me that his position is very different from that of the hon. Member for Islington, who waited with patience until he had the Bill in his hands before expressing the sincere views he, no doubt, takes with regard to it. It is said that it is a monstrous thing to give free education, because we shall thereby be pauperizing the population. The argument of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on that point is absolutely unanswerable. It is that the money will come out of the Consolidated Fund, and that, so far as the working classes are concerned, it will not be free education at all, because they are the persons who, in the largest sense, contribute during their whole life to the Consolidated Fund. The large mass of the Consolidated Fund is derived from taxes paid by the working classes, for it is they who drink most and smoke most, and who thus contribute most largely to the revenue raised from Excise. The amount contributed by Income Tax is comparatively small, and there is no contribution under this head from those classes of
    1142
    poor clerks and others, with incomes under £150 a year, to whom reference has been made. Then, it is said that this Bill will bring about a system of universal School Boards, and that voluntary schools will be extinguished throughout the country. The same thing was said in 1870, and yet the voluntary schools are twice as numerous, and have twice as many children in them now, as the School Board schools. It is said that parents will not be willing to send their children to schools in which they will have to pay 3d., 4d., or, perhaps, 6d. a week. But now they pay 4d. or 6d. a week in preference to 3d., and why should they not continue to pay the extra pence per week? There are a great many of the working classes who prefer to send their children to voluntary schools rather than to Board schools, though they have to pay higher fees for them. In West Ham there is a most excellent School Board, presided over by an experienced educationist, Mr. Coleman, who is a Liberal Unionist, and on that account an attempt was made to oust him from his position, but I am glad to say it failed. There are also voluntary schools in West Ham of the most efficient character. The voluntary school attached to the Church of St Paul, Stratford, is one of the most efficient in the country, and has earned the highest grants which could be obtained from the Department. The artisans in that part of my constituency would be very likely to appreciate the advantages of a Board school if it gave a better education; but the fact is, with one accord they send their children to the voluntary schools to which I have referred so far as the accommodation suffices. I have gone into the question very carefully, and I find that the result of the universal establishment of Board schools in West Ham would, in my opinion, be to increase the rates by 4s. in the £1. I should like to see any gentleman advocating the establishment of universal Board schools in West Ham at the expense of such an addition to the rates. But the case of West Ham is not singular. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has pointed out in Birmingham that the result of establishing Board schools universally would be exceedingly dis-

    1143
    astrous to the ratepayers. But, says the hon. Member for Leicester, "We have another fund. We have not only the rates and taxes, but the Church Fund." I should like to see the right hon. Member for Derby, the present leader of the Liberal Party, or the right hon. Member for Newcastle going to the country and proposing to confiscate the revenues of the Church of England in order to establish universal Board schools. They dare not do so. That proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester was not received by the right hon. Member for Derby with so much gratitude as might have been expected. I have not heard that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, though he has so far modified his views as to favour the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, has as yet taken up the disestablishment of the Church in England. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke said that by one clause in the Bill the Education Department will have power in any district in which there is not a School Board to compel existing voluntary schools to receive children free of cost. There will be no such power in the Department, though they may compel the establishment of a School Board in the district. For the reasons I have stated, I am of opinion that this Bill is well worthy of the support of hon. Gentlemen on this side. I am very glad from my place in this House that I am able to support with perfect sincerity and consistency a measure which, if passed into law, will, I am convinced, result in enormous benefits to the people of this country and be of lasting advantage to the Party to which I belong.
    MR. LOGAN: I propose very shortly to give the reasons why I consider it my duty to support the Second Reading of this Bill. There can be no doubt whatever in the mind of any hon. Member intimately acquainted with the working classes of this country that there exists among them an earnest desire that their children should be enabled to obtain a better education than they themselves received. They are, therefore, willing to accept this measure, imperfect as it is, as an instalment of a larger scheme of national education paid for by the nation as a whole, and, as a
    1144
    matter of course, controlled by representatives of the people. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may perhaps doubt that there does exist this desire for education among the working classes, for this bid for favour made by the Party opposite has fallen somewhat flat at by-elections. But there are reasons why it was not received with the expected enthusiasm. Workmen in towns, who are much further advanced in political education than their brethren in the country, were not caught by it, because they believe in the right of the people to control the administration of public funds. The agricultural labourers did not respond, because slowly, but surely, it has been dawning upon him that the Conservative Party and their allies in the country, the Church of England parsons, are not as anxious for the labourer's education as they would wish him to believe, otherwise they would have educated him long ago. I think that the agricultural labourer is right in that belief, because even now many of the Conservative Party object to this measure. They say it will demoralise the people and lessen parental control. I yield to no one in an earnest desire to see self-reliance among the people strengthened; and it is for that reason I was shocked to hear this scheme of free education labelled as a gift from a Unionist Government to the people. I think that the use of the words "free education" is wrong. A system which is paid for by all cannot be called free, and under the new scheme parents will not escape having to pay. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, parents will continue to pay, but indirectly, and over a longer period of time. Now, I notice that out of a total of 45s. ½d., the cost of a child's education in a Board School, Government grants, and the rates provide 35s. 3d., 9d. is gathered from miscellaneous contributions, and a fifth only, or, to speak exactly, 8s. 11¾d. is contributed by school pence. Now, surely it is straining the argument very far to contend that the supply of this fifth in an indirect instead of direct manner would cause demoralisation among the people? When I look at this skeleton Bill, I quite understand the desire of advanced Liberal Mem-

    1145
    bers to amend it, fur this skeleton Bill will not only revolutionise the whole educational system of the country, but it also proposes to give largely increased sums to bodies in the rural districts in whom the people have absolutely no confidence. As a practical man, I recognise the uselessness in this Parliament of attempting to clothe that skeleton without at the same time running the risk of breaking it; and, therefore, while I shall endeavour to improve the Bill, I accept it as embodying the principle that it is the duty of the State to place a proper system of education within the reach of its poorest citizen. At the same time, I protest against money being given to strengthen the position of the Church of England parsons in the rural districts. Speaking with a pretty intimate knowledge of the rural districts I have the honour to represent, I say that in many villages where the parson is supreme ruler, and where he has the entire education of the villagers in his hands, the people there are less intelligent and less self-reliant than the people of those villages blessed with a Board school. Millions of our countrymen have no choice as to the school to which they must send their children, and I say it is opposed to all sense of justice that they should have no voice in the management of that education to which they are compelled to subject their children. From the present Government I recognise it is useless to attempt to get this concession of popular control, though the time is not far distant when this will come with other Home Rule measures. Meantime, I entreat the Leaders of the Liberal Party to attempt to secure that public money granted for education shall be applied to education, and to education only, and that those who receive the money shall be compelled to furnish properly-audited accounts for the inspection of the public. I trust it will not require much pressure to induce the Government to extend the exemption of fees beyond the age of 14, for I cannot think that at a time when all thoughtful men and thoughtful women are trying to get children kept at school as long as possible, so that the Englishmen of the future may be at least as well educated as other nations, I cannot
    1146
    believe that any body of responsible men will offer a premium to parents to take their children away from school, for it is admitted that, as a nation, we are behind other nations in this respect, both as regards elementary education and technical training. There is a mistaken notion that education unfits a man for work. Our competitors make no such mistake; they think the more the intellect of a boy or girl is trained and developed the better workman or workwoman he or she will become. Speaking from experience as an employer, I am convinced they are correct in their views. Though the Bill does some things it should not do, and leaves many things undone it should do, yet as it is a step in the direction of a complete system of education, I shall oppose every Amendment that may imperil the passage of this Bill. I believe that with the awakening sense of their power the people will eventually demand full control over the education of their children, and that the next Parliament will be compelled to give effect to this most just and reasonable demand.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): This interesting Debate has been remarkable for an extraordinary diversity of opinion among hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the effects of this Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) informed the House that he would not move his Amendment because he did not want to prevent the passing of the Bill, though it was an endowment of the Church. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire took much the same view, and the hon. Member who has just spoken, naturally and properly spoke from his recent election experiences. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Trevelyan) takes the view that the effect of the Bill will be to establish Board schools universally throughout the country. Striking a balance between diverse views, I think I may say that in the belief of Her Majesty's Government this Bill, if passed, will leave voluntary schools and Board schools much in the same position as before, with this exception—that the managers of schools will be placed in the receipt of a certain instead of a precarious income from fees. Two speeches

    1147
    made this evening are different from the rest, inasmuch as they announce the intention of the speakers to oppose the Bill on account of the principle which it embodies. The hon. Member for Islington, in a speech of great power, drew a terrible picture of the serious educational, social, and economic calamities which would, in his opinion, ensue on the passing of the Bill. But while the hon. Member attributed all the evil motives to the Government who brought in the Bill, he attributed all the good motives to himself. The Amendment of the hon. Member affirmed the proposition—
    "That this House is prepared to amend the present system by which remission of school fees is obtained through the Poor Law Guardians by parents who cannot afford to pay the fees."
    But the hon. Member did not devote any portion of his speech to showing how he would amend the present system. The hon. Member has devoted himself for many years to educational questions as affecting the poor in London, and he is well qualified to give an opinion on this subject. The position which the hon. Member takes up is that which was taken by the Members of the Government in 1885 when they opposed free education, associated with popular control of the voluntary schools, because it meant the extinction of voluntary schools. The present system of remitting fees is unsatisfactory. At present no parent can obtain exemption from fees except on the ground of poverty, and the claim for exemption has to be presented to that particular tribunal which is associated with pauperism. Since education has become universally compulsory, this system has, no doubt, pressed very hardly on the deserving poor. I do not, however, believe that it was possible to amend the existing system and to stop short of what the Government now propose to do. If the hon. Member for Islington will give consideration to this problem he will find that things must be left as they are, or the proposition of the Government must be accepted. I do not wish to be associated with a measure which will in any degree undermine the self-reliance of the masses of the community; but if there be one part of the community
    1148
    where self-reliance is strongly developed, where a national system of primary education is supreme, and where the general population are in a higher condition of comfort than elsewhere, it is in Scotland. Yet the Members of Parliament on both sides of the House positively extort out of the Government at the point of the bayonet a free education scheme. No bad consequences, such as the hon. Member for Islington predicted, have followed; and I see no reason why they should follow the present measure when applied to England. Both the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton seem to think that if the Bill passes into law some system of popular control must necessarily be established over all voluntary schools. Let us for a few moments consider what is the meaning of popular control, although I am aware that the point is one that will be raised at a later stage of the Bill. Clearly, from the Amendments on the Paper, it means control by the ratepayers. I assert that it is impossible to give the ratepayers control over an institution unless the rates are liable for the maintenance of that institution. I remember the introduction of the Bill of 1870, and I have always regretted that the original proposals of Mr. Forster did not pass into law. Mr. Forster proposed to map out England into various educational districts, and to give control in each district over all schools, voluntary or otherwise, on the understanding that the rates were liable for denominational schools and Board schools alike. But the Non conformist Members rose as one man, and through their spokesman, Mr. Winterbotham, repudiated the control of the voluntary schools if they were associated with the rates, on the ground that the rate would become as unpopular as the old Church rate had been. Therefore, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to say that they will support the denominational schools out of the rates, they cannot claim popular control over those schools. Looking at the proposition of the Government from the business and administrative point of view, rates stand to School Boards as subscriptions do to voluntary schools, and if there is a deficiency in the amount the former have to make it good by rates

    1149
    and the other by voluntary subscriptions. How could we put a voluntary school under popular control when the managers would still remain responsible for the expenses of that school? The thing is ridiculous and impossible, and therefore any proposition made in favour of obtaining popular control over voluntary schools, unless associated with the liability of rates to contribute towards those voluntary schools, is nothing less than a proposal for the extinction of voluntary schools, and any such proposition as that is one which Her Majesty's Government think it their bounden duty to oppose as contrary to the principles of the Education Act of 1870. Putting Church of England schools out of the question altogether, and taking those of two other bodies—the Wesleyans and the Roman Catholics—what would be the result to education in those schools of associating popular control with them? The peculiarity of the Wesleyan schools is the very high fees charged. The result of popular control would be to reduce the fees and to destroy the distinctive character of the schools, which would cease to remain voluntary schools. The Roman Catholic schools were extraordinary in their efficiency, considering the small resources at their disposal; but if we associate popular control with these schools the Roman Catholics would probably decline to contribute towards their support, because the merits of these schools in their eyes is that they are under denominational management, and, therefore, to associate popular control with them would mean the stopping of subscriptions. I am sure, therefore, that the proposition for popular control over voluntary schools is one to which the House will never listen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has said that Board schools will be established in the North of England towns because fees are so high, and he also seems to argue that they will also be set up everywhere in the South, where fees are low. It is true that this Bill will have somewhat different effects in different parts of the country. Why are fees higher in the North of England than in the South? Because the people are better off. But they will now all get the remission of 10s. towards the payment of those fees, and when I
    1150
    think of the vigour and energy which the managers of voluntary schools have shown during the last 20 years, I see no reason to suppose that they will not get over any temporary difficulties, and find themselves in the possession of a permanent and sure source of income. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has taken some examples of isolated schools or districts, and pointed out that the subscriptions are small. But, taking subscriptions and endowments of the Church of England, they amounted in 1890 to 80 per cent. of the school fees. That shows that the great majority of fees are low because subscriptions are high. In the case of the Roman Catholic schools the figure is 78 per cent. of the fees payable. That also shows that the subscriptions are high and the fees low, and that the subscribers are prepared to make sacrifices for their schools. In the case of the Wesleyan schools the statistics are reversed, the subscriptions amounting to only 17 per cent., which shows that the parents of the children attending these schools are capable of paying high fees, and therefore the denomination do not consider it necessary to subscribe in order to reduce the fees. I think that those figures show what would be the effect on these three classes of voluntary schools of the establishment of popular control. If the Wesleyans wish to keep up the character of their education, I have not the slightest doubt that they will continue to subscribe whatever is necessary above the 10s. But the result of the 10s. fee grant in the case of the Church of England and Roman Catholic schools would be that the great majority of them would become free. With regard to the administrative advantage of the proposal of the 10s. grant, I think that the indirect consequences would be of considerable importance. Any one who has been connected with the Education Department knows that one of the great difficulties in administering that Department is the great diversity and irregularity of the fees payable in elementary schools. The result of the proposal will be that the fees payable in three-quarters of the elementary schools will be a uniform rate. Having now dealt with the question of popular control, I come to the question of fees.

    1151
    Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed a wish that the Government should include in the proposed payment all children who attend school after the age of three, up to the age of 14. Now, it must be borne in mind what is the ground on which the Government make their proposal. We do not make it for the purpose of bringing elementary education up to an ideal standard, and still less for the purpose of allowing a system of secondary education to be grafted upon the system of elementary education. Our proposal is to relieve parents from a compulsory liability which has been imposed upon them by Statute with regard to children sent to school between the ages of five and 14. I doubt whether children who go to school before they are five years old derive any educational benefit. In Scotland, where there is a much higher standard, children do not, as a rule, attend the schools before they are five years of age. There is a great deal to be said against the proposition that the Government should pay the fees of all children who are sent to school after the age of 14. Such children are, as a rule, the children of the better-to-do ratepayers, who can afford to allow them to stop on. Moreover, the education they receive is not primary, but secondary education. In the voluntary schools the subscriptions stand in exactly the same place as the rates do in the Board schools. If the fees are low, it is because the subscriptions are high. The subscribers have, to a certain extent, anticipated the benevolent intentions of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman opposite very properly said that the schools must be efficient. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Code of this year is, I may say in confidence, prepared in the belief that this Bill will pass into law. Consequently, by that Code there are increased requirements put upon elementary schools. The curriculum is extended, the teaching staff is increased, and a class subject must be taught in every school. If any school is warned before 1893, and is subsequently found to be inefficient, it will cease to obtain a grant. A school to be efficient must have a certain income. The average expenditure on children in
    1152
    voluntary schools is £1 16s. The average grant is 17s. 4d. Deducting 17s. 4d. from £1 16s., a deficiency of nearly 19s. is shown, which will be reduced to 9s. by the grant proposed to be given by this Bill. The 10s. grant only reduces that by 9s. Thus schools in which the subscriptions are small cannot pass the necessary test without utilising the free grant, so that it may be anticipated that the increased grant will be associated hereafter with increased efficiency. The proposition of the Government is a very simple one. We had to deal with a complicated and multiform system of education, a system which Parliament deliberately brought into existence 20 years ago, and the Government intend to adhere to the principles on which that system is founded, confirmed as they are by subsequent legislation, and to oppose every proposition which will affect the policy on which the system of primary education is founded. We have endeavoured to graft this proposition on our somewhat complicated system, and I hope we have framed a scheme which is not only simple in itself, but which will also tend to simplify the system upon which it is grafted. The Government look upon the scheme as the legitimate and necessary development of previous legislation, and they earnestly hope that the House will support it by a large majority, because they believe that not only will it tend to consolidate the present system of primary education and assimilate all the different classes of schools, but also that it will add to the efficiency of that system under conditions which will enable the voluntary schools of the country to take for the future a more beneficial and a more prominent part in the life of the country than they have done in the past.
    MR. SINCLAIR&c.): I propose to address the House from the point of view of one who has been a School Board manager in Liverpool almost ever since the Act of 1870 was passed. I think that, in the long run, the Bill introduced by the Government will tend to the educational advantage of the people of the country. The great reason, to my mind, why such a Bill should have been introduced is this: that political power in this country has shifted; the governing

    1153
    power is now handed over to the people. There is a change from parental to national responsibility, and that is a great reason why the Government are to be congratulated upon the action they have taken. There is one point of importance, and it has only been touched upon by the noble Lord who has just sat down: it is the question of the equalisation of fees throughout the country. I understood the noble Lord to say that difficulty had been found by those who had administered the Education Department in the diversity in the fees charged. If that difficulty has existed in the past, I am afraid there is nothing within the four corners of the Bill to remove it in the future. The difficulty arises very largely from the fact that, according to the definition to be found in the Education Act of 1870, the term elementary school means a school or department of a school in which elementary education is the principal part of the education given; that is to say, a department of a school is looked upon as an entire school, and the fees charged in that department are to be the basis upon which the working of this Bill will take place. I should like to exemplify this by the case of the Upper Park Street School in Liverpool, of which I am a manager. There are four departments in that school—an infants', a juniors', and two seniors'. In the infants' department the present fee is 3d., in the juniors' 4d., and in the seniors' (boys' and girls') 6d. Under the Bill the managers will be compelled, in order to obtain the full advantage of the grant, to treat the four departments separately, so that there will be no fee in the infants' department, a fee of 1d. in the juniors', and a fee of 3d. in the seniors'. But if the managers were allowed to treat the whole school as a unit there might be an equalisation of fees, the want of which we understand every Education Minister in the past has greatly felt. What is the result of charging fees in the higher standards instead of charging them in the lower? It is to make the parents think twice before they keep their children at school longer than they are absolutely obliged to. The tendency of compulsion and the charging of high fees in the higher standards is to cause parents to take
    1154
    their children from school earlier than they otherwise would. This is a practical point of great importance, and I trust that it will not be lost sight of by the Government when they come to consider any changes or amendments in the Bill that the Debate may have made necessary.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think the House is prepared to hear another speech.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton waxed very eloquent in the speech he delivered earlier in the evening in reference to the treatment which in his opinion the people of Wales are experiencing under the present state of things. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in many parishes the schools are entirely attached to the Church of England, while the pupils who attend them are the children of Nonconformists. It is extraordinary, considering the position that has been assumed in this House on behalf of the Nonconformists of Wales, that those people have never had sufficient public spirit to establish voluntary schools of their own. But the right hon. Gentleman omitted to observe that in all the evidence given before the Education Commission not a case was adduced in which complaint was made that the Conscience Clause established in 1870 had been violated in any Church school in the Principality. This is a very remarkable fact, seeing that the schools are managed by Churchmen and that the scholars are the children of Nonconformists. Nor did the Welsh Nonconformist ministers themselves who appeared before the Commission make any complaint on the subject; on the contrary, they asserted that they would not even suggest to their flocks that they should in any degree complain as to the religious teaching which was

    1155
    given by the Church in the schools. That proves that in the opinion of those ministers the differences are not worth contesting, that they think religious teaching of some kind a great advantage to the children, and that they are not prepared to endorse the assertion which has been made by their political friends in this House that the Church of England schools in Wales are used as a means of destroying the principles of Nonconformity in the children.
    MR. T. ELLIS: Will the noble Lord name the ministers to whom he refers?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have not the volume containing the evidence at hand. The names and the facts are well known, and I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the pages in which they appear. That is not the only part of the experience of the Act of 1870 to which I would direct the hon. Member's attention. The right hon. Member for Bridgeton rejoices greatly at what he believes to be the on-coming destruction of the voluntary schools. It would be instructive for him to remember over what odds the voluntary schools have already triumphed. In 1870 he and his predecessors prophesied the destruction of the voluntary schools; but experience shows that there is sufficient public spirit to support them, and to rescue them even from the evil position in which they found themselves after the passing of the Act of 1870. They are now in such a position before the people of England that even Radical politicians do not seriously propose their destruction. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen speak of the privileges which the voluntary school managers enjoy under the present system, they seem to think that voluntary schools exist for the benefit of voluntary subscribers. There can be no greater mistake. We are very grateful to the voluntary subscribers for supporting these schools, but the advantages to the country of the voluntary system consist in the teaching of distinctive religious and denominational principles. I regret very much the condition of public opinion in the country on the question before the House. Parents were formerly quite content to pay these fees, and there was no difficulty of any kind. There were a few cases where
    1156
    the parents were very poor, and where, undoubtedly, the system under which they had to go to the Guardians in order to be relieved of their fees was an unsatisfactory system, but in the vast majority of cases the fees were paid perfectly willingly and regularly. That, I admit, is not so now. The reason is not difficult to find. We have in this country a machine for changing the law, and the Radical agitator must have some reform to keep the machine in motion—a good reform if possible, but, at all events, a reform. The result is, that he lays hold of some grievance, slightly real and largely imaginary, and he works the people of this country up into a great fever, until a demand is made for a change in the law. That is precisely what has happened in this case. There are, under the present law, some real grievances and a great many imaginary ones. If you go to a number of people and say, "You pay fees which you ought not to pay; you ought to have your children educated for nothing," is it surprising that they will believe you, and that the fees which were formerly paid without a murmur should be looked upon as an intolerable grievance by a large section of the parents of this country? Then, I ask, is the present proposal a large departure from sound principles? I submit that, so far as naked principle is concerned, the departure from sound lines is very slight. I know that many of my hon. Friends believe that this Bill is tarred with the Socialist brush, but the Socialist principle was first introduced into this question when parents were compelled to send their children to school. I am not discussing whether it is right or wrong, but I say that a far greater interference with the liberty of the individual on the part of the State was enacted by the Education Act than any that is contained in the proposition before the House. It is not merely from the point of view of compulsion that a great act of Socialism has already been achieved. Even pecuniarily we have gone a very long way in that direction. It is said that the working classes of the country will have their independence sapped by the Imperial Exchequer paying their school fees, but their independence has already been sapped to the extent of three-fourths of the cost of education.

    1157
    If one-fourth, more is Socialism, then let the House remember that every increase in the cost of national education year by year since 1870 has been a step in the Socialist direction. In 1870 the cost of education per head was 30s.; in 1891, I suppose, we may reckon it at 40s. From what source has the 10s. increase come? Not, I venture to say, out of the pockets of the parents. It has, therefore, come out of somebody else's pocket, and to that extent the independence of the parents has been sapped by a contribution out of someone else's pocket. Under these circumstances, it surely is not reasonable to protest against this proposal as Socialism.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) [EXPENSES, &c.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the temporary advance, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the insurance fund to be created under any Act of the present Session to establish Local Registries of Titles to Land in Ireland, and the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, remuneration, and expenses that may become payable under such Act."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION (DUBLIN AND BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 358.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction left by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was that it should be deferred to Wednesday.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: My name appears on the back of the Bill, Sir. Is it not competent for me to move that the Second Reading be taken now?
    *MR. SPEAKER: No doubt a Bill is in charge of the hon. Members whose
    1158
    names appear on the back of it, and it is competent for the hon. Member to move the Second Reading, but that would be an unusual course to adopt in the absence of the hon. Member who has left Instruction that the Bill should be set down for another day. Perhaps the hon. Member is acting by the authority of his colleagues in charge of the Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If it is open to me to do so, I move that the Bill be read a second time. It has a very simple object, the changing the dates of the sittings of the Municipal Revision Courts in Dublin and Belfast. It has that simple object, in which it meets with the approval of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    DR. TANNER: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

  BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 367.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In moving that this Bill be read a second time, I need not detain the House, I think, with any explanatory remarks. The Bill has received the approval of lawyers and other distinguished persons in another place, and its object is one as to which, I think, there cannot be two opinions, though no doubt there are remarks to be made as to the means by which the framers of the Bill propose to carry out that object. The Bill makes it a penal offence to send circulars and advertisements to minors with the object of inducing betting or the borrowing of money from money-lenders; and if the House is agreed on the desirability of the object and the general lines of the Bill, all else is matter for Committee, and I think I need say no more.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  PRISONS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 95.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 55.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    MR. SEXTON: We have not had the advantage of any explanation of this Bill, and I think it is an extremely vicious principle to take a Second Reading at this hour with no knowledge of the contents of a Bill, and to such a course I must object.
    MR. MACARTNEY: With the leave of the House, I will explain that the Bill deals with several details in which the Labourers Act has been found in operation defective. It proposes to substitute the names of 12 persons entitled to vote for the ratepayers now required in making any representation. There are one or two other amendments of the Act with regard to providing gardens, and one clause deals with technical errors in the proceedings before the Board of Guardians providing that these shall not as now stop the whole proceedings. In the principle of the Bill, I think, there is nothing to object to; it is not opposed by the Government, and whatever questions that arise are such as should be raised in Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a very faint outline the hon. Gentleman has given us; but so far I see no objection, though I reserve my freedom of action on Committee stage.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: One question I must ask, is the Bill printed?
    MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, printed some days ago.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Ventilation of this House.
  Dr. Farquharson, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Richard Power, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. Plunket were nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Plunket.)

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I trust that we may be allowed to proceed to the appointment of this Committee, and be enabled to make progress this Session with the inquiry. To that end I appeal to the Welsh Members to withdraw the Amendment for including Wales in the inquiry.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: There is one method of getting the Committee appointed at once, and that is by accepting the Amendments. I can suggest no other alternative.
  MR. SEXTON: That course, I think, would be adopted if the Government were in earnest in the matter.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Government are certainly in earnest in their desire to proceed, but Wales never has been treated as a separate fixed entity, and it is perfectly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. I think the hon. Members from Wales are a little hard on the other members interested.
  DR. TANNER: On several occasions when I have objected to Motions being taken after 12 o'clock, Members of the Government have pointed out my opposition was absurd, because they were free to put the Motion down as a First Order of the Day. Let the Government do this with the present Motion.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I should be very glad of the opportunity for discussion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not possible for the Government to find the time for a long discussion; but I am prepared to consult with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to putting the Motion down for a time when hon. Members can record their protest if they will be content with that; but there is not time for a Debate, which would serve no useful purpose.
  Committee deferred till to-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 153.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 125.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE AND ART BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to facilitate the transfer of schools for science and art to local authorities—Was presented by the Lord President (V. Cranbrook); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 193.)
CORK (COUNTY AND CITY) COURT HOUSES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 194.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 195.)

MANIPUR.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, in rising to call attention to the Papers relating to the affairs of Manipur lately laid before the House, and to move for further Papers, said: My Lords, in accordance with the notice which I have placed upon your Lordships' Table, I rise to call attention to the Papers which have lately been laid before us in relation to the affairs of Manipur. I believe your Lordships will not think that I am wrong in taking this course in a case in which such said occurrences have taken place as those which have happened in the State of which I am about to speak. Several valuable lives of civil and military servants of the Government have been sacrificed, and a force of our Indian troops has received a repulse. Under these circumstances, it is, I think, only right that in this, as in the other House of Parliament, the questions connected with these affairs should be discussed and considered. And, indeed, my Lords, in this House, apart from the fact that we have here
986
many noble Lords especially qualified to speak upon Indian questions, we have an advantage which is not possessed by the other House of Parliament at the present moment, for we have amongst us the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who can give with an authority, to which none else can pretend, an explanation of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. And, my Lords, if this was the view which I took of the matter when I first placed this notice upon the Paper, I am more convinced than ever now, after some strange declarations that have been made in another place, of the necessity of entering upon the consideration of these questions in the House of Lords. I am perfectly aware how very easy it is to be wise after the event, and it is with a constant recollection of that fact that I hope to address myself to the consideration of these proceedings; and, of course, having filled the office that I have filled in India, I know well the many difficulties which beset questions of this kind and the complications in which they are involved. The State, the affairs of which we have to discuss to-night, is one of those which are called in the common Indian parlance, though the term is not perhaps historically accurate, Feudatory States. It is a small State, probably until these events took place very little known to your Lordships, unless, indeed, some of you may have heard of it as the birthplace of the game of Polo; but it is a protected State, which has been under our protection for a considerable time, and where we have had for long a Political Agent to represent us. In the year 1851 the Government of India took a step, in guaranteeing the then Maharajah—or the Rajah, as I think he was called—in the possession of his State, which made somewhat closer our connection with that State than it had been before. There is little remarkable in the condition of Manipur except in one respect, that succession to the Gaddi, as it is called in India, or the Throne, is based upon a peculiar system. When there are a series of brothers they succeed one after the other—not the son of the Maharajah, but his brother succeeds him, and so the succession goes on until the last of the brothers is exhausted, and then it is his son and not the son of the elder brother who succeeds to the Throne.

987
I need not point out to your Lordships what a complicated succession this is, and how very likely it is to raise difficulties and troubles; and so it has done on many occasions in Manipur. Disputes have sprung up, domestic quarrels have taken place, Palace revolutions have occurred, and it is out of one of these Palace revolutions that the present difficulty has arisen. As those who have read the Papers are well aware, on the night of the 22nd September last an attack was made upon the then Maharajah by some of his brothers; shots were fired in the Palace; the Maharajah was seized with great alarm, and fled to the protection of the British Political Agent, Mr. Grimwood. His alarm was such that it appears that his first thought was to quit the country. Mr. Grimwood supposed that he intended to abdicate, and that he had actually abdicated. The Maharajah now contests that matter, but there seems, at all events, to be no doubt that he did intend to retire from Manipur, and he immediately took steps to do so; and, with the consent of those who had overthrown his authority and rebelled against him, he upon the following day left the city of Manipur and proceeded to British territory. This occurrence was at once reported by telegraph to the Chief Commissioner of Assam. Your Lordships will understand that the Political Agent of Manipur is under the orders of the Chief Commissioner of Assam. He is generally one of the officers of the Assam Commission, and he serves under that Chief Commissioner, whose authority is to a certain extent, as it were, interposed between him and the Government of India. Mr. Grimwood immediately reported these occurrences to his Chief, who forwarded information of them by telegraph to the Government of India. Upon the 25th of September—that is to say, three days after the events of which I have been speaking—Mr. Grimwood sent a full account of what had taken place, together with his views upon the subject, to the Chief Commissioner of Assam, who did not, however, transmit that Paper in full, so far as we officially know, to the Government of India until after the lapse of a long period. There is nothing in the Papers to show what was the cause of that delay. Mr. Quinton's letter is dated the 31st
988
December, and the delay, of course, was considerable. There is nothing to show whether the Government of India communicated, by telegraph or otherwise, with Mr. Quinton during that period, except one single telegram at the commencement. We have, therefore, to conjecture as best we can what may have been the cause of this delay. But Mr. Quinton did take one step during that period, as I understand, which was a step of very considerable importance as bearing upon the ultimate decision to be arrived at. Mr. Quinton reports to the Government of India (and the words are important)—
"The Jubraj"
—that is, the Regent, as he became afterwards, the elder brother of the Maharajah—
"whose nomination by the Maharajah as his successor on his demise had been sanctioned by the Government of India, has since carried on the Government of the country, having been recognised as Regent by the Political Agent under the orders of the Chief Commissioner."
Now, my Lords, there is clear proof that the person whom we have since been in the habit of calling the Regent was acknowledged as Regent by order of the Chief Commissioner shortly after the Palace revolution took place. There is nothing in Mr. Quinton's words about a preliminary acknowledgment pending the decision of the Government of India. That is stated in a subsequent letter, but it appears to me to be a gloss which was put upon Mr. Quinton's statement. That statement is broad and unmistakeable. The Regent was
"recognised as Regent by the Political Agent under the orders of the Chief Commissioner.'
These matters came under the consideration of the Government of India, and they took, no doubt, a considerable time—a, long time, I think—to come to a decision about them. I am not at all inclined to say that matters of this kind should be decided hastily. No doubt the Government of India were quite right to seek the views of their local officers, and not to come to a hasty decision upon a question of importance. But, on the other hand, a delay of four months is a very considerable delay, and it had in this case, as I think I shall be able to show your Lordships, one effect of importance, namely, that it rendered it extremely difficult to adopt one of the alternatives which might

989
have been adopted by the Government of India if they had determined to act upon it immediately or shortly after the receipt of the intelligence of the revolution. They wrote upon the 24th January, and then proposed an inquiry by Mr. Quinton upon the spot, and appeared to point towards the restoration of the old Maharajah. Mr. Quinton and Mr. Grimwood had both Previously expressed their opinion against the restoration of the old Maharajah. They held him to be a weak man, incompetent to rule the country, and they had also said that he could not be put back except by force. Their conclusion was distinctly and clearly that the true course to take was to recognise the Palace revolution, to acknowledge the status quo, and to leave things in the condition in which they were after that revolution was carried out. In accordance with that view, the Government of India hesitated to restore the old Maharajah, and they ultimately determined to take a course, upon which I shall have more to say in a few moments. Mr. Quinton, in the meantime, had got to Calcutta. He entered, no doubt, into communications, of which there is, naturally, no record, with the Government of India and the Foreign Office, and although he acquiesced in the course which the Government ultimately determined to take, there is nothing in these Papers to show that either Mr. Grimwood or Mr. Quinton did change their opinions, or did really give their approval (and I venture to say that I distinctly believe neither of them did give his approval) to a portion, at all events, of the policy which the Government of India ultimately adopted. Now, my Lords, with respect to one question I think there can be no doubt. I have no doubt whatever that the Government of India had a right to interfere in this matter. The State of Manipur was, as I have said, a protected State. We had been in the habit for a considerable time of acknowledging the successors, the heirs to the Government of the country, and the right of the Government to deal with a question of this kind is, to my mind, complete. I go beyond that; I say it was their duty to deal with this question, because they were appealed to by both parties. They were appealed to by the old Maharajah and by the Regent who had taken his place, and they were,
990
therefore, bound to give a decision upon the matter. But, my Lords, it seems to me that they might have taken one of two courses; they might either have determined to restore the old Maharajah, or they might have determined to acknowledge the Regent and acquiesce in the Palace revolution. There is a good deal to be said for both these courses. For the restoration of the old Maharajah there is the strong and powerful argument that it would have been a step tending to maintain the authority of a Native Chief, whom we had ourselves acknowledged as ruler of the country. But it was objected to, and strongly objected to, by the local officers—both by Mr. Quinton and by Mr. Grimwood—and it would, as it appears, undoubtedly have involved a resort to force in order to carry it out. For the other step, in a case of this kind, in which the interests of the British Government were very little directly concerned, there were all the arguments which may be adduced for an acknowledgment of the accomplished facts; and there was the great advantage that, according to the view of the local officers, that policy could have been pursued quietly, and would have involved no use of force at all. Therefore, my Lords, although strong arguments might have been adduced in favour of restoring the old Maharajah, nevertheless, I am not at all inclined to blame, or even to criticise, the Government of India for having, upon the recommendation of their local officers, determined against that course. But I do think it is much to be regretted that they did not take one or other of these two courses—that instead of that they adopted a third course, which was neither one nor the other. I quite admit that after a delay of five months it would have been very difficult to restore the old Maharajah, and to upset the state of things which had grown up with the acquiescence and acknowledgment of Mr. Grimwood, who remained our political agent there. But if that is true, then the proper course was to acknowledge that state of things. Instead of doing that, the Government of India, as it seems to me, tried to adopt a compromise between these two policies. They acknowledged the revolution, and they endeavoured to punish its authors. Well, I cannot say

991
that that course seems to me to have been a very logical one; and I certainly think, though, as I said before, it is easy enough to judge after the event no doubt, still I certainly think it has proved not to have been a wise course. It involved really all the objections to both the courses. It involved the refusal to maintain the right of the old Maharajah, and it also involved the necessity for employing force. It had the objections to both courses, and I think it had the advantages of neither. Therefore, I cannot but express regret that that course should have been adopted. But this also I will say. If it was going to be adopted, if the intention was only partially to accept the change which had taken place in Manipur, to proceed against the Senapatti as a person who had been guilty of offences that deserved punishment in regard to that revolution, then the action ought to have been speedy. There ought not to have been this delay of five months during which the Government was being carried on at Manipur by the Regent and the Senapatti, but steps ought to have been taken without delay. However, my Lords, assuming that this was the course to be taken, I cannot but think that it is to be regretted that the policy thus adopted was carried out in the manner which was pursued. It seems to me that it would have been far better—I think it is always better in dealing with Indian questions, with Native Chiefs, and rulers in India—for the Government to state at once distinctly and plainly what was the policy intended to pursue. As soon as they had made up their minds, they should have authorised our representative at Manipur to declare to the Regent what was the policy of the Government, and to call upon him to conform to it. If that had been done, the Regent would have been informed that the Government were prepared to acknowledge him as Maharajah upon certain conditions; that they did not think it necessary to restore the old Maharajah; but that they would acknowledge the new one if he conformed to the conditions which they thought fit to lay down. Then those conditions might have been communicated to him, and he would have been told: "It is for you to remove the Senapatti. It is for you to call upon
992
him to retire; and, if he refuses to retire, to take steps to remove him. If you are not strong enough to carry out our wishes in that respect, we will help you." But the first responsibility of acting upon that policy ought to have been cast, in my opinion, upon the new Maharajah, openly and clearly, by a declaration from Mr. Grimwood. That might have avoided—I am not sure that it would not have avoided—the necessity for employing force at all; but, if force had been necessary ultimately, you would then have employed it in defence of a policy that had been fairly declared to the parties, and about which they would have had their option whether to accede to it or to resist it. Whereas it is quite evident from these purposes that the main purpose—at all events the main purpose as Mr. Quinton understood it—was the purpose of deporting or getting rid of the Senapatti. If you look at these Papers, your Lordships will see at once that Mr. Quinton set out evidently understanding that that was his main business, and that accounts for the secrecy of his proceedings, of which we have heard a good deal. That accounts for his not having communicated the orders of the Government of India earlier than he did to our representative at Manipur. That accounts for the mode in which he conducted himself up to the last day or two of those proceedings. His main object evidently, as he understood it, was to lay his hand upon the Senapatti, and I myself, I confess, trace to that mistake, as I regard it, a good many of the difficulties and the evils that have arisen since. Mr. Quinton arrived at Manipur on the 22nd of March last, and then occurred that series of acts which culminated, as we all know, in the unhappy massacre by which Mr. Quinton's life, as well as the lives of Mr. Grimwood, Colonel Skene, and others were sacrificed. I do not propose to review this part of the proceedings in detail, for this very good reason, that we have no accurate information about it. The men who were concerned in them are dead; their lives have been sacrificed; they have fallen in the service of their country, and it would be unjust and ungenerous to criticise upon imperfect information the acts in which they have been engaged. But there is one point connected with

993
this matter which I cannot help alluding to, because it has been so much brought before the public, and that is the question which has been raised in regard to Mr. Quinton's intention, as it is supposed, of arresting the Senapatti at a durbar. Now, I quite admit, as I think everybody connected with India will admit, that there are durbars of different kinds. There are ceremonial durbars, and there are durbars at which the policy of the Government, or intentions of the Government, are declared to those who are present at them, and I see it has been stated that my friend Sir Robert Sandeman says that he has often arrested Native Chiefs at durbars. I have not the least doubt that that is so. Sir Robert Sandeman had to deal with a turbulent set of Chiefs in Beloochistan, and I have no doubt, as he says so particularly, that he has often taken that step in the manner described. There is a great difference of opinion upon this point. I have Sought counsel about it of many of those whom I knew in India, and who are now in England; and I have found great differences of opinion exist about it. But on the whole, I am bound to say that I think the attempt to arrest any person at a durbar, except under some very exceptional circumstances, is an attempt to be regretted, and a thing to be avoided, and I hope that the noble Viscount opposite will be able to tell us to-day what are his views upon that subject; and whether he will give any general directions in respect of it when he communicates those views to the Government of India. Of one thing, my Lords, I am perfectly convinced, and that is that Mr. Quinton was absolutely incapable of treacherous or unworthy conduct. I knew Mr. Quinton very well. I have a very great respect for him. He was a most upright and high-minded man, and I am quite sure that any idea unworthy of a servant of the British Government never once crossed his mind. But he had got hold, as I say, of that idea, so unfortunate as I think in the conduct of this business, that his main object was to secure the Senapatti, and it was because of that that he took the course which he did, practising secrecy with regard to his intentions, and bringing himself into a position so liable to be misrepresented as that in which he
994
appears to have stood. Your Lordships know very well what were the results of this attempt. The Senapatti did not come to the durbar. The durbar did not take place, and then an attempt was made on the 24th of March to arrest the Senapatti by force in his palace. You know what happened; you know the fatal results; you know how our officers were seized, and how they died. As I have said, I will not enter into any discussion of the details in this matter, either in their civil aspect, or still less in their military aspect, because, perhaps, I am not the best person to speak upon those matters from a military point of view. But I must say this, all that I have over heard of the late Colonel Skene leads me to believe that he was an able officer, that he was a man whom the Government of India were right to trust, and who deserved their confidence. I will not touch upon the question of ammunition, because the facts about it appear to be very obscure. We were distinctly told that the force which went out with Mr. Quinton had only 40 rounds per man. If that was so, and if they had nothing else to rely upon, sending them out with such a small amount of ammunition was a great mistake. I think there can be no doubt about that matter. Forty rounds a man is about what is carried, I believe, by the troops who go out to guard and protect the Viceroy's camp in a quiet district, and it would be quite inadequate for a purpose of that kind; but there seems to be doubt as to whether there was a larger supply at Manipur or supposed to be there, and I will not press that matter further. I hope the noble Viscount will give us any further information that he may possess on that point. But, my Lords, I cannot help saying, if it is not wrong in a civilian to say it, that I greatly regret that the force was not accompanied by any guns. There are mountain guns in Assam. I believe at present each of the Ghoorka regiments has two mountain guns; a mountain gun can go wherever a mule can go. It was known that the Manipuris had at least four guns; some of the accounts represent them as having had more. I do think it is to be regretted that with the force that accompanied Mr. Quinton a few of these very useful mountain guns were not sent. I

995
believe if they had been sent the evils might have been avoided. My Lords, put very briefly, and compressed as much as it has been in my power to compress it, that is the view which a perusal of these Papers has led me to take of the course pursued in regard to these transactions. Your Lordships will see that the points upon which I have made some criticism are, undoubtedly, points upon which opinions may differ, and I shall wait with very great interest, as I am sure all your Lordships will, to hear from the noble Viscount opposite an explanation of his views upon the matter, and anything that he may have to say on behalf of the Government of India. But, my Lords, I am quite sure that whatever else the noble Viscount may say, there is one line of defence, if defence it can be called, which he will not adopt and against which I feel bound to enter my strongest protest. We have been told that the true explanation of the conduct of the Government of India, the real reason why they made it the principal point of their policy, as they seem to have done, to remove the Senapatti from Manipur, was because the Senapatti was a man of great ability and force of character; he was considered by them dangerous because he was able. It has been said also that when the Government of India spoke of the offences which the Senapatti had committed and of criminal acts which they attributed to him, they did not mean anything by those charges; they were only said in the sort of way in which politicians in this country are perhaps too often apt to bring charges against their political opponents. It is said that they meant nothing serious, but that what they really did mean was that the Senapatti was able, therefore he was dangerous, and that view resulted from the fact that Governments have always discouraged independent and original talent, and have always promoted mediocrity. It is said that that is the true construction of the course pursued towards the Senapatti. Now, with respect to that very extraordinary statement, I have some observations to make. In the first place I must say that I think it is a great exaggeration to describe the Senapatti as a man of great ability and force of character. He was a man of more force of character than
996
some of his brothers, who seem to have been singularly weak, but there is nothing in these Papers that I can see to show that he was a man of extraordinary ability. He had a certain amount of vigour, and he had a certain amount of popularity, the result apparently of lavish expenditure, but that he was a man of whom the Government of India would ever dream of being afraid appears to me to be an exaggeration of the grossest kind. Then, my Lords, to say that the Government of India, in their official communications, brought forward charges against a native of India, a member of a native princely family, in which there was no reality, which were, in fact, sham charges, is to my mind, I confess, an insult to my noble Friend, Lord Lansdowne, and to his colleagues; and I should think they would resent it and repudiate it as strongly as possible. And lastly, my Lords, I assert that the notion that the Government of India informer days, or now, have systematically discouraged talent, and countenanced only mediocrity, is a libel upon the Governments of India, and is altogether unsupported by facts. Events have occurred in the course of our Indian rule of which we cannot approve. Acts have been done which we are bound to condemn; but to my mind it is untrue, and it is unfounded, to say that the great fabric of our Indian Empire, the most wonderful, perhaps, in some respects, of any of which we read in the history of the world, has been founded upon, and has been built up by the adoption of a mean and trivial policy like this. Against this, my Lords, I protest. It is easy enough to produce proofs of the injustice of this accusation. I will not trouble your Lordships with more than two, and two of a somewhat recent date. When my noble Friend, the Earl of Northbrook, was Viceroy of India, and at the time when a Gaekwar of Baroda had been removed from his Government for misrule, my noble Friend had to seek out for a now native administrator of the State of Baroda. What did he do? Did he try to find out some wretched mediocrity who would be nothing but a tool in the hands of the British Resident? Not at all. He sought for the ablest statesman to be found in India itself; be se-

997
lected the late Sir Madhava Rao, and selected him to be Dewan of Baroda. Again, take the case of the late Sir Salar Jung. The Government of India had differences of opinion with Sir Salar Jung, and they expressed their opinions very frankly, but when Sir Salar Jung died (I was in India at the time myself), what was the feeling of the Government of India? Was it a feeling that an able man had been taken away who was dangerous to us, and that it was a very good thing that we had got rid of him? Exactly the reverse. We felt, and we knew, that Sir Salar Jung had rendered great services to the people and to the State of Hyderabad, and to the Nizam, and we felt that we had lost in him a man of whom India might be proud, and that we should find it exceedingly difficult, as we did find it exceedingly difficult—nay, my Lords, we found it impossible—to get anybody who was really fit to take his place. And then, my Lords, we are to be told forsooth that this policy, this love of mediocrity, this attempt to cast down everything in the nature of intelligence or talent, is the policy of the Government of India. But, my Lords, there are some persons who have been giving a very startling explanation of the utterances to which I am alluding. They have said that the speaker was not thinking at all of Governments in India, either past or present, but was thinking of Governments nearer home. There have even been men who have had the audacity to say that the true Tarquinius Superbus sits on the Bench before me. My Lords, I will not attempt to pronounce upon these delicate questions, but of this I am sure, that the Princes and the people of India will not give credence to that explanation. They do not understand the ways of public life in this country, and the queer things that are sometimes done in it. They will never be persuaded to look for the Roman tyrant on the Treasury Bench. They will be sure to expect to find him enthroned on the heights of Simla. That is the mischief of these rash and cynical declarations, and a very grievous mischief it is. They will be repeated in every native newspaper in India; the will be discussed in every bazaar; they will be commented upon with pain and anxiety
998
by our friends, and with secret triumph by our enemies; they will alarm every Native Prince in India, and will fill with disgust, aye, and indignation, the minds of many able men fired with a just and natural ambition who are to be found now largely in that country. I am afraid, my Lords, that it will be impossible altogether to get rid of the mischief effected in India of declarations of this kind made, if not with the authority, at least on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but there is only one way in which the mischief can be stopped, that is by a clear and distinct declaration from the noble Viscount opposite, which I am sure, I hope and trust, he will give us to-night in repudiation of these doctrines. It will not be a very pleesant thing for my noble Friend to have to do, and I am very sorry to invite him to do it, but in the interests of our rule in India, aye, and I will go further, I will say for the vindication of our fair fame it is essential that the noble Lord should repudiate these doctrines, and that they should be repudiated by him to-night in clear, decisive, and unmistakeable terms. Now, my Lords, before I pass on to some questions connected with the future administration of Manipur, I wish to say one word upon a matter which does not arise directly out of these Papers, but which has been alluded to in another place, and upon which I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to express my opinion. It has been suggested that it would be an improvement in our system of Indian administration if a new Member were added to the Council of the Governor General, who should be specially charged with the management of foreign affairs. I deprecate any such change in the present system. The Viceroy is now, and has been for a very long time, at all events, in direct and personal charge' of the Foreign Department, and according to my view of the matter it is right that he should continue to be so, because I hold it to be very necessary indeed that the head of the Government should have a distinct hold and a clear knowledge of all the details of our dealings with Native States. In a question of this kind (and this Manipur story seems almost to show it) it is very easy for mistakes to arise from small beginnings. What is done in one State

999
is closely watched by all the other States, and you may give a great deal of offence to the Native Chiefs generally, without perhaps even thinking of it, unless you have it constantly before your minds. The Viceroy is a man sent out from England, trained in English public life, and acquainted with English feelings. He is, or at all events he ought to be, in the closest and most confidential communication with Her Majesty's Government. He knows their views not only upon Indian foreign matters, but upon other foreign matters which are connected with Indian questions. He is in possession of information of a most secret and confidential character, and I venture to say that he, and he alone, is really fit to deal with the management of Native States. If he is only to deal with questions when they have been got into a difficulty, or when matters of particular importance arise, he will not have, he cannot have, that close and daily knowledge and interest in those questions which he ought to have, and I am quite certain that the arrangement will not work better, bat rather that it will work considerably worse than the present arrangement. And, again, I am very certain that this change, if it were made, would be highly distasteful to the Native Princes of India. They set great store by dealing directly with the Viceroy. They are very sensitive, and would be highly offended if anybody was to be interposed between them and the head of the Indian Government. I should not, my Lords, have perhaps touched upon this matter if it had not been that seme words fell from the Secretary of State for War in another place which seemed to give some encouragement to this idea. They did not, however, pledge the Government at all, and I hope we shall hear from my noble Friend opposite that having had some few days to consider it he is not inclined to make this change. If there was anything wrong, any mismanagement in the Foreign Office in regard to these affairs at Manipur, I venture to say that it arose from this single fact, that the Foreign Secretary, a very able Foreign Secretary he is, my friend, Sir Mortimer Durand, was absent from India on sick leave during the whole of this time. But that may happen under any system, and it is no reason
1000
for changing your system that it may have led in this particular case (I do not say it was so) to results which were lamentable. Now, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words about the future course to be-pursued in regard to the State of Manipur. In the first place, I would say one word about the trials that have been going on in that country. It is light, nay, it is necessary, that condign punishment should be awarded to those who have had any hand in the massacre of our officers. Upon that point I entertain no doubt whatever, but I see it to-day stated in the newspapers—and the only information available to us upon the point is from the newspapers—that the Regent has been acquitted of any complicity in the murder of Mr. Quinton and his companions, but that he has been found guilty of what is in reality the crime of high treason, and that he has been condemned to death. Well, my Lords, I fully hope and believe that the noble Viscount will tell us to-night, or, if he cannot do that, that he will come speedily to the conclusion that it will not be right to carry out that death sentence in this case. The circumstances are very different from those of the men who were engaged in any way in the massacre. I think to carry out that death sentence in this case would weaken the effect of the example of the punishment of the men who were concerned in the murders, and I venture to express the hope that the noble Viscount will be able to draw a distinction between this case and the others, and to admit the plea of mercy to a certain extent in regard to those who were not, in fact, engaged in the massacre. My Lords, the point that I am most particularly anxious about in respect to the whole of this question is to obtain, if possible, from the noble Viscount opposite a declaration as to the principle upon which he proposes to deal with Manipur in the future. I do not ask him—of course it would be quite unreasonable—to give us any details. I do not ask him to say what member of the family he is going to put upon the Gaddi. There is the old Maharajah, who never sinned against us at all events, and who never was accused of cruelty or oppression towards his people. There is his son; there may be

1001
others for aught I know, who may be available for the purpose. I ask for no information, and I express no opinion as to the detailed manner in which the principle is to be carried out. But I do most earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to say that they do not favour the idea of annexation. There is a party in India who are always anxious for annexation, who are ready to cry out for annexation whenever opportunity offers, and they are following their usual course upon this occasion. There is nothing whatever, I am happy to say, to show that that policy is favoured either by the Government in India or by the Government at home. I do, therefore, very earnestly hope that we shall have it disavowed to-night. The Native Princes of India watch with the most singular closeness—perhaps it is not singular, but with the most minute closeness—every step which is taken with regard to every Native State in India whatsoever. I could give you, if I had the time, many curious instances of that kind. They are always on the watch. They study what is said in Parliament; they get our Blue Books read and described to them, and they know exactly the principles which we have professed and the acts which we have done; and I can assure you that the annexation of Manipur would give a great shake to the confidence of the Native Princes of India. They rely upon the Proclamation of the Queen, in which Her Majesty was advised, most wisely and justly, distinctly to disavow any desire for an increase of territory. They rely upon that, and any deviation from that policy would shake their confidence and would be very mischievous. Therefore, I do earnestly beg the noble Viscount opposite to give us a statement upon that matter to-day, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that in spite of all the complications and difficulties with which this question of Manipur is surrounded—and I do not at all desire to underrate them—Her Majesty's Government will do nothing to impair the confidence or excite the fears of the Native Princes and Chiefs of India, who believe that their rights now rest firmly on the gracious pledges of the Royal Proclamation, and that they may dwell in peace and in security under the protection of
1002
the British Crown. I beg, my Lords, to move that further Papers be laid before the House.
Moved, "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for further correspondence relating to Manipur."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am quite sure I have nothing whatever to complain of in the way in which the noble Marquess has brought forward his case upon this matter. It was undoubtedly quite right that the question should be submitted to your Lordships for inquiry, and no one is more glad than myself to be able to state from my place in this House to your Lordships my views of the conduct of the Government of India in this question. I think it is only right for the Government of India itself that those views should be stated, and I am one of those who regret very much that I have not had an earlier opportunity of making a statement on behalf of the Viceroy than I have to-night. Probably, before I enter into the whole question of Manipur, I might be allowed to deal with those one or two points which the noble Marquess raised just before he sat down. First of all, as to the question of annexation, I think your Lordships will agree with me when I state that before I could make any definite statement to your Lordships upon that point I must wait till I hear the opinion of the Government of India and the views which they may have to present to me for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but I have no hesitation in stating, as a broad principle, that I individually have not, and I am sure the Viceroy has not, the smallest wish to add to those territories in British India which we already possess, and it would only be under the most absolute necessity of annexation that we would adopt that course. For think, my Lords, what it really means. It would mean, in the first place, probably the punishment of a great number of people who had committed no offences against us at all. It would probably throw upon us the direct responsibility for the behaviour of the savage tribes in the neighbourhood of that country. It would involve the application of the cumbrous machinery of our British law to that State at, I think, considerable

1003
expense and considerable trouble. It would involve a very large expenditure in any case, and it would probably give rise to discontent amongst the inhabitants of that country where the collections of revenue have been very carelessly carried out, and where, if they were properly carried out, discontent would be quite certain to arise. And it might give rise among the other Native Chiefs to a mistaken idea of the policy we want to adopt towards them. But supposing that the state of facts were such as to make it an absolute necessity that we should annex Manipur, I think that even those Native Princes would see that the circumstances of the case were very peculiar, and could not be of general application. All I can say at the present moment, as at present advised, is that I am decidedly against annexation—against any annexation—but I can give no opinion at all upon the annexation of this particular Province until I hear the opinion of the Viceroy and the reasons he may have to give. And I will say the same with regard to the trials. I quite admit that there is a great distinction between those persons who are found guilty of murder, or even of abetting murder, and those who are found guilty of waging war, although the latter, by the Indian Code, as the noble Marquess knows perfectly well, are liable to be punished by death. I am quite certain that your Lordships may trust to the mercy as well as to the justice of Lord Lansdowne in any recommendations that he makes in matters of this kind. His views are not likely to reach me for some little time. I understand that the Senapatti, who has been condemned to death, has made an appeal to the Viceroy to be allowed to petition in his favour, and that some three weeks have been granted to him to draw up his Petition. I presume the same course will be adopted in the case of Jubraj. Therefore, some time must necessarily elapse before we know the result of his deliberations. There is only one other point that the noble Marquess has mentioned which I should like to mention before treating with the general subject, and that is the suggestion that was made in the other House the other night about a Foreign Member of the Council. That suggestion, I think, was made by someone who
1004
sat on the Opposition side of the House—Mr. Bryce. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for War—very naturally—said that the suggestion was one that required consideration. I have considered that question in the short time that has elapsed since that Debate, and the more I look upon it I must say the more I dislike it. I think that what the noble Marquess has said is perfectly true, and that great evils might arise. At the same time, I am very happy to state that we have taken steps already to strengthen the Foreign Department by the appointment of an Assistant Secretary at an increased salary, so that that Department may practically be stronger for the future than it hitherto has been. Now, my Lords, I have answered the main points of the noble Marquess outside the case itself. With regard to the case of Manipur itself, I should like to put my views as shortly as I can before your Lordships, and also the views of the Viceroy himself. I would make this first proposition to your Lordships, which I do not think anyone will dispute, namely, that it is the right and the duty of the British Government to settle the successions in all the dependent States, that every succession may be recognised by the British Government, and that no succession is valid until it has been so recognised. I believe that is a principle thoroughly understood throughout the whole of India, and one of universal application. It is a principle which is of very vital importance when we come to discuss the case a little later on. But if the principle is true in general, it is more especially applicable to the State of Manipur. The State of Manipur is one practically of our own creation. Your Lordships are perfectly aware of the quarrels that took place between them. In 1826 we first recognised as a ruling Sovereign the Rajah of Manipur. We have always interfered with the internal affairs of Manipur from that day to this. In 1833 we made a Treaty with them, and by that Treaty we were to have very great advantages, and to be enabled to call upon them for support and assistance in many ways; not only for making roads, but also in case of war, and in cases of disturbance and other matters. In 1834 we went so far in interfering with the State of Manipur that

1005
we ordered them to give up one of the valleys which they had taken and hand it back to the Burmese on receiving from them a payment of something like 500 rupees a month. In 1835, when that Rajah died, we recognised the infant son, and we said that he should be the Rajah under his uncle, who was the Regent. Some little time afterwards the Queen-mother attempted to murder this uncle, and fled away with the infant Prince. We then stepped in, and we recognised the uncle as Rajah. We set aside the succession altogether and recognised the uncle. He lived and ruled till the year 1850. We then brought back the infant who had grown up and who had been guilty of no offence in former times, and we placed him upon the Throne, so that we have interfered continually. In 1888, when the Rajah was ill, we recognised his nest successor as the next in order, and during the lifetime of the last Rajah, who has just run away, we again recognised the Jubaraj as his successor. Nothing can be clearer than the letters themselves, both of the Maharajah, who has gone, and of the man who is sitting there temporarily, whom we have just acknowledged, In the letters of both of them they acknowledge as absolutely as men can the actual supremacy of our power, and request its assistance and public recognition by it. That, my Lords, is the second point which I wanted to place before you—I wanted to show that when the Rajah had been recognised by us, especially in Manipur, we had always found it our duty to support him against all comers. We did that especially in 1847, when the refugee Prince, after the Queen-mother and he had run away, attempted to invade that country. We told them that if they stirred towards the borders of Manipur and made any disturbance in that territory they must be immediately removed to Bengal. We interfered again in 1850, in 1851, and 1852; and then it was that took place that occurrence to which the noble Marquess has already alluded. We formally undertook to support the Rajah against all comers, and not to allow him to be attacked in his seat, or to allow any attempt to disturb him from his Throne. We did so again in 1862, in 1864, and in 1866. So that,
1006
historically speaking, from the very first, in Manipur, we have felt that it was thrown upon us to interfere whenever it was necessary with the internal affairs of that State, and the State has always acknowledged our suzerainty and our sovereignty, and the Government have interfered always to protect the Ruler of that State against those who rose up against him, and against the paramount Power. I feel that those three propositions which I have just placed before your Lordships are of great importance, when we come to consider the rest of this case. Now, my Lords, I come to the rising which took place in September of last year. That rising against the Maharajah in September, I venture to say, was an unlawful revolt, if ever there was one. It was an unlawful revolt against the man who was reigning there, who was recognised by us, and it was a revolt which the paramount Power could not allow to succeed. We should have been perfectly justified then in marching straight into Manipur to the assistance of the Maharajah if there had been time and opportunity to do so. What was the first thing that Mr. Quinton did? Mr. Grimwood telegraphed to Mr. Quinton the moment this disturbance had taken place. That was on the 22nd September. He telegraphed to him on the 22nd September, and told him what had taken place, and the answer of Mr. Quinton at once was—
"You can apply for troops at Kohima. You can have your troops in support of the Maharajah,"—
(that is the policy we have always pursued in this State of Manipur)
"and if the Maharajah of Manipur is threatened by his subjects and this revolt, there are the troops for you to support him, just as we supported the former Maharajah."
And there can be little doubt that if the Maharajah had remained where he was those troops would have gone, and he would have been replaced on the Throne, and there can be no doubt, at the same time, if that had taken place the Senapatti would have been banished as a man who was dangerous to the peace of the State. I do not think your Lordships can imagine for a moment that there would be the smallest doubt that that would have been the result if it had not been for one particular circumstance,

1007
and that was that the Maharajah was so frightened with what had gone on in the Palace, he was so much in fear of the Senapatti, his brother, that he ran away. What was the origin of this revolt? As Mr. Grim wood tells us, it was the quarrel between two of these brothers—Pucca Sena and the Senapatti. They seem to have been the most powerful of the family. It was, no doubt, a great misfortune in a State like Manipur that there should have been seven brothers living together in such a small country. Quarrels naturally occurred, and of the seven brothers some took one side and some the other; Pucca Sena had a certain following, and the Senapatti had another, and the Maharajah was not strong enough to keep the peace between them. That was the primary cause of the outrage that took place. The immediate cause was a very trifling matter. It arose from a slight which had been supposed to be given to two of the younger brothers. They were the people who first started the firing in the Palace, but the moment it began the Senapatti came to the front, and there was no doubt whatever that he was the leader of the revolt. That is admitted on all sides, and as I have told your Lordships, if the old Maharajah had remained in Manipur, undoubtedly our troops would have gone from Kohima and replaced him, and undoubtedly at that time the Senapatti would have been removed from the State, not because he was an able man, not because he was an independent man, but because, whether he was or was not able or independent, he used such powers as he had to the mischief of the State and to the disturbance of the happiness and peace of the country. The notion that a man is to be removed from the State simply because he is an able man or an independent man is a notion, to my mind, so utterly repugnant to all common-sense, to all our practice either in India or elsewhere, that I really cannot imagine that such a statement could have been made. I am quite sure, if any words of mine have any weight with the Princes of India, they need have no fear whatever, so far as the Viceroy and the British Government are concerned, as to their removing any man because he is able or independent. They would thankfully welcome him
1008
and wish there were more such men. The difficulty is not to remove them; the difficulty is to find them. We can find work for all the able men and all the independent men from one end of India to the other. My Lords, the Maharajah runs away, and then what is to be done? The Jubraj had taken no part whatever in the revolt. The moment it had begun he went some eight miles away from Manipur; not wishing to take part either of one side or the other. But when the old Maharajah left, then the Jubraj came back and took possession of the Gaddi. He wrote to the Viceroy and told him that he had done so, and asked specially that he might be recognised. Mr. Grim wood knew at all events, and Mr. Grimwood also knew, that the Jubraj was perfectly aware of the fact, that until his being there had been recognised by the British Government his reign practically was illegal. When the Maharajah had got away and had once got across the borders, and felt that he was safe, he changed his mind and denied, in fact, that he had ever tendered his abdication. I think if your Lordships will look at the Papers, you will see that Mr. Grimwood's account is quite substantial. That this man was so frightened that undoubtedly he did tender his abdication. I think there cannot be a doubt about that. However, his own story is that when he got to the border and opened his passport, or whatever it was, and found he was stated in that to have abdicated, he immediately denied that any such abdication had taken place. What he did was at once to telegraph to Mr. Quinton to say that he was going to submit a representation to the Government of India, in order to be restored, and he hoped that that would receive a favourable consideration at the hands of the Government. Mr. Quinton very properly said that any representa-that he made should have the proper attention of the Government of India. So it would have had—so it had. Then there is a matter which has a very important bearing upon one point which the noble Marquess raised, and which Mr. Quinton distinctly stated to Mr. Grimwood in the first instance in his first telegram, which I think the noble Marquess had overlooked. It seems

1009
to me one of the most important questions in the whole matter. It appears quite in the early part of the book, and I think the noble Marquess must have turned over the page without seeing it. What are Mr. Quinton's instructions to Mr. Grimwood? On the 23rd September he says, "Yours of yesterday. The Jubraj may be acknowledged as Regent"—now, mark the words that come afterwards—"till sanction of Government has been obtained." That is the whole starting-point of the thing. To say that that man has been reigning there for six months, believing that he was acknowledged by the Government of India, in face of these words which were used by Mr. Grimwood on the 23rd September, is, it seems to me, an impossible suggestion. When Mr. Quinton writes to the Government of India on the 9th October, almost immediately after the telegram that he has received from the Maharajah, what does he say? The officiating Secretary says—
"It will be observed that the Chief Commissioner has expressed his readiness to give his best consideration to any representation which the Maharajah may submit and pending its receipt"
(the hon. Marquess seems to have missed this too)—
"Mr. Quinton would suggest that it might be well to defer passing any orders in regard to the succession of the Jubraj,"
So that Mr. Quinton tells the Government of India at once that this representation is coming, and he says, "Please hold your hands till you have got it, and do not pass any orders about the succession of the Jubraj until you have received this representation which the Maharajah is going to send." Surely nothing can be clearer than that this man could not for a moment fancy that he was there with the sanction of the Government after the communication I have just read from Mr. Quinton and the letter which was telegraphed to Mr. Grimwood. Now, the noble Marquess refers to the delay, and there is no doubt that a considerable time was taken up before the final orders of the Government of India were made. Bat a great part of that delay is due to the consideration that had to be given, I do not like to trouble your Lordships with dates, but the matter is so important that, with your Lordships' permission, I will just
1010
mention a few of them. It is necessary that you should follow what happened. On the 9th October Mr. Quinton informed the Government of India that a representation might be expected from the Maharajah. The representation was sent by the Maharajah on the 14th November. It reached Mr. Quinton on the 19th. On the 22nd November Mr. Quinton very properly forwarded that representation to Mr. Grimwood for his observations. It takes some 10 or 11 days to get from Assam to Manipur, and that letter from Mr. Quinton only reached Mr. Grimwood about 11 days after it was sent. On the 4th December Mr. Grim wood writes to Mr. Quinton and makes a report on the case. That Report is received by Mr. Quinton on the 15th December. On the 31st December Mr. Quinton writes to the Viceroy a letter which the Viceroy receives on the 8th of January. Therefore, if there has been any delay up to that time it has not been any delay on the part of the Government of India. It has been because the Maharajah took some little time in drawing up his Report: then that had first of all to go to Mr. Quinton, and then to Mr. Grimwood, and then back again to the Government of India afterwards. On the 24th the Government of India replied that they wished to restore the Maharajah. There is no wonder that they should do so. The Maharajah, as the noble Marquess has said, had never offended the Government of India in any way. He may not have been a very strong ruler, he may not have been able to keep his brothers in order, but still, so far as we are concerned, we had no cause of complaint against him. Quite the contrary. He had on more than one occasion rendered us very valuable assistance. He had offered to send troops to Kohima. He had also rendered considerable assistance in the Burma expedition, and also in the Mahratta war, and had shown that he was our sincere friend. Therefere, there was every reason why the Viceroy should wish not to let this man go. And it is clear that the Viceroy was so strongly impressed with that, that, although he had got Mr. Quinton's and Mr. Grimwood's views to the contrary, he thought it wise to write a strong remonstrance to Mr. Quinton about it, which he did on the 24th January. On the 9th

1011
February comes a direct appeal from the Maharajah to the Viceroy and Mr. Quinton's answers to the Viceroy's objections to his former letter arrives on the same day. Now, Mr. Quinton was going to Calcutta on the 11th or 12th. Therefore the Viceroy thought it was quite necessary to stay till he came and had communications with him personally. After that, Mr. Quinton had evidently been asked to consider the effect of all those conversations and to put down in writing his final views. This he does on returning to Assam on the 19th February, and on the 21st February the Viceroy gives his final orders. Now, your Lordships will see, I think, that the whole desire and wish of the Viceroy has been, up to that moment to support the old Maharajah, if it had been possible for him to do so. I am quite sure that that is a desire which would commend itself to all the Native Chiefs from one end of India to the other. Here had been a terrible revolt, and in consequence of the revolt the Maharajah had had to run away from his throne. It must be a matter of satisfaction to all the other Indian Chiefs to know that under these circumstances if there is a revolt of this kind the Government of India will stand by the Ruler, and will go against those who revolt against him; but I should like to read to your Lordships one sentence—I will not trouble you with many of these quotations—one sentence in which the Viceroy communicates his reasons for, at all events, yielding. It will be found on the 26th page of the Blue Book, paragraphs 5 and 6—
"It was not, however, so clear whether the Jubraj should be placed in the Gaddi, or whether the Maharajah should be restored. You do not hesitate to recommend the former. The Maharajah is described as a miserably weak man, and you recall his vacillation in 1888, when he disregarded the advice which was given to him, and failed to punish the Sanapatti, thereby, as his Highness acknowledges in his letter of 9th February, bringing upon himself his present misfortunes. You anticipate that the Maharajah's restoration would involve the necessity of strengthening the garrison at Manipur, and give rise to frequent occasions for interference in support of the Ruler, as well as in the internal affairs of the State. It has already been intimated to you that in the opinion of the Governor General in Council, whatever arrangement is come to in the affairs of the Manipur State, must be brought about with the full sanction of the British Government, His Excellency in Council accepts your
1012
opinion that it will be to the advantage of Manipur, and to the furtherance of British interests, to recognise the Jubraj rather than restore the Maharajah."
That is the close of the chapter so far as that part of the case is concerned. But now let us go on. The noble Marquess says there were two courses open. There was the course either to support the old Maharajah, and there was the course to support the person who was in authority at the moment. Those were the only two practicable courses. But the noble Marquess goes on to say that the Viceroy had a compromise. I think anything further from a compromise that he made could not possibly be imagined. What compromise was there? What remained really for the Viceroy to consider was this. There had been a revolt by which the Maharajah had been dismissed from his throne. There had been a revolt against his Chief. There had been a revolt against the wishes of the paramount Power. That revolt was not to go unpunished. What would have been thought of the case of Manipur by the other Indian Native Princes, if it had been said that we put this man on the throne, and that the man who has caused the revolt, and who is driving away the old Maharajah is to remain in power unpunished and no notice is to be taken of it? I think there was no other course for the Viceroy to take than to say that this man had to go. He had to go, not because he was able, not because he was independent; but he had to go for the reasons which the Viceroy himself urged, and which your Lordships will find on the 20th page of the Blue Book, and for those reasons alone. In the 7th paragraph it says—
"The Senapatti has more than once incurred the displeasure of the Government of India on account of the violence of his conduct, and if the Maharajah, in 1888, had not been afraid of his turbulent brother, he would have been banished from the State. The Maharajah whom we have recognised as the Ruler of Manipur, has now been ousted by a cabal in his own family led by this man, and if the British Government acquiesce in the present state of affairs, and recognise the Jubraj as Ruler of Manipur, the Senapatti will wield the real power in the State. The Government of India cannot regard occurrences, of this kind with indifference."
Now, my Lords, of course they cannot. Mention has been made of two instances in which this man's character had shown itself before. One in 1881 and one in

1013
1888. In another place those were treated rather as slight matters. One took place, by the bye, when the noble Marquess opposite was Viceroy. The Rajah had punished his brother; the Political Agent asked the noble Marquess to say that that punishment was not enough, and to interfere, and to have a Court of Inquiry. The noble Marquess very properly said—
"He has been punished by the proper authority. I am not going to interfere."
That is all quite right. But when it came before the Government of India, in 1888, it was a very different story. The Government of India write in this sense to the Maharajah about the punishment of his brother. This is the deliberate judgment of the Government of India at that time—
"This is not the first instance in which the inhuman conduct of the Senapatti has been brought to the notice of the Government of India, and although ordinarily the Governor General in Council would not interfere if the brother of a Native Chief illtreated a subject of the State, the circumstances of the present offence are such as to justify a departure from our usual policy. I am, therefore, to state that the Governor General in Council approves of your addressing a letter to the Maharajah, and advising the banishment of this man from the Manipur State for a year. You may tell the Maharajah that His Excellency the Viceroy (that is Lord Dufferin) has seen the correspondence; that he much regrets to hear of such cruelty having boon practised by the Maharajah's brother, and that as this is not the first offence of the kind which has been brought home to him, His Excellency thinks that he should be severely punished."
Now, there are grounds for thinking that this was a bad man; there are grounds for thinking that this man was a turbulent character, and that his presence in the State was undoubtedly mischievous. The last word of the Government of India, when they finally say that he is to be removed, is to this effect. It is to be found on pages 25 and 26—
"It is evident that the Jubraj owes his present position rather to the successful issue of his brother's insurrection than to the authority of the British Government, and that, while the Senapatti remains in Manipur unpunished for his treachery against his eldest brother, the Maharajah, the real power in the State, will be in the Senapatti's hands. This is not a state of affairs which the Government of India can view with indifference, nor would it be to the credit of the British power any more than to the interests of the people of Manipur itself that the Governor General in Council should acquiesce in such a settlement
1014
of the case. As I have already, in my letter above cited, informed you, the Governor General in Council considers that it will be desirable that the Senapatti should be removed from Manipur and punished for his lawless conduct."
My Lords, I think I have shown this, that in the opinion of the Government of India, and as I think rightly, this man was a dangerous man to the peace of the State of Manipur. This man had been the leader of the revolt. He had practically made himself a sort of chief of the Praetorian Guard, and there was no sense of security, and there could not be while that man was in Manipur. He was the leader of the revolt, and as the leader of the revolt the Governor General came, in my opinion, to the wise determination that he ought to be removed from the State. Then the Viceroy writes to Mr. Quinton—
"In the opinion of the Government of India it is desirable that you should visit Manipur and make known on the spot the decision which the Governor General in Council desires you to enforce. You should take with you a sufficient force, even though opposition may not be expected, and you should report for the orders of the Government of India the conditions which you propose to attach to the recognition as Maharajah of Manipur of the present Jubraj."
Upon that Mr. Quinton makes his preparations, and he sends that telegram which has been already alluded to, in which he tells the Viceroy what he proposes to do. Those propositions which Mr. Quinton so telegraphed to the Viceroy received the Viceroy's approval. Now, there is an end of the Viceroy's action in this matter. There is nothing in the subsequent proceedings which touches the Viceroy himself or the Government of India. And I ask your Lordships whether the Viceroy was not right in the course he adopted. It was his duty to settle the disputed succession in this State of Manipur. He had striven hard to continue, if he could have done so, the old Maharajah in Manipur. He yielded at last, and with great difficulty, to the opinions of Mr. Grimwood and Mr. Quinton, but he stipulated that this man who had been the leader of the revolt should not go unpunished; and I venture to say that the judgment to which the Viceroy came would commend itself to the Chief of every native State in India, because he had done his best to maintain the man in power, and he

1015
had done his best to show that anyone who revolted against his own Chief and against the paramount Power should not be allowed to remain in the State. Now, my Lords, having dealt with everything I have to deal with, I think, so far as the Viceroy of India is concerned, I must say one word about what took place afterwards. I, no more than the noble Marquess opposite, want to say more than I can possibly help with regard to any of those unfortunate officers who lost their lives upon this occasion. There is a strict inquiry going on at the present moment by the Viceroy to find out everything he can with regard to what actually did take place. Until the Report of that inquiry comes, no word of mine shall throw blame either on one person or on another. The noble Marquess asked me about the force and the ammunition. I would only say that the orders of the Viceroy were to take a sufficient force. It was not for him to say what force was sufficient and what was not. Colonel Johnstone, who wrote to the Times some time ago, said that 200 or 300 men would have been quite sufficient. With regard to the ammunition, they did take 40 rounds. I understand that General Collett first told them that they were to take a considerable quantity more; but no doubt the roads were very bad, and transport was very difficult (although, I think, that might have been overcome if it had been necessary), and they left with only 40 rounds. But after they had left, General Collett had some doubts about it (and I do not wonder), and he telegraphed to Mr. Quinton to say that they would find at Kohima some more ammunition if they chose to take it—that it was entirely at their service. Unfortunately, they did not take that ammunition, and they apparently had been relying upon some 13,500 rounds of ammunition, which were at Manipur, and which they found there, and which were actually used. Still, I am disposed to think that the quantity taken was not enough, but that will be investigated when the time comes. No doubt there was a series of blunders, it may be of civil, it may be of military people; there are a great many things it is impossible to understand. It is impossible to understand how the troops got placed as they were; it is
1016
impossible to understand how it came to pass that, after the Manipur is had been victorious, our officers should have attempted to treat with the enemy; it is quite impossible to understand these things. I confess I cannot do so. But there are one or two things in respect to Mr. Quinton about which I want to say a word or two—in his favour. I think I am only bound to do so. The noble Marquess has talked about the secrecy with which he moved. There is no doubt that Mr. Quinton did mean to keep this secret. The misfortune was (and it is a misfortune which I hope will never happen again, because it has been remedied) that there is no cypher in Manipur with which Mr. Quinton could communicate to the Resident. He dare not telegraph en clair, and there was no cypher that he could use. Therefore, until he got somehow into communication with Mr. Grimwood, he could not tell him what really was going to happen. His assistant Commissioner, Mr. Gurdon, went to Manipur, and there he explained what Mr. Quinton was going to do. Oddly enough, Mr. Grimwood thought, and so I understand it was given out in Manipur, that when the troops were coming they were to bring back the old Maharajah. That was the view that Mr. Quinton himself had, and that was the view we are told that was popularly put about in Manipur itself. There is no doubt Mr. Grimwood objected altogether to the proposal, and he objected altogether to the Senapatti being deported; but he eventually came to the following compromise with Mr. Gurdon: If the orders for the deportation of the Senapatti provided that in the event of his good behaviour he should be allowed to return after a certain period—the length of such period depending entirely on his conduct—then Mr. Grimwood was prepared to give a reluctant assent. Therefore, you will find in that telegram which was sent by Mr. Quinton to the Viceroy those words—that it was to be seen how he behaved, and if he behaved well he was to be allowed to come back. I only want to defend Mr. Quinton from any undue secrecy, which I think the noble Marquess rather cast in his teeth. Now, my Lords, there is one other matter, and that is about the treachery. I agree

1017
with the noble Marquess that Mr. Quinton was a man incapable of treachery; and I also agree that no treachery was ever contemplated by anybody in this case, of that I feel absolutely certain. There is no doubt that there are durbars and durbars. You may have a durbar which is a mere Court ceremony, and if you were to ask a man to come there and then put him in prison, that would be a breach of faith, undoubtedly of the grossest character. But this was a durbar which was held as a Court, and everybody knew it was a Court, and everybody knew that the decision of the Government was going to be pronounced in that Court; nobody had any other notion than that. I mean the Senapatti was not allured into this place, he was not induced to come there under false pretences—in fact, he never came at all. If any treachery had ever been intended it was carried out in such a clumsy way that the bird was effectually frightened from coming into the net. But I am only now concerned to defend Mr. Quinton against the notion that there was ever any treachery thought of in this case. Now, as to the durbar itself. Was it right or was it not right under any circumstances to arrest a man in the durbar? Well, I have made every inquiry which I can from those who are most conversant with Indian affairs in this country, and, with the exception of those precedents which were quoted in the other House, and have been alluded to to-night, of Sir Robert Sandeman, I can hear of no precedent where a man was summoned to durbar even as a Court where he was arrested. And the Secretary of State for War the other night, with my fall assent, after a conversation with him, stated in the other House what I state in this House frankly and fairly, that it is a practice which I individually should entirely discourage. I do not think it is a proper thing to do, and I should be very sorry to see this case taken as a precedent. It was stated, I think, in the other House that the Viceroy was responsible for this. Nothing could possibly be further from the fact. This arrest in durbar was never thought of until the 21st March. On the 21st March Mr. Quinton, Colonel Skene, Mr. Grimwood, and one or two others met at Sengmai, four miles from Manipur, and there the matter was fully
1018
discussed. I have the whole Paper here, and everything that was said about it; it is a paper which will be laid before Parliament as soon as it can be printed. Then you will see that the whole question was discussed for the very first time, and the Viceroy had no more notion that the Senapatti was going to be arrested in durbar than I had myself. If your Lordships will look at the Papers you will see that it was not until the 7th of May that the Viceroys heard, practically, that this attempt at arrest in durbar had been made. Therefore, I think, you will see that not a word can be said against the Viceroy so far as the durbar is concerned. I know it was stated elsewhere that after it had been done the Viceroy in a long telegram, which you will find in the Blue Book, gave a qualified sanction to it. Granted; but it is one thing to order a thing; it is another to excuse an act which is done by your subordinate. They seem to me to stand on totally different grounds; and I maintain most strongly and stoutly that that was never contemplated by the Viceroy from the first, and that he never knew anything at all about it until a long time after it had taken place. My Lords, I have, I am afraid, detained you a considerable time. I hope I have put the case of the Viceroy, at all events, before your Lordships in a plain and in telligible way. I cannot sit down without bearing my testimony, if it is wanted, to the gallant conduct of Major Grant. He has shown what a few troops can do. I should also like to bear my testimony to the courage and the physical endurance and patience of Mrs. Grimwood. The gravest responsibilities rest upon our Viceroys and upon our Governor Generals in the Dependencies and Colonies of all the distant parts of this great Empire. If they fail in their duty, it is, no doubt, within the competence of Parliament, and it is one of the highest and at the same time one of the most painful duties of the Government of the day, either to censure or to recall them. But if you have no fault to find—and I would say that the actions of persons placed in those difficult positions are to be discussed in no carping or critical spirit—they are entitled to that which I am quite sure they ought to and will receive always in this country—to an ungrudging and a generous

1019
support. In the case of the present Viceroy of India, I should like to bear my humble testimony to the zeal and efficiency and ability with which he has discharged the high duties of his office. He has maintained untarnished the honour of the British name. He has cultivated the most cordial relations with all the Native States of India. He has greatly added to the strength of the defences of the Empire. And, above all, he has done much to improve both the social and the moral condition of all the various races and peoples committed to his charge. I trust your Lordships will agree with me and with Her Majesty's Government in thinking that Lord Lansdowne is deserving of the unabated confidence of his Sovereign, of Parliament, and of his country.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I hope that the able, clear, and most judicial speech which we have just heard from my noble Friend opposite will set at rest in the public mind any doubts which may have arisen, either as to the policy or the moral straightforwardness of the conduct of the Government of India. When I saw upon the Paper a notice by my noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me, I felt quite sure that from his own personal character and from the recent date at which he had filled the highest office in India, he would present this subject to the House with judgment and in the most temperate language. But I am bound to say that, although the expectation was entirely fulfilled, he did present to this House a narrative of affairs which materially differed in its impression from that which I have derived from a perusal of these Papers. My noble Friend opposite, the noble Marquess, has pointed out two or three mistakes which the noble Marquess made in the few adverse observations which he made bearing upon the policy of the Government of India. In the first place, my noble Friend distinctly misunderstood the facts, as I think, when he said that there was an immediate recognition of the present Regent, and that any subsequent conduct in derogation of that recognition was a second thought on the part of the Government of India. The noble Marquess, as far as I can see, was entirely wrong in that supposition, because
1020
on page 5 of the Blue-Book to which the noble Viscount has referred, I see that the Government of India say,—
"Jubaraj may be acknowledged as Regent till sanction of the Government is received; "
and that was immediately after the outbreak in September, and upon that footing it remained during the whole of the six months before the Government of India came to its final decision. I have no doubt that my noble Friend the noble Marquess had not observed the telegram, because he went on for many weeks and months, and quoted a few words which seem to imply that there had been a fall recognition from the very beginning, and that the Government of India had retracted its policy in consequence of the advice of its local officers. Now, again, the noble Viscount opposite has, I think, effectually answered an opinion which has been shadowed forth by the noble Marquess, and that is that the Government of India may never consider the proverbial three courses in a policy. I do not understand what my noble friend meant. A great statesman in this country was accused of always saying that there were three courses in everything; but there are in human affairs almost always at least three courses to be taken, and I am sure my noble Friend would not issue an order to the Government of India that they are always to say "Yes" or "No" to two extreme propositions, and never to consider the circumstances which may recommend a middle course. I hold, on the contrary, that in the peculiar circumstances of this case a middle course was clearly the best that could be taken. What were the two courses? The first was to recognise the Jubaraj as Regent, as the result of an atrocious conspiracy on the part of his own brother, in defiance of the recognition of the Government of India, and its refusal to sanction his right to the throne. My noble Friend will hardly say that that was an alternative the Government of India ought to have said "Yes" to. What was the other alternative? It was that the Maharajah, who had distinctly fled from the Gaddi, should be restored to the throne of Manipur. Well, have your Lordships read the evidence that this Blue Book contains as to the character of that Prince? Why, he seems to have been one of the poorest

1021
creatures that ever sat even upon an Indian throne. The account that is given by Mr. Grimwood of, his conduct on the night on which his place was invaded represents a man who had no nerve at all, who was utterly shattered by a few shots being fired in his palace, and who was utterly incapable of withstanding the more powerful character of his brother. Is that the other alternative that my noble friend would have had the Government to adopt? Surely not. Then what was the middle course? The middle course was recommended by Mr. Quinton, and I think also by Mr. Grimwood, that the Jubaraj, the existing Regent, should be acknowledged, but that the author of the revolution should be deported from the State, Now, my Lords, was there really any other proposition before the Government of India which could be taken with equal advantage? It is quite clear that if the Regent had been continued without the removal of the Senapatti, the Senappatti would have been considered, and would have been, the real governor of the State. My noble Friend has stated that the Senapatti's talent and ability had been much exaggerated. I do not know much about his character for ability, but I do know a good deal from these papers of his moral character and of his fitness to rule, and be the real and virtual ruler of any State. The Government of India do not hesitate to say that he was a man of infamous character; he was a man who was personally cruel; he was convicted of the most atrocious cruelty, carrying us back to the most savage times of the most savage governors of India. Would my noble Friend have admitted that the Government of India should have recognised a sovereign—a nominal sovereign—who was a mere catspaw to a man of this character? I contend that the Government of India had no other course to adopt but that which they did adopt—that what my noble Friend calls the middle course was the right course, and, under the circumstances, almost the only course which they could adopt. My noble Friend has used more than once, I think, the expression, "this unhappy massacre." He used no other expression about it. For a long time I could not quite understand what the object of my noble Friend was in using
1022
those words, because, after all, his blame of the Government of India was very mild; and all that it amounts to really is that, if he had been a member of the Council of India, he might possibly have given other advice. Well, that is not much to the purpose. We do not govern India from the House of Lords, or from this country, in these matters of detail. We leave them to the Government of India. But then came the part of his speech which it was evident excited my noble Friend most, and that was an answer to a speech by Sir John Gorst in the House of Commons. I am under the unhappy disadvantage of not having read Sir John Gorst's speech, and I can quite understand that anything said by a man in his position, however almost of the character of a joke, may have a bad effect in India, and so far my noble Friend may have been justified in the severe comments which he passed upon it. Certainly, if my noble Friend thinks that the Government of India, or the Government opposite, as representing the superior Government of the Empire, adopts the policy of removing from all Native States every able man they can find, out of mere spite or jealousy, he is well entitled to bring the subject before this House; but I do not think my noble Friend can really believe that any such policy is in the mind of anybody. But I must remind my noble Friend of this, that, if we are to consider the effect in India of speeches made in either House of Parliament, the defects of speech may be as serious as excesses of speech—such, certainly, as those that are attributed to Sir John Gorst. Now, I must say I do regret that my noble Friend has not said one word of severity against the conduct of the Government of Manipur. Of course, I do not mean to say that my noble Friend meant to speak lightly or to think lightly of the transactions that took place there, but remember, my Lords, this is a transaction almost unprecedented in the history of India. We are not dealing with mere savages in the native States of India. They are not so civilised as we are, of course; they stand on a lower plane of civilisation; but they are very far from being mere savages. Many of them are represented and governed by enlightened men. They know the usages of civilised life; and I do think that if a speech is

1023
to be made in this House on the whole of the Manipur business, some expression should be given of our horror at the atrocious treachery and the abominable cruelty of the massacre of our officers in Manipur. I am not at all sure that the total abstinence of any such censure in my noble Friend's speech, and in other speeches which have been made in Parliament, may not almost have a worse effect in fact than any of the absurd sentiments ascribed, rightly or wrongly, to Sir John Gorst. Now I come to the point which is of real importance in this matter. As far as I can understand, nobody really blames the Government of India as respects its policy in this case. What is thought is that there was some trickery or treachery in the mode in which the orders of the Government of India were executed by its officers. My noble Friend has entirely acquitted the Government of India, and especially Mr. Quinton, from any suspicion of treachery. When that is said, all is said that can be said upon the subject. The question becomes one of the mere mode in which the Senapatti was to be deported, and the sentences of the Government of India to be recorded against him. The noble Viscount opposite has said that he has consulted many authorities in England, as many as he could, upon the meaning of the word durbar. Of course, my noble Friend has access to authorities to which most of us have not access in the India Office. He is surrounded by very able and very competent men, no man more able or more competent than the Chairman of the Foreign Committee, my distinguished Friend, Sir Henry Rawlinson; he must have means of knowing what the word durbar means. But we have no need to go farther than this Blue Book to see the variety of the senses in which the word durbar is used. It is used at least in three senses in these very Papers. It is used in the sense of a place—a place where an assembly is held—again, it is used for a company of men—for the prince and his cabinet. My noble Friends opposite are the durbar in that sense. The noble Marquess and his colleagues would be called a durbar in India, and they are so called in this Blue Book. Then it means also a ceremonial assembly, and that is the meaning most familiar in this
1024
country. The people of England think of the accounts which they had had of splendid durbars given by my noble Friend the noble Marquess or the noble Earl behind me (Lord Northbrook) in which the princes of India have been received with splendid ceremonial by the Viceroy, and the idea of arresting a Native Prince when he comes to a ceremonial of that sort, probably at the invitation of the Indian Government, is abhorrent to the moral sentiments of the people of England—very naturally, and that is what they think has happened in this case. My Lords, it has nothing-to do with it. There is a note at the, foot of page 27 which will explain exactly how this matter stands us to the meaning of the word durbar. I think it is quite clear from this note that the Government of India did know that Mr. Quinton intended to summon the Regent with his ministers and his brothers to meet him at a certain place, and at that meeting announce the decision of the Government, and, if necessary, enforce it. But that was not what the English people understand as a durbar. These are the words of Mr. Quinton on the 18th of March:
"I propose to require the Regent and durbar"—
that is to say, I propose to require the Regent and his ministers—
"to meet me on arrival."
The word durbar is used as the people who are to come. It is not used of the place, or of the assembly, or of the nature of the occasion. Mr. Quinton says—
"I propose to require the Regent and durbar to meet me on arrival, announce the decision of Government, arrest Senapatti, and inform him that the length of his exile and return depends on his conduct and the tranquillity of the country."
To that the Government of India answer—
"Your telegram, 18th. Subject to reconsideration, if necessary, of the amount of the Maharajah's allowance, proposals are approved."
That shows clearly that the Government of India did approve of the proposal of Mr. Quinton to summon a durbar—that is to say, to summon an assembly or a Court, as the noble Viscount opposite called it, at which Court he was to announce the decision of the Government and to enforce it; but it was not a

1025
durbar in the ceremonial sense or in any of those other mixed senses of the word in which men are invited to come for ceremonial purposes, and at which an arrest on the part of the superior power would savour undoubtedly of treachery or of something of an unusual kind. My Lords, this being so, I see nothing that remains to be discussed except the unfortunate military miscalculation which the local authorities made, and into which inquiries are now being conducted as to the sufficiency of the force which might, under certain circumstances, be required. But I do not think it is very difficult to understand how that miscalculation arose. The Manipuris are essentially a feeble folk. They have a very small military power, and almost no military prowess. Look at the flight and rout to which they were put by a mere handful of our men under that gallant fellow, Lieutenant Grant. My Lords, an accident will happen even with the tamest animals. In India it is not un-frequent that many men are injured from the sudden going wild of a tame elephant. Here you had to deal with a violent and treacherous man, a man whom the Government of India knew to be violent and treacherous, but they had no idea of the extent of the atrocity of his character. That is the whole explanation of the case. I confess that I see no difficulty in understanding it, although some of the details, as my noble Friend says, are very difficult to understand. The disposal of the force, the method of attack, the small amount of ammunition carried by the men—all these are points of detail upon which we cannot form any judgment until we have heard the evidence which may be brought before the Government of India. Now, the noble Marquess behind me went on to speak of other matters as regards the future, upon which I desire to express no opinion. I should be very unwilling to balance my opinion against that of my noble Friend. He knows better than I do the working of the Council in India, and I think the objection which he has stated to certain proposals which were lately made, and which objections seem to be, I think, approved by the noble Viscount (Cross) opposite, are probably sound objections. At all events, I should say that this is a very
1026
trivial case indeed to found upon for any great or considerable or organic change in the Government of India. It is a mere accident—a deplorable accident—an accident owing mainly to the villainy of one man, and I do not see that it throws any doubt upon the ordinary transaction of business between the central Government and its feudatories. Before I pass from this question of the mode in which the orders of the Government were issued, I cannot help saying that I have heard—I do not know whether it is on good authority—that even at durbars of a more serious and ceremonial character it is not without precedent that the Government of India should make very grave intimations as to its intentions with regard to those who attend them. I have been informed by a friend of mine that on a celebrated occasion—a great occasion—in a no less important city than Cabul, at a great ceremonial meeting there, certain chiefs of Afghanistan were touched on the shoulder as they went out of the durbar, and were told that their loyalty to the Government of England was doubted, and that their detention had been determined upon by the military authorities. So that, after all, whatever may be the general rule of the Government of India—and I cannot doubt that the general rule is very much what has been stated by the noble Viscount opposite, with the assent, I think, of my noble Friend beside me (Lord Northbrook), who cheered what he said—there is a certain pliability in the practice of the Government of India depending on the circumstances of each particular case. Now the noble Marquess behind me went on to speak of the sentence on the Regent, and he expressed a hope virtually that the punishment of death would not be inflicted upon him. Well, my Lords, individually we are always naturally in favour of mercy, and I certainly should be so myself on this particular occasion. But I think much depends upon the evidence which has been brought forward, not as to the Regent having made war against the Government of India, because I entirely agree with my noble Friend that, under the circumstances of the case, infliction of capital punishment for that offence would be an extreme course, and, as I understand, the sentence has been passed upon that ground; but if the

1027
Regent has been found guilty of taking part in the abominable treachery of inveigling our officers within his palace, then having them decapitated by the public executioner one by one, that would entirely alter the case. My noble Friend went on to refer to the question of annexation. I should be very reluctant to give any opinion upon the point at all; but there is one thing that I should like to say, and that is that these general assurances against what is called the policy of annexation are assurances against a policy which as a deliberate policy has never been pursued by the Government of India. We have never set before ourselves annexation as a policy. Sometimes we have suffered severely through not having annexed. You remember the two Sikh wars. You remember the conquest that was achieved over the Sikhs in the first war. You will remember the determination of the Government of India at that time not to annex. You will remember the deplorable results which followed—the second Sikh war, during which for a moment there was a time when England held her breath lest the Empire of India should slip from out her hands. My Lords, these questions of annexation come upon us by the force of circumstances, by the necessities of the case, and not by a deliberate policy on the part of the Central Government, and assurances of this kind in truth of very little value. Before I sit down I cannot help saying this, that discussions on details about the Government of India and the administration of her affairs ought to be very rare indeed in the two Houses of Parliament. We ought to remember how that Empire has been acquired, and how it is still governed. It has not been acquired by the House of Commons, nor by the House of Lords, nor by the Crown in its Imperial capacity in this country. It has been acquired by great Englishmen, great Scotsmen, and great Irishmen sent out to India, and acting largely on their own discretion and their own responsibility. That is the way in which the British Empire in India has been acquired beyond all question and all doubt, and if that Empire had been under the daily government or the yearly government of the English Parliament it never would have been acquired, or it would
1028
have been lost long ago. Under those circumstances, I say, I am not at all sure that the electric telegraph has not made a serious and injurious inroad upon the discretion of the authorities in India. We attempt to interfere where we ought not to interfere. For after all, when we come to balance nice considerations, one course with another course, and a middle course, as my noble Friend did to-night, what means have we of judging here compared with those who are charged with the great responsibility of the government of India. My Lords, we have none. And if there is one-Department of the Government of India-more than another in which we should trust that Government to the utmost extent, and be most chary of interfering with it, it is its relations with the native States. They know the Imperial traditions under which we act. They know the duty of good faith. They know the general desire of the English people that mere passion for dominion should not lead to unprincipled annexation. They know all that, and yet, in spite of their knowing that, look what has happened. From the days of Clive and Warren Hastings to the days of Canning, of Dalhousie, and Hardinge, and last, not least, Lord Dufferin, immense provinces have been added to the Indian Empire. It seems to me that at present we have arrived pretty nearly at the geographical limits which Nature has imposed upon that vast dominion. But there is another thing that I think we ought to remember—not merely how that Empire has been acquired but how it has been governed; how smoothly that immense machine is working. Why, my Lords, from month to month, and from year to-year, except for an occasional war on the frontier, we hear little or nothing of the government of India. It is like a vast mechanism which moves automatically. And yet it is a government over various tribes and races animated with fierce fanatical passions and opposite religions, and we govern it more easily, more peacefully, more successfully than we do the neighbouring country of Ireland. Surely, my Lords, that is a ground for placing confidence in the Government of India. I cannot understand anyone being disposed to make carping objections even to details in regard to accidents, which may now and then happen in the working

1029
of that great machine. I rejoice, nevertheless, on the whole that my noble Friend has brought forward this Motion to-night. It has enabled the noble Viscount to defend with most complete success the Government of India, and I trust the people of this country will now clearly understand not only that the policy was right, but that it was carried out in a manner perfectly consistent with the traditional maxims of honour upon which the Government of India stands.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Duke in what he has said as to the statement of the noble Viscount opposite. Though I may not agree in every point of detail, yet I recognise with the greatest pleasure the fairness and the calmness with which he spoke; and also that he, on more than one point, responding to the appeal made to him by my noble Friend, repudiated doctrines which I think were unsound and accepted others which we all desire to see observed. My noble Friend who has just sat down has made what I may call a somewhat militant speech. He found fault with my noble Friend behind me for his observations upon a speech which my noble Friend had not read—I mean the speech of Sir John Gorst—and concerning which, therefore, I must say that I think his judgment is worth nothing. But he was not satisfied with that. To my great astonishment he discovered a gap in my noble Friend's speech, one which I hardly think any one would have sought for, and to which I think it was perhaps rather ungenerous to allude. He imagined that my noble Friend the noble Marquess actually did not feel the greatest abhorrence at the cruel massacre at Manipur.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Oh, no.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I really would appeal to my noble Friend whether he could for one moment have supposed that the noble Marquess had any less feeling of abhorrence of that abominable massacre than the noble Duke himself or any other member of this House.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Certainly not.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then why make that attack upon him. I regret it. I think it might have been very well omitted. I do not wish to allude
1030
further to Sir John Gorst's speech, except to say that I was extremely glad to hear what the noble Viscount said upon that subject. I do not want at all to attribute any extraordinary weight to that speech. The noble Duke seemed to think that it was of very little consequence, indeed, but I would point out to your Lordship that Sir John Gorst did not speak as a private member of Parliament; it is only because he spoke on behalf of the Department charged with Indian affairs that importance attaches naturally to what he said, and I think the noble Marquis was perfectly right in pointing out that in India probably more importance would be attached to the declaration than we should attach to it here, not on account of any want of ability on the part of Sir John Gorst, but because he is not a member of the Cabinet, and, therefore, did not speak with all the authority with which the noble Viscount speaks. I will not allude to that any further. With regard to what the noble Duke said at the conclusion of his speech, I entirely concur in his general principle, namely, that it is most undesirable, as a rule, that the details of Indian government should be discussed in Parliament. No one who has had any connection with Indian affairs will not feel that the continued success of our Government in India depends essentially upon our appointing able men whom we trust to govern that country, and trusting and supporting them here. At the same time, there are occasions when it is necessary, I think, that Parliament should take notice of what takes place in India, and although I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of this event as a political event—except as regards the murders, which were very horrible—still I think that when such events have taken place in India as these unfortunate and unhappy events at Manipur, it is proper that Parliament should take some notice of them—should take notice of them, as I think notice has been taken of them, in a judicial and temperate spirit. We may not entirely agree with the noble Viscount opposite in the the complete approval which he bestowed upon the Government of India. I do not think that serious blame can be attached to the Government of India in the matter, though we may differ in

1031
some matters as to whether it acted in the wisest manner. Above all—I think my noble Friend justly said it is extremely easy to be wise after the event—but I still think that some observations which were made by noble Friend behind me had a little more weight than, perhaps, the noble Duke who has just spoken attached to them. My Friend's criticism of the Government of India depended, I think, principally on two points, namely, that there had been an unnecessary and unfortunate delay in coming to a decision, and that there was in the decision itself something in the nature of a compromise which was unfortunate and had unpleasant effects. With regard to the delay, looking at the usual course of the Government of India, the delay certainly does not surprise me, but I think that we have a right to observe that the peculiar circumstances of the case ought to have led the Government of India to see that it was necessary to deal with unusual promptitude with this particular matter. The reason I say that is this: The noble Viscount found fault with my noble Friend for having supposed that the Jubaraj had been recognised as Regent. That he was actually recognised as Regent I think was shown by the noble Viscount not to be the fact, but he was recognised undoubtedly as the temporary Governor of Manipur, and dealt with by our officers as the temporary governor for no less than five or six months. Now, during the whole of the time you will observe that the Senapatti was as much virtually governor as he would have been supposing the Jubaraj had been permanently recognised. He was there upon the spot, and all the objections which existed to his wielding power existed at that time. I think that the Government of India ought to have seen that if the Senapatti was to be removed—they knew the character of the Senapatti from the first, and they knew also that the Senapatti was the author of the revolt from the first—then it was very unfortunate and likely to lead to much misconstruction, to leave the Jubaraj supported by his brother, whom they knew to be paramount, for about five months in peaceful relations with our Resident and with the Chief Commissioner. I observe that in one of the Chief Commissioner's letters which
1032
the noble Viscount did not refer to, the letter of 9th of February, he says, speaking of the Government of the Jubaraj, "The present Government has now been in existence for nearly six months, and is conducted with tranquility." Now, although the Jubaraj was not formally recognised as Maharajah, it is in vain to say that his Government was not recognised when it is spoken of in that way. It was recognised, subject to the decision as to whether it should be permanently recognised. Then my noble Friend pointed out that there were two courses which might have been taken, or indeed three—to restore the Maharajah, to adopt the state of things which existed in Manipur, or to take the course which the Government of India finally did determine upon. Notwithstanding the observations that have been made, I think the course taken by the Government of India is open to very obvious criticism. I daresay they were quite right in not restoring the Maharajah. They say he is a very weak man, but upon that I am not competent to express an opinion, as I know nothing except what I see in the papers. But the course pursued seems to me to have been, as my noble Friend pointed out, exactly that which involved all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of either of the other two courses. If they had taken the advice of Mr. Grimwood, and Mr. Quinton's first advice also—though he modified it afterwards when he had been to Calcutta—they would have acknowledged the Jubaraj, and left the Senapatti untouched. That would have been a course which, at all events, had something to recommend it. But to set up the Jubaraj, and get rid of the Senapatti, who himself had set up the Jubaraj, seems to me to have been taking the most singular course that could be conceived. Here is a man obviously, and it is admitted on all hands, the mere tool of the younger brother. The younger brother makes a revolt, and sets up this man on the throne. Then what is to happen? You are to confirm on the throne the man who has been set up by a revolt and in defiance of your authority, and you are to punish the man who set him up. I must say that that is a policy which

1033
seems to me to have very little to recommend it. The impression left upon my mind is that it arose from this:—Mr. Quinton and Mr. Grimwood had one opinion, the Government of India had another opinion; but the Government of India wished to send back the Maharajah; Mr. Grimwood and Mr. Quinton were equally strong the other way. As very often happens, unfortunately, when there are two opinions expressed, a middle course was determined; and I believe in this case that middle course was injudicious. The event has certainly proved it to be so. But more than that I do not think you can say, in criticising the judgment of the Government of India. It is undoubtedly a matter upon which judgments might differ, and as to any severe blame being attached to the Marquess of Lansdowne in the matter, I entirely repudiate that suggestion. No doubt we are entitled to express our opinion, and to criticise what was done, but to say that it was a very serious error of judgment I think would be to assume, on our part, a greater knowledge of all the difficulties, and a greater power of determining them here, than really belongs to us. I have only one or two other observations to make—because really the matter lies very much in a nutshell. One word with regard to the durbar. I do not profess myself to have any opinion worth stating upon the question of the durbar derived from any peculiar knowledge of my own, and I entirely agree with those who do not ascribe any notion of deliberate treachery to Mr. Quinton. That I believe to be perfectly out of the question. But I confess I think that to arrest the Senapatti at a durbar to which he was summoned without any notice of what was going to be done—I mean, without any notice that there was going to be a judgment passed upon him at this durbar—was not that plain, ordinary, straightforward course which is better in all these matters. The more straightforward we are in dealing with Asiatics I am quite certain the better it will be for our rule. The one great mistake we could fall into would be to adopt anything like Oriental methods, and the only criticism I have to make is that I think that this idea of arresting the man at a durbar, after having
1034
received him in a friendly manner when he came out to meet Mr. Quinton, and after he had been for five or six months no doubt virtually governing the State, savoured a little too much of Oriental finesse, and I am very glad to hear that the noble Viscount opposite does not think that this course, whether or not it has been practised before, should be continued in future. Now I have only one word more to say, and that is on a point to which, in common with the noble Marquess, I attach the greatest importance; I mean as to the policy which is to be pursued in regard to Manipur in the future. My noble Friend behind me (the Duke of Argyll) I confess stated some doctrines with which I am quite unable to agree. He said that our policy in India had not been a policy of annexation. I quite agree that we never professed a policy of annexation, but facts are stronger than theories, and we have annexed State after State in India until, as we all know, we have this immense Empire. Neither do I agree with the noble Duke in saying that assurances given upon this subject are of no value, and should be lightly spoken of. The assurance to which my noble Friend referred was the assurance of the Sovereign herself—the assurance after the Mutiny, given in the most solemn manner; and although I do not pretend to say that such an assurance as that would prevent the Government of India from an annexation which might be absolutely unavoidable and necessary, yet I do say that after that assurance no annexation should be sanctioned without the gravest and most paramount necessity. I myself had some experience on the subject at the time of the annexation of Burma. That is not a parallel case, because Burmah is not an Indian State, and it was annexed after a war and for reasons which could in no way arise as regards any native Indian State properly so called; but, nevertheless, I was exceedingly struck with the wide-spread jealousy in India on the part of the native princes in that Empire at the annexation of Burma, and at the strong opinion which was expressed to me by all those who had the greatest knowledge of Indian affairs, that there was no portion of our policy in which we ought to be more

1035
cautious, and nothing in which we ought to be more firm and consistent than in adhering in all circumstances, except those, as I have said, of paramount necessity, to the declarations made by the Queen, and which, I believe, have had the most important and admirable effects in pacifying and reconciling the native princes of that country and making them truly loyal subjects of Her Majesty. I therefore welcome what the noble Viscount said upon this subject. Of course he very properly, not having the opinion of the Government of India, would not pledge himself absolutely to the particular policy which is to be pursued, but I gathered from him—I think I am not going too far in saying—that he shares the opinion of myself and my noble Friend, and of many others who have more experience than I have upon this subject, which is against annexation unless, as I have said, it be from some paramount and overbearing necessity. My Lords, I will not detain you any further. I think it is on every account a matter which must give satisfaction to the House that the subject has been brought before us, and especially because, I am most happy to say, we have had the opportunity of hearing so clear and satisfactory a statement from the noble Viscount opposite.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for India, because he appeared to me to give a fair and accurate account of the whole of the circumstances connected with this unfortunate catastrophe at Manipur, and because I entirely agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived, namely, giving the approval of Her Majesty's Government to the course taken by the Viceroy in respect of these events. The speech of the noble Marquess, who brought forward this motion, was, like all his speeches, both temperate and fair, but I think my noble Friend must have been convinced by the noble Viscount opposite that he had not given that careful attention to the Papers in the case which he would have done supposing he had been either in India or at the India Office. I myself have felt it to be my duty to pay the most careful attention to all the Papers that have been laid
1036
before Parliament, and I am quite satisfied that the answer given by the Secretary of State to the criticism of my noble Friend in respect to the alleged delay on the part of the Viceroy in dealing with this matter was a complete, a substantial, and an accurate answer. I am quite surprised at my noble Friend, the Earl of Kimberley, trying to defend the noble Marquess in respect to that matter. Just let us put the other case. My noble Friend says that the affair ought to have been dealt with with unusual promptitude. Now if the Viceroy had dealt with this case with unusual promptitude, what would have happened? The Maharajah of Manipur, a good friend of the English Government, who, when Mr. Dament and 40 men were killed on the frontier and Kohima was assailed by the Nagas, led 2,000 of the troops of. Manipur with Colonel Johnstone to the defence of Kohima, and who has supported the Government on many subsequent occasions—this Maharajah petitions the Viceroy to have his case inquired into, and the unusual promptitude which my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley recommends would have involved neglecting the appeal to the Viceroy of an old friend and supporter of the Government simply because there was a gentleman called the Senapatti, who appears to have got on the brain of both my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley, and my noble Friend who brought forward this. Motion. I should like to know what native opinion would have been if this unusual promptitude had been shown. I should like to know what Native Princes would have thought if the claims of an old friend had been set aside because the Government of India was afraid of a man who is described by one who was seven years Resident there as a man of most infamous character, who had already committed some murders.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If the noble Lord will excuse me, I never said that the claim of the old Maharajah should be put aside. What I said was that it was not necessary to take five months to consider it.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I must ask my noble Friend to follow me a little further. Would my noble Friend have accepted the representations of the ex-Maharajah without any inquiry from

1037
Mr. Grimwood? Would he have taken the ex-Maharajah at his word without obtaining the opinion of Mr. Grimwood? Would he have said, "Oh! yes, you shall go back." Would he not have thought it necessary to ask Mr. Grimwood to report upon the matter? If my noble Friend concedes that, his whole case is gone. It would be necessary to consult Mr. Quinton, and to consult Mr. Grimwood, and to have Mr. Grim wood's reply; and I say that the unusual promptitude recommended by my noble Friend, and rather by implication by the noble Marquess, would have been neglect of the fair consideration to be given to the claims of an old friend, and would have been considered as an injustice by all the Native Princes in India. Therefore, I think that the attack made upon my noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, for the delay in the matter, must fail to convince anyone who has carefully gone into the circumstances of the case, and who knows the duty which devolves upon the Viceroy in India of considering fairly and dispassionately the claims which are brought before him, and especially the claims of Native Princes. That is my answer to the main criticism made by my noble Friend upon the reply given by the Secretary of State to the same criticisms made by the noble Marquess who brought forward the Motion. Now, my Lords, no doubt the case that was presented to the Government of India was a difficult one. Undoubtedly, in ordinary cases, the Government of India are quite right to accept this kind of revolution happening in Native States; and so long as the person who assumes power is loyal to the British Government, and likely to govern his State decently well, to accept the circumstances, and to deal with the person who succeeds. But this State of Manipur is a very exceptional State. I must confess that I myself, on first reading the Papers, thought that, upon the whole, it would have been better to have let the matter go and dealt with the Government de facto after the Revolution. I must admit that I never, until these difficulties arose, gave the same attention to this small State of Manipur that I have done since. In fact, I never heard when I was in India of the State of Manipur, except in con-
1038
nection with a team of polo players who came down and beat the Calcutta Polo Club in Calcutta. But I took every pains I could to read the history of this State, which is contained in an elaborate memorandum written by Sir Alexander Mackenzie, who is now the Chief Commissioner of British Burma, and who was at one time Secretary to the Government of Bengal. I saw that it differed entirely from an ordinary case. We had set up this small State of Manipur entirely ourselves. We were obliged, because of the quarrels among the different members of the Rajah's family, to give our sanction and authority to the reigning Rajah, and to interfere to prevent any conspiracy against him. I found that this very Rajah, against whom the conspiracy-took place, had been twice supported and kept on the throne by. British arms, and I saw at once that the revolt against him, organised as it was by this Senapatti, must have been made with the full knowledge by the Sanapatti that he was acting against the authority of the Government of India. In those circumstances I saw that the case was very different to an ordinary case, and, in my opinion, the Government of India were justified in interfering. And, having to interfere, I believe that in the circumstances of the case, and even with what we know upon the Papers, the Government of India took the right course. I should like to ask my noble Friends who have criticised the Government of India upon this matter, just to think for a moment in what position the State of Manipur would have been if their advice had been followed. They proposed that this Senapatti was to be made practically the ruler of Manipur. Does it not occur to my noble Friends that the very catastrophe which has happened shows how dangerous it would have been to leave that man as the ruler of Manipur? Just conceive a man the de facto ruler of a petty State like that, who had so absurd a notion of his position as to think that he could set himself up against the Government of India. That is what this man has done. I think the very facts have shown that the Government of India were right in not conceding to the Senapatti the control of Manipur. That is the con-

1039
clusion I have arrived at after very careful consideration of the papers, and I hope the considerations I have suggested may induce my noble Friends to reconsider their position, to read the papers very carefully along with Sir Alexander Mackenzie's memorandum, and I hope that having done that they will be satisfied that the Government of India has acted in the circumstances of the case in the manner most for the interests of the people of Manipur and of the Government. Because your Lordship must recollect that in recognising this Rajah of Manipur, and defending him against all comers as we have done, the Government of India, assumed a considerable responsibility. They assumed the responsibility of taking care that no great oppression was committed in the State of Manipur. My noble Friends would have put a man as principal ruler of the State, who, on two occasions, was guilty of such oppression that on one he was banished by his own Sovereign, and on the other the Government of India required him to go away from the State for a year to expiate his offence. I think that this part of the question has been threshed out sufficiently, and that that is the conclusion that any impartial person would come to, is, that on the whole the Government did what was right under very difficult circumstances. Your Lordships must remember that in discussing the conduct of the Government of India everything does not appear in the papers that are laid before Parliament. It is impossible to lay before Parliament, or even to send home, the mass of documents which come to the Indian Foreign Office, and which are no doubt consulted by the Viceroy before he forms an opinion, and, moreover, the Viceroy had an opportunity of conferring personally with Mr. Quinton before he decided this matter. I do not think, my Lords, there has been any other point made at all adverse to the conduct of the Viceroy in this case. I wish, however, to allude to two other matters. One is the question which has been raised as to the nature of a durbar, and whether the idea of arresting the Senapatti at a durbar is one which is altogether to be commended or the reverse. There is no doubt, as the noble Duke observed, that
1040
in the telegram from Mr. Quinton to the Viceroy, the word "durbar" was used for "persons," and not for "ceremony" or "place." Mr. Quinton said that he proposed to summon the Regent and the durbar to meet him; that meant the Regent and all his entourage—his brothers and everybody connected with the State. Then when those people met him it was at a "durbar," and in the further telegram towards the end of the book, your Lordships will see that it was proposed to arrest the Senapatti "at a durbar," because the Government say in a late telegram that they were not aware of that intention till the 7th of May. Therefore, it is clear that it was intended to arrest the Senapatti at a durbar. I agree with what has fallen from the Secretary of State for India upon this matter. It seems to me, even if there should be found any precedent for taking that course, it is not a desirable course to take. It might possibly occasion disturbances, collision, and bloodshed at these solemn assemblies, which should be carried on with all the state which ceremonies in the East require. I think it would be very undesirable that this should be considered a precedent for any such course to be taken in the future. I entirely agree with all the noble Lords who have spoken, that Mr. Quinton was perfectly incapable of any idea of treachery; all those concerned were perfectly incapable of such a thing; but, nevertheless, the durbar was not, in my opinion, the proper place to make the arrest. If I were to describe the manner in which I think the decision of the Government of India should have been communicated, I agree with what fell from the noble Duke, that it would have been quite right that an intimation should have been given in the most solemn manner possible of the decision at which the Governor General in Council had arrived; and having given that intimation, I should say that the right course would have been to have placed it upon the ruler of that State to carry out the decision of the Government of India. If the Regent had been told at the durbar that he would not be recognised unless he himself removed the Senapatti for a limited time under such conditions as might have been considered right, in all probability

1041
the difficulty would not have arisen. The only other point, at this late hour of the evening, upon which I would venture to make a very few remarks is the question whether it would be desirable or not that tins little State should be annexed to the territories of Her Majesty in India. I agree with all that has fallen from those who have addressed your lordships in deprecation of the annexation of native States. In regard to this particular case, I would say that the offence, grave as it has been—and none can be greater than the treacherous murder of English officers—has been committed, not by the ruler of the State, but by those who revolted against the ruler of the State. The ruler of the State now is the ex-Maharajah who is at Calcutta, because the Jubaraj, as they call him, had not been recognized by the Government of India as the ruler of the State. I would say also, to come to the question of expediency, that it would be very undesirable to take over the government of a small hill State like Manipur. The State is in a very limited state of civilisation, totally unfit for our laws and regulations. It has been very fairly managed under the influence of British Residents, and it is a State the annexation of which might bring us into collision with some of the neighbouring tribes, and, as any of your Lordships who have paid attention to the matter know, these tribes on the north-east frontier of India have given very considerable trouble at different times. That was my own impression, and it has been confirmed by the opinion expressed by Sir James Johnstone, who was for seven years Resident in Manipur. Sir James Johnstone's opinion upon a matter of this sort is one of great value. He is one of those excellent Indian officers who have devoted themselves towards the civilisation of the hill tribes in India. He was employed for many years among some of the hill tribes in a different part of Bengal, and he was for seven years, I think, Resident at Manipur. His opinion is, that if we were to annex this little State we should be brought into collision with other tribes: we should probably be involved in several small expeditions, and we should be also losing a source of strength which we now possess in this native State. He says—and I think
1042
quite rightly—that if this State had been annexed we might very likely have lost the frontier station of Kohima, because there would not have been any force of 2,000 men ready to defend Kohima from the Nagas in 1879, and similar incidents might well' take place. I do not know that I can add anything to what has fallen from other noble Lords with regard to the feelings of the rulers of different native States in respect to annexation. One-third part of the whole of British India consists of these native States. Their armies now number something like 300,000 men, and there is no doubt that they watch most carefully any case in which they think the assurances given in 1858 may not be carried out by the Government of India. Fortunately, I do not think since 1858 there is any case in which they have a right to say that those assurances have not been strictly followed by the British Government. I was very glad to hear from the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, with all the due reservation with which he naturally spoke previously to having received the opinion of the Government of India upon the subject, that his own individual opinion was very much in accordance with the views which I have ventured to put before your Lordships upon this matter. I was glad to hear what fell from the noble Duke (Argyll) in regard to the manner in which the officers who are serving their Queen and country in India should be treated both in Parliament and by the Government, and I will add that when I had the honour of serving under the noble Duke his dealings with me were entirely in accordance with the opinions which he has expressed in your Lordships' House.
*LORD REAY: At this late hour of the evening I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long, but as I have only recently returned from India I am anxious to corroborate what has been said with regard to the principles which at present inspire the action of the Government of India in their relations with the Native States. A great deal of misconception seems to exist on that point, and, if possible, I should like to remove it. The motive of our interference in Native States is the benefit of the people by securing to

1043
them law and order, peace and justice. Such interference does not weaken, but strengthens the hold the Chiefs have over their subjects, who are cordially attached to them. One of the best instances that can be given of this process is that which the noble Earl Lord Northbrook gave when he interfered in Baroda. What did we do in Baroda? We did not look for an incapable man, but we looked for a promising young man, to whom we gave the best tutor we could find, and we made of him one of the best rulers who is now at the head of a Native State. The result, therefore, of our interference was to strengthen the Government of Baroda, to establish better relations between it and the people, and to accelerate the assimilation of Baroda administration with that of a British district. Now, this is only one instance, and many others could be given. We are constantly lending Native British officials to Native Chiefs with the deliberate object of improving their States. We do not interfere, as a rule, against the wishes, and certainly not against the interests, of either the Chiefs or their subjects. Perhaps, my Lords, the best illustration that I could give is what happened to me personally when the brother of a Native Chief came to me and asked me to take up his grievance against his brother. He said—"You have taken away from us the summary means which we had when our States were governed in a less civilised manner; therefore, it becomes your duty to interfere so that we may obtain justice in accordance with your notions of procedure." Therefore, the interference in the affairs of a Native State is for purposes of good Government—for the general security of our own Empire, and for the benefit of the people in those States. Now, the only question, my Lords, which seems to me to be of importance is whether the interference of the Government of India in the affairs of Manipur, for which the Government of Assam was primarily responsible, was conducted in accordance with those principles which have hitherto prevailed. I think the question cannot be answered otherwise than in the affirmative. You could not restore the ex-Maharaja to whom the ex-Maharaja had resigned the "gaddi" without, as we have seen,
1044
causing bloodshed in the State of Manipur. You could not, it seems to me, allow the Jubraj and the Senapatti to wield a kind of dual power, and when you, therefore, accepted the Jubraj as the lawful heir it was natural to remove the cause of former disturbances. It is impossible to agree with what the Political Agent seems to have thought that the Senapatti "would assist in making the Jubraj's rule strong and popular." It seems to me undoubted that after a certain time the Senapatti would have dealt with the second brother as he dealt with the elder brother. It is unfortunate that the Senapatti was not removed at an earlier date. The slowness of the Indian Administration might undoubtedly in times of real trial become a source of danger, and decentralisation must be carried further. In this case the letters were answered by the Foreign Office at Calcutta with promptitude; in fact, the Archives of Bombay would not produce many instances in which letters on a subject not declared by the Local Government emergent had been answered so quickly as were those of the Chief Commissioner of Assam by the Government of India. Why the Chief Commissioner did not see the desirability of arriving at an early and definite solution of the difficulty does not appear from the Papers, and, in the absence of such an explanation, criticism must be silent on this as on several other inexplicable points. In India no Provisional Government ought to last longer than is absolutely necessary. In the Mutiny there was a Senapatti of the Mahrattas. The news reached Poonah that this Senapatti was collecting men and was dangerous. A squadron of Cavalry was sent at night from Poona to Sattara, and the Senapatti was there and then arrested and, tried, and in that way Sir Robert Phayre averted the danger. That is the result of enforcing local responsibility in troublous times. The slowness of the mechanism of the administration of the Government of India in normal times there is a great deal of excuse, and I am sure that no one will regret more that prompter action was not taken by the Local Authorities than the Viceroy. In fact, that is evident from paragraph 6 of the letter of January 24 to Mr. Quinton. The Viceroy's policy

1045
with regard to the Senapatti's removal was, I think, in accordance with precedent, and such as will commend itself to the ablest men in Native durbars, the Native statesmen who exercise such great influence in feudal India, and whose diplomatic skill would surprise many a European diplomatist. I was very glad, my Lords, to hear what was stated by the noble Viscount that the Secretariat at the Foreign Office had been strengthened, as I was going to make a suggestion to that effect. I am not in favour of the idea of depriving the Viceroy of complete control of political affairs, which I think it extremely desirable that he should exercise. One other point I wish to allude to, namely, the organisation of the political service. I would urge that the organisation of the political service should be passed under review, and that if it is found that at present causes operate which do not induce the ablest men—either from the Civil or the Military Service—to enter upon a political career, those causes should be removed. I think it will also be found that very often after men have entered the Political Department they get disheartened by slow promotion, at any rate as compared with promotion in other Departments of the Public Service, and naturally do not continue to serve as Politicals, but rejoin the Revenue or Judicial Department. I hope that this state of things will speedily be altered. Then, my Lords, I wish to say a few words upon the durbar question. I believe that a friendly durbar in the circumstances under which this durbar was held was a perfect impossibility; a friendly durbar could not be held by a Commissioner accompanied by such a numerous escort; the Manipuris must have realised what the object was of the Chief Commissioner's visit; therefore, the whole notion of treachery seems to me to be absolutely out of the question. The durbar would have been held as a Court, and all I can say is that so far from there being treachery my impression from these Papers is the reverse; my impression is that the procedure was adopted as an alternative to one less objectionable, which Mr. Gurdon suggested to the Political Agent, namely, arrest by the Regent. If a police officer
1046
were to invite a man whom he was going to arrest to meet him in a Police Court, such action would not be treacherous, but it would probably deserve another name. At all events, anyone who has known Mr. Quinton is well aware that he was quite incapable of doing anything which would be a dishonour to the English name. At the same time, I agree with the remarks which have been made that arrests should not be made in durbar. In Bombay I am sure it would never have occurred to us. With regard to the question whether Manipur should be annexed or not, I think that such a step should only be taken in the last resort. At present, when we find it necessary to depose Chiefs—and, unfortunately, I found it necessary to depose two Chiefs—our strength lies in the fact that the people and the members of the Chief's family know that we only establish an interregnum, and that either the Chief himself is restored to his legitimate rights, if he improves, or his lawful heir. Such an interregnum is of the greatest benefit to the Ruler as well as to the people, because all branches of the Administration are improved. Therefore, I hope that if annexation can be avoided it will be avoided. Before I sit down I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I was very glad to hear the tribute which was paid by the Government to the merits of the noble Marquess who presides over the destinies of our great Indian Empire. I am the only one of your Lordships who has bad the honour of being associated with him in the task which he performs so well, and I was able to witness the great ability, the great conscientiousness, with which he fulfils the arduous duties which have devolved upon him, and which have earned for him the respect of his countrymen and of the natives of India. With reference to the horror of the massacre, not to incur the censure of the noble Duke, I shall only say that I fully share in what must be the prevailing feeling in your Lordships' House with regard to that terrible catastrophe.
*THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, this question has been so thoroughly threshed out, it has teen spoken to by so many noble Lords who have had practical experience of Indian administration, and I will add, that notwithstanding differences upon specific points, there has

1047
been so general an agreement among us on the main principles involved, that I almost hesitate to trouble you at all, and I shall only do so to the extent of a few words. In this business of Manipur there are three distinct and separate questions. There is the question of the policy pursued by the Government of India towards the State of Manipur. There is the question of the execution of that policy and the disaster to which it led. And, lastly, there is the far more important question, what are we to do with that State in the future? One of those questions may be very easily disposed of. The misfortune which led to the loss of valuable lives is one as to which it can serve no useful purpose here to endeavour to apportion whatever blame there may be. To say nothing of the natural feeling towards those who cannot defend themselves, we cannot do it in justice, because those who are mainly concerned have their mouths closed; if they made mistakes, they have far more than expiated them; and if there was on their part no error, they are doubly unfortunate in being unable to repudiate unjust attacks. There are only, I think, one or two remarks which need be made upon that part of the case. In the first place, popular information and report has enormously exaggerated the extent of the disaster. We heard at first of the sacrifice of 400 lives. Now it turns out, as I understand (I hope I am right), that the total loss does not exceed some 25 dead or missing. Well, everything goes by comparison, and however we may regret such a misadventure, it is not one on a great scale relatively to the armies of India, and to the work which those armies have to do. Scarcely a year passes in which much larger losses are not incurred in frontier expeditions, which excite very little interest here, and sometimes in actions of which nobody ever hears. In the next place, the military honour of the troops is safe. Acts of signal courage were performed, and the alleged causes of failure do not in any way touch the courage or the discipline of the soldiers engaged. And, lastly, let me suggest that we ought to be very slow to blame Indian officials, whether in the Civil or Military Service, for acts which may seem to us rash and imprudent. If our officers in either
1048
Service had been always prudent, if they had not often run risks which might have been avoided without dishonour, we might have escaped a few mishaps, but our position in India would not be what it is. I have no doubt that such inquiry as is now possible is being made by the competent authorities, and in their hands, I think, we had better leave it, probably altogether, at any rate for the present. The question of policy is far more difficult, and naturally leads to more difference of opinion. What I gather from all that has been written upon the subject, and from the speeches that I have heard here, points to the conclusion that in general there has been no desire to interfere unduly in the internal affairs of Manipur. That is the view of other noble Lords whose authority goes far to decide the question, and the best proof that they are right is that we were at one moment—I speak on the authority of the then Governor General—about to withdraw our Resident altogether from the State of Manipur when the late Rajah desired that he should be allowed to remain. That does not look like a policy of undue interference on our part. My Lords, I will not waste time in proving what is not disputed, but looking at the position which we have assumed in India, I do not think that our right to interfere when this revolution broke out can be denied. We had recognised the deposed Rajah; we were not bound in any way to acquiesce in his disposition. No native would have thought that, in using our discretion to give or withhold the sanction of the paramount Power, we were going beyond our proper and legitimate sphere of action. And there is in such a case as this no question of ignoring or resisting the wish of the people, because the revolution was one of an entirely Oriental kind; it was a revolution of the Palace, made simply by force. The Governor General might accept the results of that revolution or he might repudiate them; but he could not reasonably say, and no one could say for him or of him, that it was a matter with which he had nothing to do. He is responsible for the peace of India, and peace may always be endangered by a change of rulers in a Native State. But the question of right is one thing, the question of policy is another; and if I

1049
ventured to express, or even to form, an opinion of my own upon a matter so doubtful, and about which we really know so little, I should have doubted whether it would not have been wiser to discard at once the ruler who, though we might have no cause of quarrel with him, had run away from his country in a fright with very little cause, and who was evidently unfit for his position, and in that case to have accepted unconditionally the ruler who had replaced him and his advisers, and to influence and control the country through them. No doubt the new ruler would not have been a nominee of ours, he would not have owed his throne to us; but I do not know that that makes very much difference in the long run. There is a very memorable instance in Indian history. We all remember what happened in Afghanistan fifty years ago. We tried to put Shah Soojah on the throne, and we failed. He was replaced by the very man whom we had unsuccessfully tried to dethrone, and whom we were compelled to recognise again—Dost Mahomed. Dost Mahomed was an able man, and saw that it was not his interest to bear malice, and he reigned for many years in perfectly good understanding with us. I do not say that the cases are precisely parallel, because, of course, Manipur is a dependent State, but I do not see why, on a smaller scale, the same results should not have followed in the present case. And I will own frankly, though with no wish to criticise, that I do not quite understand the policy recommended by my noble Friend the Secretary of State. As I understand the speech of my noble Friend, he puts it in this way—that it was quite right and judicious to recognise a new ruler, but that he had been placed on the throne by an unlawful revolt, and that, therefore, though he was to remain, the people who had put him there ought to be punished. That is a new doctrine in politics. I do not understand accepting the results of a resolution, and then proceeding to imprison or banish the people by whom it has been made.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I would like to say that it was specially stated that the Jubraj took no part whatever in the revolution; he had disappeared from Manipur for eight miles—it was only
1050
after his brother had gone away that he came back.
*THE EARL OF DERBY: The revolution was made in his interest, if not made by him. However, I do not want to argue that point because what I was going to say, and I say it quite unaffectedly, is that I shall entirely distrust my own judgment in a matter of this kind. It is a question which depends so much upon details, upon the character of the men, upon the feeling of the people, and upon the circumstances of the country that I do not believe anyone here, and I hardly believe even my noble Friend the Secretary of State is capable of pronouncing dogmatically. It is essentially a question for the Government of India. We give our Viceroy immense powers; we surround him with able assistants, and it is not wise, I think, to take such decisions out of his hands. He is better able to judge in such matters than we are; and, what is perhaps still more important, he is not exposed to those disturbing and distracting influences which prevail at home. As a matter of fact, questions of this kind are, I imagine, commonly left to him, and it must be remembered that but for the military mishap which has caused all this discussion, nothing would have been heard of the affair here, and it would have passed absolutely un-noticed. There is one point with regard to which I listened—to the explanation of the Secretary of State—with much satisfaction. I confess that in reading the Papers I did not understand the long delay of the Government of India in coming to a decision. I think even now that that delay was unfortunate, because silence and forbearance give a sore of consent, and we might have been supposed to acquiesce in what we did not immediately resent. But I am bound to say that I think the Secretary of State has given sufficient reasons. In formation had to be waited for; there was no distinct agreement among the authorities concerned, and no doubt other important business intervened. I still think the delay that occurred was a misfortune, but I do not think after what we have heard that it can be treated as a clause of censure. My Lords, I do not think that it is worth while, after all that has been said, to go into that story of the

1051
durbar and the charge which has been made outside this House, but which has not been made here, of treachery and foul play against the Viceroy or his subordinates. The Governor General, I apprehend, is entirely out of the question. He could not have taken it upon himself to have arranged a detail of this kind; and as to the others, a durbar, as I take it, is merely a public audience of a formal kind. It may be held for all sorts of purposes; it has no sacred character about it. The real question is: Was anybody invited there—called upon to attend there—under an implied promise of safety, and was that promise violated? For my own part, I do not believe that to be likely, or even to be possible. On that point, which is really the important part of the question, the officers concerned have been completely exculpated, not only by the Government, but by others who speak independently. If it is only a question of etiquette, especially if it is determined that to avoid misunderstanding no such proceeding shall take place in the future, I do not think that matter is worth discussing. But, my Lords, the question still remains, and it is really that upon which I rose to speak—what is to be done with Manipur? Upon that I wish to join my bumble and earnest representations to those of my noble Friends, and to say, whatever you do, do not annex. I do not think we could possibly ask from the Secretary of State a more formal and binding pledge than that which he has given. He could not speak in a definitive manner without reference to the Government of India; but though I rather agree with the noble Duke who has left the House that Parliament had better not interfere habitually in Indian affairs, I think there are exceptions to that rule, and that this is one of them. As we all know, there exists in India, always has existed, and probably always will, both among soldiers and among civilians, and for a reason which we can very easily understand, strong feeling in favour of annexation: and what I wish is, not that we should interfere with the discretion of Lord Lansdowne, but that we should give him such support as is in our power to help him to resist that feeling. It is not merely that annexation of a very poor State surrounded by wild tribes would
1052
be a source of increased military expense, though it certainly would be, and that is rather serious, because, as we all know, finance is the one weak point of our Indian administration; but we have to look, as several noble Lords have said before me, to the effect produced over the whole of India. Everybody who remembers the year 1857, and the events which followed, knows how widespread was the feeling of insecurity and distrust prevailing at that time among the Native Princes. They had seen many of their Kingdoms swept away, and no one knew whether his turn might not come next. When the company's power ceased, in 1858, opportunity was taken to give solemn assurances that the policy of annexation (for so I must call it) was at an end. Those assurances produced a complete change of feeling. For the last 33 years the Native Princes have been our best friends, and they would stand by us in case of need, because their interests are ours. We protect them, we respect their position, and a good many of them know that if the day of our expulsion from India were ever to arrive their Thrones would be, to say the least, very insecure. But though they trust us, and though they act cordially with us, it is not possible that they should entirely forget the past, and I believe that one Native State annexed within the limits of India, whatever might be the cause, whatever might be the justification, would create a feeling of alarm from Kashmir to Cape Comorin. I do not know that any benefit could be conferred upon us or upon Manipur itself by annexing that State, but certainly no such benefit could be worth the risk of mischief done elsewhere; and I am quite sure, from what he has said, that the Secretary of State for India and the Government, who know the recent history of India as well as I do, if they think it necessary to practise a certain amount of reticence, agree with me in what I have said. That is really the one important and the one practical part of this whole discussion. The rest relates to the past—to matters which are disposed of and cannot be altered. But we must have no more of the Dalhousie policy. We must have no more annexation. The Native Princes trust us now. This is an occasion to show that we deserve their confidence, and I hope and

1053
believe that we shall avail ourselves of it.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I do not propose to detain your Lordships more than a moment or two. I am very well content to rest upon what has fallen from my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley and from the noble Earl who has just sat down, and who has expressed his views with so much force and authority. But one matter fell from the noble Viscount upon which I want to say a single word. He spoke of me as having complained of the secrecy of some of Mr. Quinton's proceedings. I beg the noble Viscount to understand that when I spoke of the secrecy of those proceedings I did not use the expression in the smallest degree in a disparaging sense to Mr. Quinton. I regretted that the intentions of the Government were not earlier and more openly declared, but I never had it in my mind for a moment to think that Mr. Quinton pursued a secret course in any dishonourable or unworthy manner. I am anxious to make that statement, because Mr. Quinton has been, as I think, so unjustly attacked that I should be exceedingly sorry if I could be supposed to have said anything disparaging to him in any way.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I am sure the noble Marquess will not think that I have said one word in disparagement of Mr. Quinton.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Quite so.
On Question, agreed to.

MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 124.)
House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 197.)
JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 138.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 183.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
RUSSIAN DUTCH LOAN BILL. (No. 177.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 154.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.